Jump to content

Ideally, how many children should Sikhs be having?


Guest Guest Sikh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest Sikh

Sikhs in the puratan times had many kids but now majority stick to max 2 children. Ideally, how many kids should Sikhs be having to increase our population?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

But it is not possible for a women to work as well as take care of 4 children. If we want to entertain the idea of higher children then sikh men have to come to terms with having stay at home wives but is it possible when everything is becoming expensive? I mean the orthodox jewish women who have multiple kids usually stay at home and take care of the kids. For a working women taking care of 4 kids+work+running the home will be very difficult. Im not sure if men are okay with having stay at home wives in today's world?

Number of children aside somebody has to stay home, one child four children makes no difference, we cannot have our kids off getting a free public miseducation in being a Kalyugi. Getting molested in after school programs while we slave to pay taxes. 

Man or woman being the breadwinner doesn't matter if they're intelligent enough, emotionally and intellectually, to respect each other and work together. 

However it is going to take an extended family effort, the effort of Bungas, and our Gurudwaras, our Sangat, to collaborate in a way when it comes to taking care of and educating our children, saving money on food and other things by doing things as a group as a cooperative, beyond Langar which is fantastic.  So that we can afford to not go extinct. 

Now most women would actually prefer the man works. It's just they didn't like being stuck as single women, with kids, unable to find work, before they were allowed to join the workforce officially, and given something resembling equal pay and opportunity. 

Unfortunately it has inflated the labor pool and essentially two people now make as much as one did a generation ago or less so yes we are basically forced into working for governments while they raise our children and paying taxes and having no representation. 

But it is of such importance to us that no matter what it costs to our appearance our wealth etc we need to have extended families where only a few of the members are working to provide them in a whole lot of other stuff we need to be doing as a Sangat. We need to reduce our dependency on money while simultaneously having enough of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

But it is not possible for a women to work as well as take care of 4 children. If we want to entertain the idea of higher children then sikh men have to come to terms with having stay at home wives but is it possible when everything is becoming expensive? I mean the orthodox jewish women who have multiple kids usually stay at home and take care of the kids. For a working women taking care of 4 kids+work+running the home will be very difficult. Im not sure if men are okay with having stay at home wives in today's world?

This is why we have to retain or go back to the extended family model. 4 children would be difficult to raise without the help of grandparents and younger siblings. The modern liberal family is set up for failure. The couple want to move out as soon as they marry, because their living expenses are a lot then they both need to work and hence they don't have any children or have one child. The ones who don't have a child may create a comfortable lifestyle in a few decades and old age but then who will they leave their house and all their goods to when they go? Their cats and their dogs? 

The ones who raise just one child usually pamper the child so much that he or she becomes a brat and will never be able survive in the real world. If the child goes wayward then its like the same as the couples that never had kids at all.

More children living in an extended family especially allows either the family to live with just one income or the help of the grandparents to look after the children may allow the wife to work part time. 4 children should be the norm if we want to progress as a community. After a few years the older children can look after the younger ones, having older siblings in school prevent bullying of the younger kids. There are a host of benefits that a large family has over just a couple on their own or a couple with just one child. 

Our future lies in our married couples having more children than has become the norm now. It is better to have l basic Gurdwaras full of Sangat rather than gold plated massive Gurdwaras with a small Sangat getting smaller by the year. 

It is the inculcation of liberal beliefs which have tried to destroy the essential maternal nature of women and tried to turn women into just clones of men. Both men and women have an inherent desire to have children. It is possible for women to have a career and have children, it is just that you will be a decade or so behind those who have no children. What is better to be a CEO of a company at 40 but have a no children or a CEO at 50 but having a large family? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our Gurudwaras we're running on all cylinders anyone walking in there would feel no concern about putting money into the Golak. You'd have full trust in whoever runs it. You'd see the evidence of where the money goes all around you, and you would know that actually by associating with these people, you can afford to give them money, because it's going to save you money collaborating with them, all that money you save, that pressure that would be removed by being able to collaborate with a group of people, we could invest back into the Paanth. 

Education, child care, motorpool, health practices, martial arts, tutoring. Sports if we must.  After school programs. You know the average family might spend money on all these things now right, why not do it with the Sangat at a fraction of the cost, and be able to give the money to the Gurudwara instead of the local taekwondo School. 

Our own trade union. Our own systems for getting people better jobs. 

That's all money we could save, and generate as a Sangat so we can afford many kids as you want, that's how many you should be able to have. Same people that want to tell you the world's overpopulated or the ones breeding like rabbits they just don't want you doing it because they're trying to take over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Men should be the primary provider for the family, regardless how controversial that sounds. 

