Author Topic: Baby Boomers and Family Size (Read 5976 times)

Matthew · « **on:** January 19, 2015, 07:22:21 PM »

Has anyone besides me noticed how many older (let's say Baby Boomer) couples at your local Trad chapel have 4 children or fewer?

I mean from the best to the worst of them, they all have 4 children or fewer. Any of them that had 5 were considered to have a "large" family.

If there was a Duggar TV show back then, it would have been a family with 6 children!

Today they are the pillars of our Trad chapels. They provide generous material and other support for the chapels. They usher, lead the Rosary, serve Mass, run the bookstore, and just about anything else that needs doing. They have lots of time and resources to be such pillars. I'm even going to assume they are in the state of grace, having confessed any sins from their past life and are currently striving to live the Catholic faith in an exemplary fashion.

I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that they are hypocrites.

But that doesn't change the fact that they "cheated" in a way by not having the full number of children when they were younger. If they are materially well off today, it's because A) times were just easier back then, and B) they had less children to support so they had a chance to build up more wealth.

Anyhow, long story short, few (if any) Baby Boomers I've ever encountered could ever say to me, "Well here is how I did it..." because there is a fundamental flaw in whatever system they had: they didn't have the natural number of children God wanted to send (no birth control or NFP).

So besides the fact that the US Dollar is weaker now than in, say, 1970, we also are "handicapped" as it were because many young trads today are embracing the full package of morality, which includes having a large family AND homeschooling them so they aren't indoctrinated in the increasingly-evil public schools.

Homeschooling was *very* rare when Baby Boomers were parents. So was breastfeeding, home birth, and large families. See now what I have against that generation? Oh, and they also embraced Vatican II. It was up to that generation to accept it or reject it. So many of them loved it or had no problems with it.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** January 19, 2015, 07:28:57 PM »

I use the analogy of the laborers in the vineyard.

Let's assume the men who came in at 9:00 AM were content with their 1 denarius, and were psyched up to NOT hold it against those who came in at 4:00 and only worked one hour until quitting time (5:00).

It's up to the master of the vineyard if he wants to be generous. It's his money, and after all I did agree to a denarius a day, right?

So on the way home, the All Day workers are walking next to the One Hour workers. They come across a man with a cart stuck in a ditch.

The One Hour workers, full of energy, immediately begin helping the hapless traveler. They call to the All Day workers and reproach them, "Aren't you going to help us do this good deed? What's the matter with your sense of charity?"

How would you feel if you were an exhausted "All Day" worker and had to hear this from a One Hour worker? Wouldn't that just be the straw that broke the camel's back?

Applying it to our actual situation --

Hooray for the Baby Boomers who can put lots of money in the collection plate, who have time to help out with various things, etc. but they shouldn't judge us youngsters, even if we can't do the same thing at 50 or 60, because frankly we were never in the same position. Ever.

If you rewind any of those Baby Boomers' lives back to my age, you will NOT have someone essentially in the same position.

Matto · « **Reply #2 on:** January 19, 2015, 07:48:34 PM »

My parents were baby boomers who grew up before Vatican II but went along with the changes. They only had three children. I am the middle child and the only traditional Catholic in the family.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** January 19, 2015, 09:07:12 PM »

Quote from: Matto

My parents were baby boomers who grew up before Vatican II but went along with the changes. They only had three children. I am the middle child and the only traditional Catholic in the family.

In my entire life, I have only encountered or met maybe 2 families with kids "my age" who had more than 3 siblings.

At my independent Trad chapel growing up, there was only one such family. There were a couple "large" families with 5 kids.

I'm only bringing this up because it's such a solid demographic pattern/truth. It HAS TO have a bearing on countless real-world issues, from SSPX school funding, to parishioner psychology, etc.

About 3 dozen threads could be started from this one.

Mabel · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2015, 05:51:27 PM »

Matthew's post resonates with me.

I just wrote out a long post and lost it. However, we have encountered the same people. Honestly, I don't know if it is possible to teach them, but they just do not understand what it takes to run a family in 2015. I do also think they are lovely, kind, edifying Catholics.

I always find housing to be the big issue. Housing is so complex these days, with big families, the over-reaching arm of the state, homeschooling, and all the other costs, it is such a huge decision. Most of the boomers tell you to buy a house and not rent. Just buy a house, it will be great. I don't think that taxes, homeschooling laws, how the children will be educated, or even van upgrades and such--things that keep us parents awake at night, ever cross their minds. I've tried to explain our situation but it is nearly impossible.

