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

[Anonymous]

I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am 100 percent certain she's happy, because I somehow miraculously still parent despite having 5 kids. She's an A+ student with a blossoming social life and extracurriculars and even went on a solo trip with just DH and myself for her birthday. Often in the evenings with sit alone with just her and chat about life. Because again, it's a myth you can't find time to parent despite having many kids. Right now she's laughing in the front yard playing with 2 of her 4 siblings.

But I am not surprised, again, that the people with 1 or 2 kids think they know better than those of us with big families.

I grew up as one of six siblings and my DH and I have four kids, and I think you are being way too smug. Your oldest sounds like a classic oldest child, striving to succeed (she knows you love those A+ grades, because you tell other people about them) and looking for parental/adult validation (by being such a big help). I was that kid and don’t resent my parents one bit, because they didn’t let me take on a parental role. Be honest that you are definitely putting your pre-tween in a parental position on Saturday mornings - if you were up taking care of the baby, tge pre-tween would not be asking to do it.

Next kid in line, a boy, also helps all the time. Helped his younger brother with math homework the other night then played in the backyard with the toddler while I made dinner. Also A student and an athlete. We just somehow manage to inculcate helpful attitudes and achievement despite having five horribly neglected kids!

[Anonymous]

I realize that attitudes about raising accomplished kids are just a product of neoliberalism and the society in which we live, but this attitude is worth questioning.

My oldest has special needs and his younger siblings have given me so much needed perspective. My children are not products on which I expect a return. They are beings with souls.

Not even religious but the conservatives have a point. But I can’t support forcing anyone to have a kid, so it ends there for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

No, and low contact is the result of it. The existence of my younger sibling(and the typical unfair treatment associated with it) is a huge reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am 100 percent certain she's happy, because I somehow miraculously still parent despite having 5 kids. She's an A+ student with a blossoming social life and extracurriculars and even went on a solo trip with just DH and myself for her birthday. Often in the evenings with sit alone with just her and chat about life. Because again, it's a myth you can't find time to parent despite having many kids. Right now she's laughing in the front yard playing with 2 of her 4 siblings.

But I am not surprised, again, that the people with 1 or 2 kids think they know better than those of us with big families.

I grew up as one of six siblings and my DH and I have four kids, and I think you are being way too smug. Your oldest sounds like a classic oldest child, striving to succeed (she knows you love those A+ grades, because you tell other people about them) and looking for parental/adult validation (by being such a big help). I was that kid and don’t resent my parents one bit, because they didn’t let me take on a parental role. Be honest that you are definitely putting your pre-tween in a parental position on Saturday mornings - if you were up taking care of the baby, tge pre-tween would not be asking to do it.

Next kid in line, a boy, also helps all the time. Helped his younger brother with math homework the other night then played in the backyard with the toddler while I made dinner. Also A student and an athlete. We just somehow manage to inculcate helpful attitudes and achievement despite having five horribly neglected kids!

Sarcasm doesn’t work when you’re just telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

I feel like one of the things that’s always missed when people talk about the good old days and how now people are so busy because they are overwhelming their kids with intensive parenting is that so many of us are spending tons of time and resources on learning disabilities and mild SN that just weren’t diagnosed even 20 years ago. My oldest has ADHD and only after their diagnosis were two adults in our family diagnosed. No one took them to the psychiatrist once a month for meds or dealt with the IEP meetings or did the executive function coaching because they weren’t *that* bad. Well until one of them ended up unable to hold a job despite being smart enough and having the expensive education to get one.

I think one of the most amazing things about the current age of parenting is to identify these issues earlier and get help while it makes a difference. I don’t consider that intensive parenting even though it does take a lot of time.

[Anonymous]

I only wanted to be pregnant twice and so I have two children. I am not listening to this man to tell women how many children we should have.

I'm sure if he was the one pregnant and had to deliver he wouldn't have six.

I hate these types of articles.