Is generally what works out best dude, so that we can endure the dangers of this occupied planet while our women are safe doing what they do best, which is not in any way a criticism, it is the highest compliment, doing what they do best, birthing and raising children for God. 

Is it representative of their potential? No they're capable of doing anything anyone else can do and that. 

I can't make a baby, I can't under normal circumstances breastfeed one, clearly after giving birth, women have to be the ones to stay with the babies and for a long time and they love doing it they just don't like being forced into only doing it. 

Or being denied a job if they need one no one likes that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, proactive said:

This is why we have to retain or go back to the extended family model. 4 children would be difficult to raise without the help of grandparents and younger siblings. The modern liberal family is set up for failure. The couple want to move out as soon as they marry, because their living expenses are a lot then they both need to work and hence they don't have any children or have one child. The ones who don't have a child may create a comfortable lifestyle in a few decades and old age but then who will they leave their house and all their goods to when they go? Their cats and their dogs? 

The ones who raise just one child usually pamper the child so much that he or she becomes a brat and will never be able survive in the real world. If the child goes wayward then its like the same as the couples that never had kids at all.

More children living in an extended family especially allows either the family to live with just one income or the help of the grandparents to look after the children may allow the wife to work part time. 4 children should be the norm if we want to progress as a community. After a few years the older children can look after the younger ones, having older siblings in school prevent bullying of the younger kids. There are a host of benefits that a large family has over just a couple on their own or a couple with just one child. 

Our future lies in our married couples having more children than has become the norm now. It is better to have l basic Gurdwaras full of Sangat rather than gold plated massive Gurdwaras with a small Sangat getting smaller by the year. 

It is the inculcation of liberal beliefs which have tried to destroy the essential maternal nature of women and tried to turn women into just clones of men. Both men and women have an inherent desire to have children. It is possible for women to have a career and have children, it is just that you will be a decade or so behind those who have no children. What is better to be a CEO of a company at 40 but have a no children or a CEO at 50 but having a large family? 

Amen bro. Restoring the extended family, restoring the bunga network, restoring Gurudwaras and the Sanget to its original intent and purpose, is absolutely what we need to do to solve all of those problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It is said a picture paints a thousand words.  But that is not necessarily true. There is one word that we jaap that encapsulates everything in the universe and time. Scientists look for the single theory that connects everything, this word is the single fact that connects everything together.
    • https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63072113 Russia's Vladimir Putin will hold a signing ceremony on Friday to annex four more areas of Ukraine after self-styled referendums condemned by Ukraine and the West as a sham. Russian-backed officials had earlier claimed the five-day exercise secured almost total popular support. So-called votes were held in Luhansk and Donetsk in the east, and in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south. The Russian president will make a major speech at the Kremlin. A stage has already been set up in Moscow's Red Square, with billboards proclaiming the four regions as part of Russia and a concert planned for the evening.  The event echoes Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, which also followed a discredited referendum and was heralded by a Kremlin signing followed by a presidential victory speech in parliament. That initial annexation has never been recognised by the vast majority of the international community, and nor will this.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the "pseudo-referendums" were worthless and did not change reality. "The territorial integrity of Ukraine will be restored. And our reaction to recognition of the results by Russia will be very harsh."  No independent monitoring of the Russian process took place and election officials were pictured going from door to door escorted by armed soldiers. "Tomorrow at 15:00 (12:00 GMT) in the St George Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace a signing ceremony will be held on incorporating the new territories into Russia," said spokesman Dmitry Peskov. Separate agreements will be signed with the two Russian-backed separatist leaders from the east and the two Russian-appointed officials from the south. As with Crimea, Russia's two houses of parliament will formally ratify the annexation treaties next week. The Russian president is expected to address to the upper house of parliament on 4 October, three days before his 70th birthday.  The US has said it will impose sanctions on Russia because of the staged referendums, while EU member states are considering an eighth round of measures, including sanctions on anyone involved in the votes.
    • ਨਾਮਧਾਰੀ ਠਾਕੁਰ ਦਲੀਪ ਸਿੰਘ  ਨਿਹੰਗ ਸਿੰਘਾਂ ਦੇ ਜੱਥੇਦਾਰ ਸਰਦਾਰ ਮੇਜਰ ਸਿੰਘ ਜੀ ਨਾਲ ਨੇ ਸਹਿਮਤ । VID-20220929-WA0000.mp4
    • You really are full of nonsense. The reason the Gujaratis came to Britain after being expelled from Africa was because they had British citizenship, no other reason. Many of them had to live in detention camps when they arrived! They did not uplift the image of Indians by selling saris and owning corner shops, something that Punjabis were doing where they were a majority anyway. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use