2Vermont · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2015, 06:01:15 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that they are hypocrites.

But that doesn't change the fact that they "cheated" in a way by not having the full number of children when they were younger. If they are materially well off today, it's because A) times were just easier back then, and B) they had less children to support so they had a chance to build up more wealth.

How do you know these things?

As for the rest, it makes me wonder where my husband and I fit into the Trad world given we're Johnny Come Latelies with no children and no particular wealth. I wonder what the parishioners at our chapel think of us.

Matto · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2015, 06:04:13 PM »

At my chapel, most of the parishoners are single older people who found out about the true faith late in life. There is one married man, but he comes alone, without his wife, though he brought his son a few times, but not regularly. The one large family we had left the chapel to support Father Pfeiffer.

Nickolas · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2015, 06:45:18 PM »

I guess you can make observations Matthew, but be careful to not make conclusions. I would give more credence to your conclusions if you actually talked with the folks that you have observed. NFP aside, God ordains life in the marriage and neither you nor anyone else knows details of why the couples had 3, 4, 6 or 2 kids for that matter.

Keep in mind that parents of baby boomers were impacted by two wars, WWII and the Korean War. I am a baby boomer and my parents were not Catholic, but the number of children they had was impacted by those wars as my Dad was away during that time. Life was chaos and even when he was home, relations between my Dad and Mom were strained. "Who are you?" Women learned to live without the man in the house and that created all kinds of strain when he was there and relational adjustment when he came home for good.

So if Mr and Mrs so and so have more wealth because they had "just" 4 kids, damn'it , take your mind off them and put it back on important things, like prayer, our own shortfalls, and such. They are of no concern to you nor anyone else and be grateful they now have the time to tend to things in the chapel that keep things going and... praise them for it. The 4 kids they did have were a lot more than the poor wife who had none after her husband was shot in the head at Normandy.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2015, 07:24:23 PM »

Quote from: Nickolas

I guess you can make observations Matthew, but be careful to not make conclusions. I would give more credence to your conclusions if you actually talked with the folks that you have observed. NFP aside, God ordains life in the marriage and neither you nor anyone else knows details of why the couples had 3, 4, 6 or 2 kids for that matter.

Keep in mind that parents of baby boomers were impacted by two wars, WWII and the Korean War. I am a baby boomer and my parents were not Catholic, but the number of children they had was impacted by those wars as my Dad was away during that time. Life was chaos and even when he was home, relations between my Dad and Mom were strained. "Who are you?" Women learned to live without the man in the house and that created all kinds of strain when he was there and relational adjustment when he came home for good.

So if Mr and Mrs so and so have more wealth because they had "just" 4 kids, damn'it , take your mind off them and put it back on important things, like prayer, our own shortfalls, and such. They are of no concern to you nor anyone else and be grateful they now have the time to tend to things in the chapel that keep things going and... praise them for it. The 4 kids they did have were a lot more than the poor wife who had none after her husband was shot in the head at Normandy.

Have you actually *read* any of my posts?

You should be able to tell the difference between philosophizing/talking big picture demographics and judging individuals. I absolutely despise doing the latter -- you must not know me at all.

First of all, you need to go look up what a "Baby Boomer" is. It is someone born between ~1948 and around 1965, plus or minus. The generation you speak of is the "Greatest Generation", or the PARENTS of the Baby Boomers.

The Baby Boomers' war was Vietnam, not WWII.

And as much as I "think the best" of all the individual Baby Boomer couples I know, the fact remains that large families in this generation are as rare as hens' teeth. I would know -- Baby Boomers were my parents, and all my classmates' parents. I know how many of my peers had more than 3 siblings -- virtually none.

Now the Greatest Generation were the ones who often can remember outhouses, not having a phone, not having a TV, living on the land, and they tended to have what I would call "natural size" families. And many young Catholics are having natural size families today. But the natural size family seems to have "skipped" a generation, for whatever reason.

Noting trends like this is for "educational purposes only". It's not so that you can go to Mass next week and yell slurs at the Baby Boomers you see. It's so you can better understand the world, just like any other philosophical endeavor.

By the way, I *have* drawn a conclusion about Baby Boomers. Drawing conclusions is the behavior of rational beings. What I should avoid doing is judging individuals from that generation. Thanks for the condescending admonishment, but you're really preaching to the choir telling me such a thing, as virtually everyone on this board can tell you.

We need to be precise and clear in our speaking/thinking, just like St. Thomas Aquinas was.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2015, 07:33:19 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Matthew
I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that they are hypocrites.