[Anonymous]

Theresa Kachindamoto has 5 kids and is the chief of a 900k population district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realize that attitudes about raising accomplished kids are just a product of neoliberalism and the society in which we live, but this attitude is worth questioning.

My oldest has special needs and his younger siblings have given me so much needed perspective. My children are not products on which I expect a return. They are beings with souls.

Not even religious but the conservatives have a point. But I can’t support forcing anyone to have a kid, so it ends there for me.

What point?
Conservtives see humans as free market economic labor units, and oppose requiring the whole of civilization to help the infirm. Only people who earn the good graces of the conservative, by individually winning sympathy, usually by clan, race, or religion, are deserving of conservative charity.

[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?

I’m pretty sure tim and his wife had all their kids early…they didn’t keep going for an infinite number. Six isn’t sixteen.

That’s right. Because Tim and his ilk are total hypocrites and justified using birth control (NFP) when they deemed it necessary. But they want to deny that to others …

[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.

No that’s not quite right- if you are Catholic and married, you have to be *open* to having children. BC is prohibited, NFP is the standard, but you are supposed to prayerfully discern when and if you have another child. You might discern to have fewer children because of debilitating morning sickness, post partum depression, significant special needs, or because there are two meaningful, demanding careers between you and your spouse.

As a mother of 5, my problem with this article is that he describes the “ideal” family size as being a large one. Obviously there are beautiful families of all sizes. Normally I wouldn’t quibble too much with word choice, but I think he should have argued that big families can be wonderful too and that they offer a glimpse into the value of landing the helicopter.

Well NFP doesn’t really work so so much for “discerning.”

"Divining" is a more accurate term.

I'm open to having children, so I use condoms which God has the ability to bypass.

[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:

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.

No that’s not quite right- if you are Catholic and married, you have to be *open* to having children. BC is prohibited, NFP is the standard, but you are supposed to prayerfully discern when and if you have another child. You might discern to have fewer children because of debilitating morning sickness, post partum depression, significant special needs, or because there are two meaningful, demanding careers between you and your spouse.

As a mother of 5, my problem with this article is that he describes the “ideal” family size as being a large one. Obviously there are beautiful families of all sizes. Normally I wouldn’t quibble too much with word choice, but I think he should have argued that big families can be wonderful too and that they offer a glimpse into the value of landing the helicopter.

Well NFP doesn’t really work so so much for “discerning.”

"Divining" is a more accurate term.

I'm open to having children, so I use condoms which God has the ability to bypass.

I don’t think normies understand how very, very bizarre Catholic views on sex and birth control are … particularly the part where celibate, childless men get to decide what they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

My mother was “parented” by her older sister and I’m an only child and even that was a difficult sell for my dad.

Children should be children. Don’t have children to help you with other children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I go to a conservative Catholic Church with many families that have 5-10 kids. The moms are … way better than you think and are for the most part wonderful. They do not keep an eagle eye on their kids at all times, but did your mom? This kind of “attention” leads to really anxious and entitled kids. The hardcore catholic moms don’t do screens, that’s for sure.

What matters more than raw number is birth spacing. After the first kid or two, it’s important to slow down so that everybody has a chance to be the baby for a few years. I know a family (not at the church, actually — a doctor and a part time lawyer) that is expecting number 5; the oldest might not be seven yet. That looks rough on everybody to me.

You know families with 10 kids where none of the kids are being neglected? Babe, no. Anyone with 10 kids is 100% neglecting some kids.

And the trend with large families is to have them as close together as possible, btw. I do not know why, but every family I know with 4 or more kids has them all within like 7-8 years. Even the 3 kid families seem very big on small gaps which I just do not get. Maybe it's this idea that if you have them all at once, you will move through the phases more in lock step (ie not have a HS and a kindergartener at the same time)? I guess that makes sense for 2 kids but the idea of having 5 kids under age 10 sounds like hell on earth. And then imagine having 5 teenagers... at once. I just cannot.

Smaller spacing is happening due to waiting longer to have kids. 5 teenagers sounds fun for the teens imo