Max B. Sawicky wrote:
This is completely backwards. By limiting family size, liberals raise more
contented, nurtured, progressive-minded children.
.
By contrast, with larger families there is more resentment and neurosis,
leading to radicalization of conservative offspring. So it's all good.
Mbs
(1 child parent)
.
1) I think it's a mistake to assume that the children's interests in the
world about them will mirror the parents, and perhaps the more attention
parents pay to the children, as opposed to letting them call attention
to their own desires, needs and interests, the more they will rebel
against their parent's lifeways. F'rinstance, speaking as an only child,
my parents liked Mel Torme, Andy Williams, and Frank Sinatra. At 52
years old, I prefer Primus, Saul Williams, and the MC5 for easy
listening... My dad was a military/government company man and my mother
was a NYC public school teacher. I'm anti-military/government complex,
and think most schooling is simply warehousing to allow both parents a
chance at working for the machine, and indoctrination for young open
minds into a :narcissistic, me first, hyper-competitive lifestyle known
as "The American Way"[tm] [c] [marca registrada] with minimal life
education and maximum education directed toward the needs of the
"national economic machine".
2) In larger families, the resulting benefits of cooperation and
teamwork with others are much more apparent to the child at an early
age, assuming the parents aren't dysfunctional (albeit, that's a big
'IF', in industrialized society) and on the left end of the
political/social spectrum, liberal or radical, the end results of the
inability to cooperate, form coalitions etc is (imho) more than obvious.
Children love their parents, but that doesn't mean they mirror them
sociologically, and a simple demonstration of that fact is that often
enough, in research studies, adopted children are more inclined to
mirror their biological parents, not the adopted ones, in many social
traits and habits.
Leigh
