2017: Has marriage & 4-6 kids become the ultimate signal of real wealth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Italians haven't been having children for a long while now. The government has been trying to get them to procreate.

Looks like Dolce & Gabana are trying to make it look glamorous as wel.

Though, frankly, with that guy in his "wife-beater" tee and all of those kids it reminds me of an Irish family during the potato famine.

same. probably because they're all in their underwear.

Idk but there is nothing glam or aspiration about that photo for me.

Maybe if they were all dressed up at the theater, like at a performance for the Nutcracker or something? That could be sweet.

And women who have given birth six times have a body like that. And boobies like that! Yeah, right!

After two kids, no chance.

Umm...why are some of you taking the ad so seriously? Of course a powerful, successful fashion house is using professional models in an ad. And of course the models are attractive -- that's why they are models.

I've had five and my body still looks really good. Not as good as it once did, perhaps, but I've not gained weight and my boobs haven't sagged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain the environmental impact of a child. Thank you

Here's one explanation: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis (The focus here is on carbon emissions.)

I don't particularly care about an extra child's impact on the environment. If the government or society has a problem with it then they should severely limit immigration (isn't natural birthrates lower than the replacement rates?).

Good luck in trying to persuade me it's wasteful to bring an extra person to this world.

It's not just wasteful it is so unnecessary. I see families with 5 or 6 kids and it just makes me think that the mother is some sort of broodmare who can't help but pump out more kids because that's how she defines her value and purpose in life. It's just grotesque and does no favor to the litter of kids fighting amongst themselves for their parent's attention.

That is just an incredibly unkind, hurtful thing to say.

+1 yeah, wow. What on earth has gone so wrong in your own life that you became such a rude, low class, bitter b*tch? Did you have fertility struggles?

Low class? Sweetie, I'm not the one popping out kids like a clown car. And yes, when you are DESTROYING MY PLANET with your little f*** trophies ON MY DIME, it does make me a little bitter.

And no fertility issues here, but thanks for your concern on that

Hm. If THAT is how you characterize / think of children, it seems you must not be a very good mother. Not to mention your clear aggression and anger issues! Sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly feel like with any more than three you are really short changing the kids. No parent could gI’ve adequate attention when they have that many kids.

1 of 4 children here. I can assure you, you are very wrong! Please don't make offensive blanket statements about subjects you aren't qualified to comment on.

If anything, in my opinion parents who have only children are shortchanging THEIR children.

[Anonymous]

Very interesting that this thread hit such a nerve with some people. The reactions are surprising but it shows that the ad is a good one. I think this is a throwback to the retro ideals of a beautiful mother of many children. Nostalgic and yet fresh because the Power Working Mom trope has been done to death and is possibly no longer aspirational to young women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sheer fantasy. We'd all look like her after popping out six kids in six years.

If you start at 18. It’s not inconceivable

I know a Russian who is 32 and has 5 kids. 5’11 and has a better body than 95% of 22 year olds

She does show her age (skin on her hands when you shake her hand is the give away - 22 year old skin is so much more supple) but she could easily have modeled for this advert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No! One son, one daughter. That's the traditional "Rich man's family" in the United States.

Not anymore. Most of my ivy educated friends have 3 or 4 kids with mom staying at home. For a while 3-4 seemed like the new 2.

Yes everyone wealthy has 3-4 kids now. I'm sure in flyover country they aren't all rich but in DC they are. Well except those that live in the slums, I'm sure there must be some big families there. But different dads.

[Anonymous]

The other extreme of just one child has its own perils:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/health/children-death-elderly-grief.html

...much-increased odds that a parent trafically outlives progeny, as life expectancies increase.

[Anonymous]

If you have 4, you don't have to go back to work ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain the environmental impact of a child. Thank you

Here's one explanation: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis (The focus here is on carbon emissions.)

I don't particularly care about an extra child's impact on the environment. If the government or society has a problem with it then they should severely limit immigration (isn't natural birthrates lower than the replacement rates?).

Good luck in trying to persuade me it's wasteful to bring an extra person to this world.

It's not just wasteful it is so unnecessary. I see families with 5 or 6 kids and it just makes me think that the mother is some sort of broodmare who can't help but pump out more kids because that's how she defines her value and purpose in life. It's just grotesque and does no favor to the litter of kids fighting amongst themselves for their parent's attention.

That is just an incredibly unkind, hurtful thing to say.

+1 yeah, wow. What on earth has gone so wrong in your own life that you became such a rude, low class, bitter b*tch? Did you have fertility struggles?

Low class? Sweetie, I'm not the one popping out kids like a clown car. And yes, when you are DESTROYING MY PLANET with your little f*** trophies ON MY DIME, it does make me a little bitter.

And no fertility issues here, but thanks for your concern on that

Hm. If THAT is how you characterize / think of children, it seems you must not be a very good mother. Not to mention your clear aggression and anger issues! Sweetie.

