What constitutes a large family, in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

3+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4+ kids. I have 3 kids and it seems pretty standard for UMC families. Every house on my culdesac has 3 kids.

+1

[Anonymous]

3+ kids

[Anonymous]

3+

Can't road trip in a regular car, need 2 hotel rooms, don't fit in a standard restaurant booth. The world is designed for families of 4 or less people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3+

Can't road trip in a regular car, need 2 hotel rooms, don't fit in a standard restaurant booth. The world is designed for families of 4 or less people.

+1

[Anonymous]

We live in a neighborhood with lots of families with 4 kids, so that seems more normal. I’d say 5+ would be big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:3+

Can't road trip in a regular car, need 2 hotel rooms, don't fit in a standard restaurant booth. The world is designed for families of 4 or less people.

Based on my personal feelings, I agree with this. Based on just looking around and seeing what’s common, I’d say 4 or more children. 3 kids just slides in as “normal.”

[Anonymous]

4+ kids

[Anonymous]

I’d say 3+ kids.

[Anonymous]

4 or more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point I consider 3+ kids large. When I was young it was 4+. But I think as parenting standards have risen to expect more involved, intensive parenting, 3 kids now taxes the ability of parents to meet those standards in a way it didn't back in the 80s and 90s.

I know so many 1 or 2 kid families now. It's the vast majority of families I know (2 is most common but I know a LOT of onlies, likely because I am in a field where many women marry and start families later). This also makes the 3 kid families seem so much bigger than they used to. The third child adds an element of noise and (for lack of a better word) chaos that does not exist with most of the families I know.

Sort of the opposite! I didn't know a single family that had more than 2 kids when I was growing up (I was born in the 80s). I have tons of cousins and they all only had one sibling each.

Now 3 seems to be standard for those who can afford it. Everyone seems to have either no kids or 3 kids.

Definitely agree with this. I grew up in a very wealthy area in New York City and was born in the 80s and it was so rare for a family to have more than two kids. Now all of my peers from the area seem to be having three. It’s definitely a class thing.

[Anonymous]

9 kids

[Anonymous]

6+ kids

[Anonymous]

1 or 2 kids is small, 3 is medium and anything 4+ is large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point I consider 3+ kids large. When I was young it was 4+. But I think as parenting standards have risen to expect more involved, intensive parenting, 3 kids now taxes the ability of parents to meet those standards in a way it didn't back in the 80s and 90s.

I know so many 1 or 2 kid families now. It's the vast majority of families I know (2 is most common but I know a LOT of onlies, likely because I am in a field where many women marry and start families later). This also makes the 3 kid families seem so much bigger than they used to. The third child adds an element of noise and (for lack of a better word) chaos that does not exist with most of the families I know.

Sort of the opposite! I didn't know a single family that had more than 2 kids when I was growing up (I was born in the 80s). I have tons of cousins and they all only had one sibling each.

Now 3 seems to be standard for those who can afford it. Everyone seems to have either no kids or 3 kids.

The new most obnoxious comment on DCUM is people who view having 3 or more kids as a signifier of wealth and class. What a stupid reason to have more kids.

I can afford to have a goat and yet I don't because who wants a goat? I certainly don't walk around explaining to people that it makes sense for me to have a goat because, after all, I can afford it.