What factor in 2004 makes folks feel most unable to cope with larger families?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
sparkle:
I think it is completely possible to live on one income, if folks (in general) had their priorities straight. That’s what it boils down to in my opinion.

My mom and I just had a discussion re this very issue recently, and she said it was just plain and simply un-heard of in her day for women to work, period. They stayed home and raised the kids. Period. Now, Americans have gotten themselves used to certain standards, that is why so many women say they “have” to work nowadays. Sure, they “have” to work, to support the lifestyle they’ve gotten trapped into. Also, men have become weak, and unable to provide like our fathers did. They have gotten too dependent on us women, don’t you gals think so? I do.
In the 70’s, women suddenly had the option of sterilizing themselves with birth control pills and entering the workforce. Many women took this option, and they entered the workforce in record numbers. This massive influx of labor into the marketplace ultimately led to a devaluation of the worth of their husband’s labor. The average male’s income has much less purchasing power than it did before families started opting for sterilization and two incomes.

My father, a hard working man with a high school education, supported six children in the sixties on a single income - and he was able to carry the mortgage on a modest house while he did this. We never owned a new car growing up, but we always had a used car, and we always went on vacation (even if it was only camping in the mountains). I went to a private Catholic grade school, as did the other children in my family that were of grade school age. Most of the men in the working class neighborhood where I grew also had high school educations, and they supported their families on one income while they bought their own homes. Divorce was almost unheard of in that era, and it was normal for wives to stay at home to raise their children. Banks typically would not lend money on a home if the homeowner’s combined mortgage payment/property tax amounted to more than one week’s pay. I believe that this bank policy was typical throughout most of the US in the sixties. (Typical that is, for white males - institutional racism was also the norm throughout the US in the fifties and early sixties, and “redlining” was the status quo).

In the sixties, the dad of a neighborhood friend supported his family on the income he earned as a postal carrier. It would be impossible for a young postal carrier today to live in the neighborhood where I grew up, and on a postal carrier’s income, support a wife, three children, carry a mortgage payment, a car payment, and put two of his children into the same Catholic school that my friend and I attended as children. I would be surprised if a postal carrier’s salary would even cover the mortgage and the car payment in a such a neighborhood.

The biggest problem that families are struggling with is the devaluation of the worth of labor caused by adult women in the workplace. Three things that are major expenses for most families are the cost of a mortgage, the cost of health care, and the cost of education. The man with an average income today would have to pay as a percentage of his income far more for those three items than the average white male living in the fifties and sixties. The ONLY reason that average families can even afford these three items is because they have a second income available to offset normal household expenses.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
This is something I have never understood.

There are ways to get money for college, student loans for one thing, working your way though.

Why does society see it as the job of the parent to pay for the schooling of their adult children?

I have found that those who work for it or are responsible for it (student loans) end up taking it more seriously.
Isn’t the cry and hue about the costs of anything (e.g., food, larger car, tuition, etc.) really a materialistic argument against more children? That is, more children = less consumption of ______ [fill in the blank], which is what I want?

Whenever I heard these cost-type considerations raised I was think of Jesus’ reminder that if the Father takes care of the birds of the sky, just think how much more He will care for us.

Ultimately, like most of our human fears and doubts, I believe that it is a question of Faith.
 
40.png
SocaliCatholic:
May God Bless you richly for sharing your wisdom.

I pray my parents may come to understand what you have shared. I wish they would just tell my brother and I that they loved us without having to ask. If only I could go back in time and convince my parents to not reject God and choose my brother and I over their high-paying carrers and personal happiness, we would both gladly trade in all our education, health care, car, for parents that told us “I love you”
Pray for them and yourself, as I shall.

I know it sounds silly, but when faced with these types of issues, I always think of a lyric from an Eagles song:

“You can spend all your time making money
You can spend all your love making time.”
 
Do you have to have a large family in order to be a good Christian? I’m interested in the answer. I mean, we don’t have a set quota and we are allowed to practice NFP. Should we have as many kids as possible to make our lives a daily struggle? I’m asking this seriously, by the way.

How many here come from large families? I will make large equal 6 or more kids. If so, was your mom a stay-at-home mom? Did she have any assistance from other family members?
 
40.png
NewChristian27:
Do you have to have a large family in order to be a good Christian? I’m interested in the answer. I mean, we don’t have a set quota and we are allowed to practice NFP. Should we have as many kids as possible to make our lives a daily struggle? I’m asking this seriously, by the way. How many here come from large families? I will make large equal 6 or more kids. If so, was your mom a stay-at-home mom? Did she have any assistance from other family members?
I am a christian that has a large family (almost, I have 5 children age 6 and under) and this is my theory. I think that it was a comandment to “go forth and multiply”. There was no set number. God did NOT say “go forth and multiply by five.” My point is that if you are living a worthy and prayerful life you will know how many children you should have. Not every one could handle five young children…of course not every one could handle one of my neice.
Some people are not meant to have any children, but they spend their lives serving God. Take Mother Terrisa for example. ( I hope I spelled her name right)
If you are not able to have children and have an overwhelming desire to have them, then perhaps you should consider adoption. Perhaps God planted the desire for children in your heart and wants you to adopt a child that might otherwise not have a family.
 
40.png
sparkle:
I totally disagree (sorry). The American family is the richest in the world. We have more than any other culture materially. But the main reason people have trouble with “lots of kids” is all due to selfishness, nothing more. It “puts them out” too much. We, as parents are all guilty of this. Sure we struggle, but selfishness is the reason people resort to birth control in the first place, in my view.

“Struggling” for most Americans means yes, struggling to get the basics like you say, but struggling admist their homes where each child has their own room, parents have 2 cars (financed - I might add), satellite T.V., they have consumer debt up to yin yang, etc. etc. Ever listen to Christian radio shows? Notice between every program and at every commercial the only ads that come on are for “consolidating debts, refinancing”, "need extra money??? Go to Mexico and observe families with 8-10 children. They struggle far less than we do, and have much less too.
 
40.png
sparkle:
I totally disagree (sorry). The American family is the richest in the world. We have more than any other culture materially. But the main reason people have trouble with “lots of kids” is all due to selfishness, nothing more. It “puts them out” too much. We, as parents are all guilty of this. Sure we struggle, but selfishness is the reason people resort to birth control in the first place, in my view.

“Struggling” for most Americans means yes, struggling to get the basics like you say, but struggling admist their homes where each child has their own room, parents have 2 cars (financed - I might add), satellite T.V., they have consumer debt up to yin yang, etc. etc. Ever listen to Christian radio shows? Notice between every program and at every commercial the only ads that come on are for “consolidating debts, refinancing”, "need extra money??? Go to Mexico and observe families with 8-10 children. They struggle far less than we do, and have much less too.
YIKES!! Note which way the aliens are streaming across the border for a safe, healthy future for their children before we hold up Mexico as the promised land.

While I find it interesting to learn the factors that other Catholic parents consider in bringing (or not bringing) more children into the world, I’m struck by the hostility in your tone, Sparkle. Since when are any of us in a position to question, judge or assume that the reason anyone has a small family is because of selfishness or evil intent. I believe a loving Catholic community assumes the best intentions and efforts of its members absent proof to the contrary. As a mother of three children here with me and one angel in heaven I feel blessed with the lives God has entrusted to my care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top