Amazon.com Widgets

Does it make a positive difference, for families, to remain a small family unit?

  • Yes, because I believe that families should stick together, and a small family unit promotes a positive upbringing.

    I think that a tight knit family structure is the key to a positive upbringing. As a mother with two children, I like that we have a small family. For us, raising our little ones around a select group of family lets us keep a tight check on who is teaching them any sort of life lesson. I don't want them to grow up with conflicting feelings about anything, and I think too many different branches in the family tree offering up their opinions just messes with their heads.

    Posted by: MeatyMario87
  • Yes, because I think strong family ties benefit everyone.

    You may as well stay a small family unit in these times, because everyone is having a hard time. By staying a family unit, you can all help each other with bills and food, at the very least.

    Posted by: 5c0tJung
  • Yes, because stable families are critical to the well-being of America.

    One of the problems in this country is the breakdown of the family unit. Too many children are being raised in broken households, and there are also families raising boys with no male head of household. I believe that the break-up of families contributes to the crime rate, as well as the economic problems in this country. I am liberal in most things, but agree (because I was raised at the end of that time period) that crime and youth problems have gotten worse since the double parent families of the 60s and 70s. My household was better off financially when there were two people supporting it, instead of just one. Like in business, teams are stronger than individuals.

    Posted by: 5h4d35CeII
  • Yes, a small family can have a very positive impact on a family's life for various reasons.

    There are several good reasons to have a small family. It's cheaper, less stressful, and can lead to more quality time with the family you do have. While living in a large family can be okay, it almost always brings up the issue of money. With the increase of women leaving home to go to work and the rising cost of living demanding a two-income family, there is less and less time available for children. Many parents today already have trouble finding the time to spend with the children they do have, and having more would only make the issue worse.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Given the time and expense of raising children, most women would probably benefit from keeping their families small, although no single answer to this question will be universally correct.

    Most people seem happiest with a balance of family and career in their lives, and given that the unjustly disproportionate role of women in child-rearing is unlikely to disappear soon, it seems a safe generalization to say that a small family size will give most women more of the time they need to achieve a satisfying work-home balance than they'd be able to achieve with a larger family. Some women will prefer a large family, of course, and this choice must be respected; the point in talking about the value of small family sizes is to acknowledge the difficulty of raising a child and the trade-off involved, not to prescribe a correct lifestyle. Every person's needs are bound to be different in countless ways from those of the mythic average person; our goal should be for men and women alike to make informed choices.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • Yes

    Hi,sometimes you are in a small family not by choice but by circumstance.You have to deal with it and do what you have to do.Sometimes you cant have more children,some people are adult only children,some of us are motheless daughters,and so on.Having us be a close knit family,involved in our community,teaching independence,and belonging to a church and having good friends become extended aunts and uncles.

  • Parents have more time for each child and it costs a lot to raise kids.

    Having small family means less children. Parents will have more time to spend with each child and attention and be paid properly to each child. More children means more disputes and fighting among the children.

    It is expensive to raise a kid because of the food, education, medical expenses. It is wiser to have less children so parents will have less burden. It will be worse if any of the parents get laid off or fired.

    Posted by: JenniferA
  • Rise in inflation makes it positive

    Yes it makes a positive difference for families to remain a small family unit. With the rise in inflation, the prices of almost all the products are increasing at a rapid rate. So if the family is small, it will be easier to afford them all the comforts and luxuries and the children/child can get good education.

    Posted by: CI3Hate
  • There are many reasons that families would benefit from being smaller.

    A small, close-knit family is a joy. Many large families make things work, but their resources are stretched thin, and they are at risk of needing assistance from outside sources. If parents wisely spaced their children out, and had fewer, it would benefit the family, and society as a whole, by insuring greater financial security and by reducing the negative impact on the environment, which in turn, would benefit the family by greater health.

    Posted by: K_Frye
  • Yes I guess

    I Don’t know maybe because it is more organized. And Also I Just press the button when I saw it. I think maybe because it is less money and more attention two the kids I have two kids a boy and a girl and they always want attention expertly the boy.

  • More is more

    Small families are in the minority and are not recognized adequately. People question when you do not have tons of family plans at holidays, as if something is wrong with you, as if you are not normal, when you do not have tons of obligations. Some of us just don't have more than a few immediate kin, for all sorts of reasons.

  • Small families fare better, depends on the dynamics.

    The studies seem to be riddled with studies of predominantly Large poor ethnic families. Families should have structure, families with organization and means to support one another and the family, will be fine either way. Do not ridicule or mock my large family because you feel that you can't handle what I have.

  • No, it makes no sense.

