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

    • The muslims cannot really do much in Leicester so they picked an easy target in Birmingham.  And they use what they are good at which is the numbers game.  I wish there was a community that breeds at higher rates than the muslims so that when the muslims try to get their numbers that they get out-numbered by another community.  As to your post that you mentioned about us Sikhs being outnumbered by mobs from other communities is that although we are quite a docile race, we have a knack of being extremely well organised and disciplined when the time comes and this bodes well when tackling an unruly mob particularly when being outnumbered.  It's like some kind of dormant gene that gets activated. You saw how quickly our community galvanised during 2011 riots, how quickly during the Kisaan protests. Like MrrSingh said we are a walking contradiction. 
    • From what happened last week it looked like the Hindus started it and the muslims ended up on top with what happened in Birmingham.  You're right apne don't really bully minorities, we are racist though. I can't blame the Hindus to some extent when it comes to suls. Their leadership let them down big time allowing huge amounts of suls to stay behind after partition. We've been fortunate to have an almost sul free Punjab, we only know what suls are like due to living next to them in the west. Punjab has the lowest percentage of suls in all of India. Suls like to push the boat to see what they can get away with and when they go too far like they did in Myanmar recently, the majority community finally has enough and retaliate. If they were a community that kept their head down and worked hard no one would hate them but they just try to push their way of life on all of us. They have conflicts with every other religion. 
    • One major factor for the Hindus are doing what they are doing in the UK is the political backing. The Hindu political leadership in India is comprised of Gujjus and it is the Gujju diaspora that is spearheads in countries abroad.  Even if we had this level of political backing, we Sikhs don't do what these two other communities do.  We are wired differently. Even if we were an overwhelming majority, we don't pick on other communities.  But for some reason, these two other communities love to use their numbers.  But as a neutral observer, it is interesting to see Muslims in the UK on the back foot.  The Hindu lobby groups seem to have turned the tables on the Muslim lobby groups.  The police and local authorities seem to protect Muslims but they look quite helpless.  Muslim lobby groups seem to infiltrate systems from a lower level but the Hindu lobby groups seem to be excercise from a higher level. So it seems to be top-down vs bottom-up.      
    • The thing is that Hindus will only give it the large when in a significant majority and as soon as the numbers turn against them they pretty much give up. The only exception I've seen to this is the Tamil Hindus of Sri Lanka. They also have appalling unity, did the Punjabi, Tamil, Nepali Hindus come to help the Gujaratis? Nope. Yet you had Arabs and Somalians helping the Indian muslims and Pakistanis.  Sikhs historically have always been a minority in India and even greater Punjab so we are used to fighting when the numbers are against us. Just look at how we retaliated against the muslims of UP who heavily outnumber us when they tried to take our land. Even in Hyderabad Sikhs have fought against Muslims who make up a huge amount of the city.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use