If you're from a big family, 4 + kids do you have or want a big family yourself?

[Anonymous]

My mom was one of ten. She had two kids and advised my sibling and I not to have more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotally, I think the desire to have a big family also depends on whether you were one of the oldest or youngest. My parents both came from families of 5. All of the older kids were adamant about not having more than two. The younger ones wanted more -- but more like 3-4, not 5+. Same with DH's family. The older ones remember more of the drudgery and responsibility of having to watch younger kids, whereas the younger kids remember how fun it was with more people.

[Anonymous]

There's a big difference between 3 kids vs 4-5+ kids- not only in terms of material resources but also parental attention. More importantly, the larger the number of children, the higher the potential that the oldest kids become second parents to the youngest kids. I'm the oldest and female of 6 kids. No surprise, I ended up helping my parents a lot with my younger siblings. By their own admission, they couldn't have done it without me (not a good thing, btw).

I have a peer relationship with siblings 2-3 and a parental relationship with siblings 4-6.

I had one child late in life (40s). Sibling 2 doesn't have bio children but he does have 2 step children (he came into their lives when they were in ms). Sibling 3 has 2 kids (different marriages). Siblings 4 has 2 kids (she wanted more but spouse was adamant about stopping at 2). Siblings 5 and 6 both have 4 children. Not surprisingly, the siblings who never had to deal with being pseudo parents end up having the most kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between 3 kids vs 4-5+ kids- not only in terms of material resources but also parental attention. More importantly, the larger the number of children, the higher the potential that the oldest kids become second parents to the youngest kids. I'm the oldest and female of 6 kids. No surprise, I ended up helping my parents a lot with my younger siblings. By their own admission, they couldn't have done it without me (not a good thing, btw).

I have a peer relationship with siblings 2-3 and a parental relationship with siblings 4-6.

I had one child late in life (40s). Sibling 2 doesn't have bio children but he does have 2 step children (he came into their lives when they were in ms). Sibling 3 has 2 kids (different marriages). Siblings 4 has 2 kids (she wanted more but spouse was adamant about stopping at 2). Siblings 5 and 6 both have 4 children. Not surprisingly, the siblings who never had to deal with being pseudo parents end up having the most kids.

Not from a big family, but had several neighbors that were. Their experience is similar to yours - the oldest kids that took care of the younger kids have 0-2 kids, the younger kids have 4+!

[Anonymous]

If I could financially (I can emotionally support it), I would have 4. I am 1 of 5. I am the middle child. I am very close to my siblings. My two children are incredibly close. I think sibling relationships ares some of the best relationships there are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between 3 kids vs 4-5+ kids- not only in terms of material resources but also parental attention. More importantly, the larger the number of children, the higher the potential that the oldest kids become second parents to the youngest kids. I'm the oldest and female of 6 kids. No surprise, I ended up helping my parents a lot with my younger siblings. By their own admission, they couldn't have done it without me (not a good thing, btw).

I have a peer relationship with siblings 2-3 and a parental relationship with siblings 4-6.

I had one child late in life (40s). Sibling 2 doesn't have bio children but he does have 2 step children (he came into their lives when they were in ms). Sibling 3 has 2 kids (different marriages). Siblings 4 has 2 kids (she wanted more but spouse was adamant about stopping at 2). Siblings 5 and 6 both have 4 children. Not surprisingly, the siblings who never had to deal with being pseudo parents end up having the most kids.

Not from a big family, but had several neighbors that were. Their experience is similar to yours - the oldest kids that took care of the younger kids have 0-2 kids, the younger kids have 4+!

I am an older kid(middle) who took care of the youngest. We are 8 years apart. He is my baby. I would love to have 4. In my case however, there was no obligation to take care of him. He had a full time babysitter. I wanted to.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in Boston - 1 of 5 kids. In the 60s and 70s there were tons of big Catholic families. Anecdotally, most of the kids we grew up with had smaller families, including all of my siblings. Lots of us felt that our parents didn't do a good job with big families, to put it mildly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between 3 kids vs 4-5+ kids- not only in terms of material resources but also parental attention. More importantly, the larger the number of children, the higher the potential that the oldest kids become second parents to the youngest kids. I'm the oldest and female of 6 kids. No surprise, I ended up helping my parents a lot with my younger siblings. By their own admission, they couldn't have done it without me (not a good thing, btw).