DP here but I'd agree that women who have 4,5,6 or even more children seem, from afar, to be incredibly selfish and narcissistic. My assumption is that they have no other path to self-actualization so they default to popping out one more, and then one more, and so on. A cynic would agree with the PP that some of these women see their children as trophies, reflective of some sort of perceived achievement in life ignoring that fact that having multiple children requires no skill and is reflective of nothing other than fertility. We've already seen posters upthread proudly say that they couldn't care less about any impact to our collective environment that their behavior may have. So I'd like to understand from women who have 4,5,6 or more children......why? At the extreme....say the Duggars.....I'd imagine that there is near consensus that some abhorrent psychosis is driving behavior. But apart from the insanely large families, what is the rationale for the merely irresponsibly large families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please explain the environmental impact of a child. Thank you

Here's one explanation: http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis (The focus here is on carbon emissions.)

I don't particularly care about an extra child's impact on the environment. If the government or society has a problem with it then they should severely limit immigration (isn't natural birthrates lower than the replacement rates?).

Good luck in trying to persuade me it's wasteful to bring an extra person to this world.

It's not just wasteful it is so unnecessary. I see families with 5 or 6 kids and it just makes me think that the mother is some sort of broodmare who can't help but pump out more kids because that's how she defines her value and purpose in life. It's just grotesque and does no favor to the litter of kids fighting amongst themselves for their parent's attention.

That is just an incredibly unkind, hurtful thing to say.

+1 yeah, wow. What on earth has gone so wrong in your own life that you became such a rude, low class, bitter b*tch? Did you have fertility struggles?

Low class? Sweetie, I'm not the one popping out kids like a clown car. And yes, when you are DESTROYING MY PLANET with your little f*** trophies ON MY DIME, it does make me a little bitter.

And no fertility issues here, but thanks for your concern on that

Hm. If THAT is how you characterize / think of children, it seems you must not be a very good mother. Not to mention your clear aggression and anger issues! Sweetie.

DP here but I'd agree that women who have 4,5,6 or even more children seem, from afar, to be incredibly selfish and narcissistic. My assumption is that they have no other path to self-actualization so they default to popping out one more, and then one more, and so on. A cynic would agree with the PP that some of these women see their children as trophies, reflective of some sort of perceived achievement in life ignoring that fact that having multiple children requires no skill and is reflective of nothing other than fertility. We've already seen posters upthread proudly say that they couldn't care less about any impact to our collective environment that their behavior may have. So I'd like to understand from women who have 4,5,6 or more children......why? At the extreme....say the Duggars.....I'd imagine that there is near consensus that some abhorrent psychosis is driving behavior. But apart from the insanely large families, what is the rationale for the merely irresponsibly large families?

My goodness you need a hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP here but I'd agree that women who have 4,5,6 or even more children seem, from afar, to be incredibly selfish and narcissistic. My assumption is that they have no other path to self-actualization so they default to popping out one more, and then one more, and so on. A cynic would agree with the PP that some of these women see their children as trophies, reflective of some sort of perceived achievement in life ignoring that fact that having multiple children requires no skill and is reflective of nothing other than fertility. We've already seen posters upthread proudly say that they couldn't care less about any impact to our collective environment that their behavior may have. So I'd like to understand from women who have 4,5,6 or more children......why? At the extreme....say the Duggars.....I'd imagine that there is near consensus that some abhorrent psychosis is driving behavior. But apart from the insanely large families, what is the rationale for the merely irresponsibly large families?

Who do you think is going to answer this question? Who is going to say, " Well, I had an irresponsibly large family because..."? Would you answer a question about the rationale for "absurdly tiny families"?

[Anonymous]

Well for us the reason is money and we make a pretty good living comparatively (HHI ~ 600k). We have three kids and we feel pretty confident that we can give them a nice life including all the extras like travel, private lessons, and sleep away camp. And college savings. That's the kicker. Our FA has us saving 1250 per month PER KID.

I guess people who have 4-6 kids and live like the OP make in the seven figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well for us the reason is money and we make a pretty good living comparatively (HHI ~ 600k). We have three kids and we feel pretty confident that we can give them a nice life including all the extras like travel, private lessons, and sleep away camp. And college savings. That's the kicker. Our FA has us saving 1250 per month PER KID.

I guess people who have 4-6 kids and live like the OP make in the seven figures.

So the only rationale for having more kids is that you can afford them? There has to be a more compelling reason. Poor families pop out multiple kids and can't afford them and they end up welfare....what's their rationale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well for us the reason is money and we make a pretty good living comparatively (HHI ~ 600k). We have three kids and we feel pretty confident that we can give them a nice life including all the extras like travel, private lessons, and sleep away camp. And college savings. That's the kicker. Our FA has us saving 1250 per month PER KID.

I guess people who have 4-6 kids and live like the OP make in the seven figures.

So the only rationale for having more kids is that you can afford them? There has to be a more compelling reason. Poor families pop out multiple kids and can't afford them and they end up welfare....what's their rationale?

No only that money is a big factor for us in why we don't have another baby. I personally would love to have another child or even two more but I don't think we can afford it and live the lifestyle we want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have 4, you don't have to go back to work ever

This is such a dumb argument. Wealthy SAHM's don't have to go back to work regardless of the number of kids they have. I stopped at 2. Still not going back to work. I know many who are the same. When 1 spouse makes $400k+, a second spouse making mid to upper five figures is pretty inconsequential.