In her recent article on the family size values of U. S. women, Blake repeats the warning that current low fertility may be transitory. Her caution is appropriate, and her data document some interesting aspects of pronatalist values. Nevertheless, there are several points in Blake's interpretation of these data that warrant comment. These will be considered, following the outline of her article. 1. Blake proposes that the increase in the two-child has been too rapid to represent real change in values and consequently attributes this increase to the effects of propaganda. Yet, as she acknowledges subsequently, the proportion favoring would be expected to increase rapidly with decreases in ideal family size, given the value that families should have at least children. Furthermore, the thesis that a sudden wave of propaganda has caused the declines in family size ideals seems plausible only when ideals are considered in isolation. Behavior patterns have been harbinger of this concentration at two for several decades. Parity progression ratios at the higher orders have declined rather consistently, even over the baby-boom cohorts. This seems to be an example of changes in vague cultural values lagging behind pragmatic adaptations in behavior. 2. Attention is called to remarkable for large families. Measurement problems aside, this discussion treats tolerance as if it were the primary force affecting fert-ility. This is curious perspective from one of the authors of the classic Social Structure and Fertility (Davis and Blake, 1956). It is easy to envision society in which virtually no one has more than children, and yet most would tolerate considerably larger families or even consider them ideal for others. In what way is tolerance for families of more than five children any less consistent with two-child than with three-child average family size preference? If normative constraint were the primary force, then we should have to explain why we see so little of the five-child family; and for that we would have to look beyond the ZPG movement of the last several years. 3. Further evidence is offered concerning the aversion to childlessness and the only child. This is, indeed, an important issue among factors relevant to future fertility trends, and the evidence for such norm is impressive. It seems unnecessary to imply further that those who said childless family was too small also meant that the one-child family was too small (p. 34), or to assume that since there was no religious differential, the Catholic responses to this question were more biased than the nonCatholic responses (p. 35). Some couples do, in fact, intentionally remain childless or have an only child, and there is strong evidence as well for the convergence of religious differentials in fertility (Westoff and Bumpass, 1973; Ryder, 1973). The complex issue at hand is whether, in spite of strong normative