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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It’s all very personality based. I didn’t really care to interact with my siblings that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In what world does 5 teenagers sound fun for anyone, parents or kids?

[Anonymous]

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

So?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many many factors impact how hard or difficult parenting is. But undoubtedly, the difficulty goes up with the number of children. Sure, older kids help out a bit with younger kids and they do play together, but not really. Kids close in age play together, but not kids with a five, 10 year age gap. Plus there is no way of getting around the mental load, and the schedules, and the paperwork, and the finances, and the emotional issues (the older kids can't manage that for the younger ones!), and the sports equipment, and practices, and games etc. etc. of. having five kids. It's harder, no doubt.

But moms of many kids should just own it. You wanted a big family and you have it! There are a lot of benefits of having many kids, but being easier is NOT one of them, so stop trying to make that argument.

Children with 5-10 year age gaps stilly play with each other!! It has many benefits. See Montessori method.

I'm sure some of them do. My 13-year old views my 5-year old as little more than a talking armchair. Nothing in common at all.

[Anonymous]

A good friend of mine had three kids, all of them six years apart. So, the kids have little interaction (at least the oldest and the youngest really don't) but the parents don't seem unduly stressed by having three. You trade "always having a playmate" for the kids for parental sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

I mean, I know this is an anonymous forum, but aren’t you embarrassed to delve into a theology and a culture that you clearly know NOTHING about?

[Anonymous]

I skimmed some pages on this thread and see people claim that 4+ kids = necessary neglect.

What does that mean? You can easily have 4+ kids who are fed, clothed, bathed, literate, social, up to date on vaccines, etc. Are we talking about “emotional neglect”?

I also see lots of people saying the oldest kid “raises” the youngest, but not any description of what that means. Making meals? Laundry? School pickup? Registering younger siblings for sports/camps? Managing younger sibling’s healthcare appointments?

It’s gotta be more than just playing with younger siblings, right? If my older kid plays with her younger sibling, that’s not “parenting.” Just like nannies/babysitters aren’t “raising” our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

I mean, I know this is an anonymous forum, but aren’t you embarrassed to delve into a theology and a culture that you clearly know NOTHING about?

I was raised Catholic. Confirmed and everything. Most of my family is still Catholic. One of 7 here. Go ahead and try to challenge my bona fides.

[Anonymous]

Why does WaPo publish trash like this?

Next, they’ll have some crap that women are happier when they lose health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Some people absolutely have kids because religion says so. Are you not familiar with the Quiverfull movement? Some people take "go forth and multiply" literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

None of what you wrote relates to Catholicism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

We're talking about Catholics and people who are extremely family-oriented who marry early. They aren't clustering the kids because they waited too long to have kids. They are clustering them because they are trying to fit in 5-10 kids before the age of 35. If you believe you have some kind of divine dictate to have as many kids as possible, then even if you get married right out of college, you need to start cranking out a kid every other year.

Especially because the people who think like this also often buy into a lot of myths about female fertility (some of them are terrified about "having" to have kids over the age of 35, and are shocked by people like me who have all their kids past 35). They think older moms are gross and that their kids all have genetic disorders. Which is why people like Tim Carney and his wife magically stop having children (meaning, discover birth control for the first time) in they mid-30s. But they think it's immoral for a 20-something woman to use BC to avoid having children until her 30s because she wants to focus on career or doesn't personally feel ready to be a mom.

It's an entire lifestyle centered on biblical dictates and has little or nothing to do with doing what is best for kids or mothers. It's about religion and politics, not people.

This is so weirdly backward. People don't have kids because religion says so. Religion says to have kids because there are no children of people who don't have kids.

Religion tells them they can’t use birth control or get an abortion so they do force pregnancy on woman.

[Anonymous]

The idea number of kids is the number of kids you want to have.

I make zero life decisions based on Wash Post opinion pieces.