But that doesn't change the fact that they "cheated" in a way by not having the full number of children when they were younger. If they are materially well off today, it's because A) times were just easier back then, and B) they had less children to support so they had a chance to build up more wealth.

How do you know these things?

As for the rest, it makes me wonder where my husband and I fit into the Trad world given we're Johnny Come Latelies with no children and no particular wealth. I wonder what the parishioners at our chapel think of us.

I know these things because I've walked this earth for a while, and I've noticed a distinct trend among Baby Boomers, even the good Catholic ones, to have much smaller families than the "norm". I realize the "norm" varies, but you can see a drastic cutoff in the average number of children when you compare the Greatest Generation (WW2) and the Baby Boomers. Just look it up if you don't believe me.

I don't have to have inside knowledge to open my eyes and see things that are quite public.

I don't know WHY all the Baby Boomers have such small families -- maybe there was a REALLY effective NFP book, maybe there was something in the water -- that's all beside the point. All I'm saying is that they have small families. Nothing more.

If you want to narrow things down to personalities, and/or draw a judgment, sentence, condemnation, etc. from that, you're on your own.

Some people are cut out for abstract philosophical discussion, and some are not. I hate to say it, but many women are not. They tend to make everything personal and specific -- it's in their nature.

Nickolas · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2015, 08:06:46 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: Nickolas
I guess you can make observations Matthew, but be careful to not make conclusions. I would give more credence to your conclusions if you actually talked with the folks that you have observed. NFP aside, God ordains life in the marriage and neither you nor anyone else knows details of why the couples had 3, 4, 6 or 2 kids for that matter.

Keep in mind that parents of baby boomers were impacted by two wars, WWII and the Korean War. I am a baby boomer and my parents were not Catholic, but the number of children they had was impacted by those wars as my Dad was away during that time. Life was chaos and even when he was home, relations between my Dad and Mom were strained. "Who are you?" Women learned to live without the man in the house and that created all kinds of strain when he was there and relational adjustment when he came home for good.

So if Mr and Mrs so and so have more wealth because they had "just" 4 kids, damn'it , take your mind off them and put it back on important things, like prayer, our own shortfalls, and such. They are of no concern to you nor anyone else and be grateful they now have the time to tend to things in the chapel that keep things going and... praise them for it. The 4 kids they did have were a lot more than the poor wife who had none after her husband was shot in the head at Normandy.

Have you actually *read* any of my posts?

You should be able to tell the difference between philosophizing/talking big picture demographics and judging individuals. I absolutely despise doing the latter -- you must not know me at all.

First of all, you need to go look up what a "Baby Boomer" is. It is someone born between ~1948 and around 1965, plus or minus. The generation you speak of is the "Greatest Generation", or the PARENTS of the Baby Boomers.

The Baby Boomers' war was Vietnam, not WWII.

And as much as I "think the best" of all the individual Baby Boomer couples I know, the fact remains that large families in this generation are as rare as hens' teeth. I would know -- Baby Boomers were my parents, and all my classmates' parents. I know how many of my peers had more than 3 siblings -- virtually none.

Now the Greatest Generation were the ones who often can remember outhouses, not having a phone, not having a TV, living on the land, and they tended to have what I would call "natural size" families. And many young Catholics are having natural size families today. But the natural size family seems to have "skipped" a generation, for whatever reason.

Noting trends like this is for "educational purposes only". It's not so that you can go to Mass next week and yell slurs at the Baby Boomers you see. It's so you can better understand the world, just like any other philosophical endeavor.

By the way, I *have* drawn a conclusion about Baby Boomers. Drawing conclusions is the behavior of rational beings. What I should avoid doing is judging individuals from that generation. Thanks for the condescending admonishment, but you're really preaching to the choir telling me such a thing, as virtually everyone on this board can tell you.

We need to be precise and clear in our speaking/thinking, just like St. Thomas Aquinas was.

Matthew, a little touchy aren't you? Take your eyes off the boomers and put them on you and the current generation if you need to look around. There is room for more than your observaton. Boomers parents were living during WWII and Korea and yes, boomers less about 50K of them, lived past Viet Nam and the free love days, post Vat II days, the drug explosion, on and on. So what?

If a topic is so convoluted as you have posed this one, perhaps it was best left unwritten. It appears you are trying to stir the pot when it is a non issue. The past is done, gone, and forever will be. How much guilt do you want to stir among older folks with this type of topic.

ggreg · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2015, 09:09:44 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Has anyone besides me noticed how many older (let's say Baby Boomer) couples at your local Trad chapel have 4 children or fewer?

