Tim Carney in the Post: The Ideal Number of Kids is Four (at a minimum)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

[Anonymous]

Our neighbors have 5 kids under the age of 10 and the amount of neglect we've seen is insane. A 10 year old should not be in charge of younger children. Also they keep trying to pawn a kid or two off on us when their other children have activities. "Oh, Larla and Carla have soccer games at the exact same time, but Darla has one 45 minutes later. Can you watch her until her friend's family comes to pick her up in half an hour? Thanks!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Carney believes *his wife* was religiously obgligated not to use birth control get pregnant as often as possible, starting on their wedding night. Carney’s entire take on this is based on a fundamentalist belief that controlling fertility is sinful. Everything he says relates to that. Nothing he says relates to women choosing the type of family that works for them. He is against that. Literally against condoms and all forms of birth control. Do you get it now?

Yes. I’m Catholic and am pretty familiar with this concept.
People use NFP if they don’t want children, and it isn’t uncommon even for married people to practice continence for periods of time either. There are also a lot of people who are not called into marriage.

It’s different than living a secular life where you don’t really have a place in your community if you don’t get married and have children (although that’s changing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

I will say, as a Catholic, this is one of the reasons that Catholics should be overly accepting and accommodating of gay people in our communities. You need to have people in your community who are not breeders!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the second oldest of 5. My older sibling has 3 kids, I have 4, the third sibling has 4 and the two youngest aren’t married yet. Seems like the people who are thinking large families are bad had bad parents, which can occur in any size family. Was I responsible for helping watch my siblings? Sure. Was it overwhelming? No. It was expected that we helped out in our family. I will say, when my parents wanted to do fun things they would pay us for babysitting (think- if my mom needed to take a younger sibling to the doctors office, I was expected to babysit other kids. If my parents were doing date night I would get paid to babysit)

My folks weren’t rich either. My mom stayed home and my dad was in education. We didn’t take lavish vacations. We were able to do all the basic activities though (sports, music) though I guess not insane levels of travel sports. It never occurred to me to think me being able to play more travel sports and maybe getting to go to a third tier university to play sports should have been prioritized over my siblings existence.

My own (4) kids are 6 to newborn and while we do have financial resources we obviously will need to ration time. That means our kids will not be able to do all sorts of activities. If they show talent or inclination in a specific area we will obviously try to develop that but within reason. My kids are highly unlikely to be professional athletes based on the genetics they received so it’s weird to prioritize the insanely intense parenting culture in the DC to them having siblings.

Will they be required to help out around the house? Of course. Will they have responsibilities to each other? Again, of course. I enjoyed and was proud growing up with a family identity that we were the “X’s” and this is how we did things.

I don’t think the fact that you all have lots of kids proves that you had a happy childhood. How religious are you?

Well, there’s a constant refrain that older kids don’t have lots of kids cause being an older child in a big family is miserable. At least in my family the older children have had decent sized families.

But can I ‘prove’ my other siblings had happy childhoods? No. I know I did. I’ve never heard much grumbling from my siblings so I assume they did as well, or at least non-miserable childhoods.

Again, I think this is much more about the parents rather than the number of kids. I get that there are parents of two who don’t have the capability to have more than two. I don’t know why they project that on others. And I’m sure some who have more than 2 share that incompetence and their children are miserable. It’s just not my experience having grown up in a big family.

Sure, of course it’s about the parents. There are no doubt some parents out there with the personality, resources, and energy to be good parents to 4-5 kids.

The problem with Carney is that he is an orthodox Catholic and he thinks women should be COMPELLED to have as many kids as their bodies can handle. He doesn’t believe that women should make a choice based on their own assessment of their skills and resources and strength of their marriage. He thinks they HAVE to do it. And he doesn’t stop at 4. If a woman gets married at 21 she’s gonna be getting up to 6 at least, maybe 9 or 10.

This is why, despite my wounds of being in a large family, I don’t blame my mom. She was pressured into it by her religion.

DP. Philosophically I don’t care how many people anyone “thinks” other people should have. It’s a personal decision. I do disagree with the rampant posts on dcum against parents who choose to have more than 2 kids. These posters arrogantly think that because they could only provide their definition of ideal attention and resources to two kids, therefore nobody else can handle more than 2 kids. I’m one of the previous posters who has 2 kids but grew up as 1 of 4. I had a great childhood and we were all high achieving students and are now successful adults with our own families. It depends on family resources and parental dedication. It’s a function of parents and socioeconomic factors more than number of kids.

I’m not talking about families of 11 children. I’m talking about normal mid size and entry level larger families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

I’m one of six and we are reasonably close as adults. But there is no question there was some neglect and as adults we have all had to grapple with that. I know very few kids raised in large families who chose that path themselves, including none of my siblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

I’m a daycare, they split the kids up by age groups, so it’s easier to manage 8 preschoolers than it would to manage several kids of different ages.

And this Tim Carney should try going through even 1 pregnancy and childbirth before he prescribes how many children a woman should have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

My bad--they have 2 WOHP, not WOHMs. But yes they are unusual in that they're looking for random adults to care for them. It gets discussed at every neighborhood block party. Half the families complain that kid x and kid y are always at their house. Those younger kids are never at their own home and parents don't seem to notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Carney believes *his wife* was religiously obgligated not to use birth control get pregnant as often as possible, starting on their wedding night. Carney’s entire take on this is based on a fundamentalist belief that controlling fertility is sinful. Everything he says relates to that. Nothing he says relates to women choosing the type of family that works for them. He is against that. Literally against condoms and all forms of birth control. Do you get it now?

Yes. I’m Catholic and am pretty familiar with this concept.
People use NFP if they don’t want children, and it isn’t uncommon even for married people to practice continence for periods of time either. There are also a lot of people who are not called into marriage.

It’s different than living a secular life where you don’t really have a place in your community if you don’t get married and have children (although that’s changing).

NFP is a) not reliable and b) not supposed to be used to limit family size based on the woman’s preference not to be pregant/have another baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

Reading comprehension fail. They are not Greek orthodox, they are orthodox Catholics.

PP used the term "neighbors "as well as the term "who both WOHM." Plural. Two heterosexual couples. Not a lesbian couple.

Maybe that Catholic school education hasn't served you so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

+1

I could absolutely do it. I don’t think it is very hard to stay home with kids and I am very involved. 4 older kids would be much harder because they have activities and need to be in different places at different times. That would require me to outsource some of it.

Regardless, this guy is bonkers and no one should be bragging that their child is parentified like some in this discussion.