I have a peer relationship with siblings 2-3 and a parental relationship with siblings 4-6.

I had one child late in life (40s). Sibling 2 doesn't have bio children but he does have 2 step children (he came into their lives when they were in ms). Sibling 3 has 2 kids (different marriages). Siblings 4 has 2 kids (she wanted more but spouse was adamant about stopping at 2). Siblings 5 and 6 both have 4 children. Not surprisingly, the siblings who never had to deal with being pseudo parents end up having the most kids.

Not from a big family, but had several neighbors that were. Their experience is similar to yours - the oldest kids that took care of the younger kids have 0-2 kids, the younger kids have 4+!

My, now estranged, biological father is the youngest of 5. He doesn’t even understand the concept of parenting. If he had more money, he would probably have many kids, not understanding how far his responsibilities go.

[Anonymous]

I always wanted 3-4 kids, but infant loss and secondary infertility made that an impossible dream.

[Anonymous]

I am one of five. I loved growing up in a big family. I would have loved to have 3-5 kids, but we ended up with 2 for various reasons.
One of my siblings has 4 kids.

[Anonymous]

I am the youngest of 5. Where I'm from that was just average, many of my friends had even more siblings. Some are big happy families, some are not. I do like having multiple siblings even though we are not particularly close. I have 2 kids, would have had 3 had I started earlier.

[Anonymous]

I was 1 of 4. I had a pretty tough childhood but my siblings and my love for them actually helped me get through it and made me a big believer in the idea that a big family = a big support system (if cultivated).

I always wanted a big family. I have three and am done. For many reasons, DH is done, we have reached our acceptable level of chaos, and pregnancies are extraordinarily difficult for me. Made it easy. Going for three was a very tough decision, it was mostly my desire for a big family that pushed us over the edge (though it was a fully unified and mutual decision).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between 3 kids vs 4-5+ kids- not only in terms of material resources but also parental attention. More importantly, the larger the number of children, the higher the potential that the oldest kids become second parents to the youngest kids. I'm the oldest and female of 6 kids. No surprise, I ended up helping my parents a lot with my younger siblings. By their own admission, they couldn't have done it without me (not a good thing, btw).

I have a peer relationship with siblings 2-3 and a parental relationship with siblings 4-6.

I had one child late in life (40s). Sibling 2 doesn't have bio children but he does have 2 step children (he came into their lives when they were in ms). Sibling 3 has 2 kids (different marriages). Siblings 4 has 2 kids (she wanted more but spouse was adamant about stopping at 2). Siblings 5 and 6 both have 4 children. Not surprisingly, the siblings who never had to deal with being pseudo parents end up having the most kids.

I'm the immediate pp who had the crappy childhood. I am also a dreaded 'oldest female child' and did a lot of pseudo parenting. I still wanted and got myself a big family (though not 4). I think people who generalize this kind of stuff are misguided. Every individual human is different and can respond to similar situations in vastly different ways.

[Anonymous]

The OP hit it in the first paragraph. Money.

I grew up one of five and we stopped at two because of finances.

On the other hand, my Mom said that she would have had fewer than five if the Pope allowed birth control.

[Anonymous]

I am in a similar boat to the OP. I'm 3rd of 4. We had one kid and would consider having a second, but no more than that. I have never wanted a big family and actively resent how neglectful my parents were during my childhood. They were not emotionally supportive and didn't really seem to view me as an individual person, but just one of a crowd of people who always seemed to need more than they had to give. I actually think the problem was more that they had kids too young and before they had dealt with any of their childhood trauma. I think big families can be great. Though I'm still not sure being a middle child in a big family will ever feel great. You just get lost so easily. I think if you have a big family, you need to be very intentional about how you support your kids individually. I think it's really hard. Kudos to those who pull it off, but it's just not for me.