Yes, I noticed a long time ago. Statistically speaking, it is clear as day that many are contracepting, in one form or another, since otherwise you would have a different shaped distribution curve.

So it was obvious to me, aged 17, when I did a straw poll, that there simply were not enough large families. Nothing like enough. Someone HAD to be cheating, or fertility had dropped off a cliff for families with newer German cars. Or they were all abstaining for years on end. That seemed unlikely.

I've pointed this out before on forums and you always get the stupid defence from people like Knickerless who cannot understand human reproduction and standard deviation and distribution curves. The charity police then dive in.

The data does not lie. If Trads were not in some way gaming the system the family size distribution curve would be a different shape. And decent high school Maths student can understand this. There is no mystery here. People simply don't want to accept the facts. Do a poll yourself. I dare you. I double dare you.

My solution was to go and earn a six figure income so I could afford the kids that would inevitably come along. That way I could beat the world at its own game. I don't believe in the no-win scenario.

Rather than cheating God, I thought it was smarter to cheat the banks, since the banks cannot send me to hell and when they need more money they just print it using the software I sold them. Why make life difficult? If money is what you need find a way to make more.

Mabel · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2015, 10:09:38 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Matthew
I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that they are hypocrites.

But that doesn't change the fact that they "cheated" in a way by not having the full number of children when they were younger. If they are materially well off today, it's because A) times were just easier back then, and B) they had less children to support so they had a chance to build up more wealth.

How do you know these things?

As for the rest, it makes me wonder where my husband and I fit into the Trad world given we're Johnny Come Latelies with no children and no particular wealth. I wonder what the parishioners at our chapel think of us.

I knew two people who I thought were married late in life...turns out they were brother and sister.

Whoops.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2015, 10:09:42 PM »

As guilt isn't something necessarily to be avoided (leads to repentence or reminds those who've been forgiven of the ongoing need to make reparation) and this is a discussion forum, I don't think a topic with such wide-reaching ramafications should be avoided.

It does matter. Those raising families today look for the sort of parenting wisdom that should come from their parents, aunts, uncles and it's extremely difficult to find anyone who can pass on their experiences of raising their "normal" Catholic family. You can go back to your grandparents, but the world changes too much over two generations and they're too far removed from their parenting days to give much advice.

A young person growing up, even if their parents didn't have a normal-sized family, should be able to look around and see that families come in different sizes, but, just like Matthew, I had only ONE classmate with more than 3 siblings -- they had twins which brought their count to five. Catholic or not, all of the families looked similar and NONE of them looked like the young families you see in Trad chapels today.

The nearly universal trend also did damage to the ability of Catholics today to raise a "normal" family. The Catholic population of the US should be significant enough that at least a small percentage of homes and vehicles would be designed with large families in mind, but they're not.

poche · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2015, 10:40:57 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Has anyone besides me noticed how many older (let's say Baby Boomer) couples at your local Trad chapel have 4 children or fewer?

I mean from the best to the worst of them, they all have 4 children or fewer. Any of them that had 5 were considered to have a "large" family.

If there was a Duggar TV show back then, it would have been a family with 6 children!

Today they are the pillars of our Trad chapels. They provide generous material and other support for the chapels. They usher, lead the Rosary, serve Mass, run the bookstore, and just about anything else that needs doing. They have lots of time and resources to be such pillars. I'm even going to assume they are in the state of grace, having confessed any sins from their past life and are currently striving to live the Catholic faith in an exemplary fashion.

I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that they are hypocrites.

But that doesn't change the fact that they "cheated" in a way by not having the full number of children when they were younger. If they are materially well off today, it's because A) times were just easier back then, and B) they had less children to support so they had a chance to build up more wealth.

Anyhow, long story short, few (if any) Baby Boomers I've ever encountered could ever say to me, "Well here is how I did it..." because there is a fundamental flaw in whatever system they had: they didn't have the natural number of children God wanted to send (no birth control or NFP).

So besides the fact that the US Dollar is weaker now than in, say, 1970, we also are "handicapped" as it were because many young trads today are embracing the full package of morality, which includes having a large family AND homeschooling them so they aren't indoctrinated in the increasingly-evil public schools.

Homeschooling was *very* rare when Baby Boomers were parents. So was breastfeeding, home birth, and large families. See now what I have against that generation? Oh, and they also embraced Vatican II. It was up to that generation to accept it or reject it. So many of them loved it or had no problems with it.

If they are an older couple then maybe they have learned the error of their ways.