    Kids entertain each other and themselves. It's the small family where children grow up without chores, without dealing with siblings, irresponsible, and the helicopter parents. Children from small families are treated like a porcelain doll, not a child.
    No nation, religion or race can survive without reproducing and the minimum required is 2.11 child per woman (in a safe and wealthy place like the US or W. Europe) and we are already below this. Like Europe we rely on immigration to make up the difference, which of course brings with it its own set of troubles. There is neither a scarcity of land, resources, or the means to support a growing population and indeed without growth in population long term a society stagnates.
    Money is no more than an abstract representation of human time. If I piled 16 trillion dollars into a mountain and you were the last person left, this pile would only serve you as kindling. Social security, Medicare… all programs that are today in trouble because of a declining birth rate in America and age bubble, are in reality transfer payment schemes no different than a ponzi scheme. They work like a ponzi scheme as long as more people are buying into it, or in this case the population is growing. A dollar bill won’t feed you when you’re old, social security won’t magically push you down the aisle of a hospital, and Medicare won’t give you an MRI, “people do that.”
    It is a basic function of biology to procreate. It is one of the definitions of “life.” It is biologically wired into us to have children and it requires a conscious act to overdrive this natural desire. The true reason why the birth rate is in decline is greed. Children cost money, and Americans are materialistic. They want “stuff” that they throw away next week or month rather than share it with a child. Children mean your sex life is limited and Americans today live out their fantasies on Ashley Madison.com and elsewhere. “Sowing ones wild oats” is stated as a matter of fact and casually. There is also a reason why the hepatitis, herpes, HIV/AIDS, HPV, Chlamydia, syphilis rates are what they are in the US, despite all the sex education. Children impede ones career since schools, friends, the home, proximity to relatives now all play a greater role. Getting up and moving in order to move up, isn’t that easy anymore. Likewise the level of commitment to another person is higher. While near meaningless in America, there still is some pressure to stay together or even marry if having children. America has a noncommittal culture, (41% divorce rate) where like fast food relationships are simply disposed of when not convenient anymore. Unlike a spouse, you just can’t dump your children that easily, usually. Children are a headache and cost me-time. May it be the PTSA meeting or feeding them, they are a lot of work. This is “me” time and we live in a “me” society where people are busy as members of many organizations, clubs, chat rooms, gyms, gamming links and are busy watching hours of TV or Internet browsing etc. Finally, children just aren’t cool anymore. America has become a secular society in the image of Europe and the idea that one has an obligation or duty to have children from any religious or social perspective is gone (of course that’s not the case for Muslims).
    As America heads down this road, of course the benefits for those that have children will be cut, or at least many other groups that in reality perpetuate society will gain access to these benefits that are intended to offset the costs of raising children, i.e. homosexuals.
    Of course the other side will talk about resources, attention/love per child, the global environment, their feelings-feelings-feelings… all arguments that not only sounds ridiculous, they are. These are rationalizations after the fact in order to feel good about one self. Americans do this when they divorce (I’m just not happy anymore), when they have abortions (I can’t afford it), when they use drugs (it helps my back pain)… Americans are simply hedonistic, savages and heathens for the most part by definition, and in such a society the child is no blessing from God nor does it have an economic and social value. At the most macro level, social systems, secularization and urbanization are driving this, the true value of the child is still there just from the perspective of the typical urban secular person it’s not evident in a direct way.

  • I do not think small families are always a positive thing, since I believe the benefits of family size vary from one family unit to the next, based on a number of different factors.

    While I am sure a small family unit offers unique benefits, like more time and resources for each child, I also think that large family units offer unique benefits, too, like solidarity among siblings, and more socially adept and empathetic children. I do not believe that small family units are superior across the board, but, instead, I believe that the size of each family should be determined by the family, itself.

    Posted by: ToughEfrain26
  • Family members benefit from close relationships with extended family.

    It is better for families to be closely connected with extended family. Children, in particular, benefit from the wisdom and experiences gained from these relationships. Mothers and fathers benefit from family support both emotionally and at times financially. Older family members can share parenting advice and help care for children.

    Posted by: TrashyBrain42
  • I must say that as the youngest of a family of six, I wonder at those who believe that it is better to be a part of a small family unit.

    I question those who say that only having smaller families is a good thing and especially disagree with nations who mandate that people can only have one child. That is, frankly, stupid as it normally means that after awhile you have lots of very discontented young men who are lacking in the ability to find appropriate mates within their own country, and this leads eventually to social unrest and decline. It is possible for smaller families to do well, but frankly as time goes on and the parents require care, having a small family puts a lot more pressure on all family members, and it also decreases the amount of assistance available for any family members that may need it.

    Posted by: SportyHart
  • Extended families provided much more support for the family members than today's small family units.

    Especially now with difficult economic times, the small family unit is struggling. The old fashioned extended families provided much more support, getting rid of the need for babysitter and day care, which would be of huge benefit to children. Economically, financially and emotionally, the extended family makes more sense than small isolated family units.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • It does not make a positive difference for a family to remain small, since it doesn't have to be a financial burden to have a bigger family.

    The size of a family should never be thought of as a burden, regardless of the reason. Larger families simply mean you have a bigger support system, something most of us can definitely use. The financial aspects shouldn't be a factor either, as a larger family can do things such as gardening, recycling and use community and church resources to help if finances are a bit tighter.

    Posted by: Z Frye
  • While larger families and smaller families are organized differently, there is no one correct amount for family size.

    Larger families definitely have themselves organized differently than smaller families, which in turn, are organized differently than families with one child. There is no correct or right size for a family. There are too many factors that contribute to our choice for how large our family should be. Hopefully, each couple considers what size family would be right for them.

    Posted by: babydoll93
  • If a family has the means and the money then they can take care of each other no matter the size.

    If a family has love for each other than it shouldn't matter how large or small they are. If a family doesn't have money to support a larger family then they shouldn't have a large one they should stick with a small one instead. A small family has its benefits but so does a large family.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.