What constitutes a large family, in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

4+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Grew up lower middle class in the 80s in a family of two kids and I don’t think I knew a single family of three kids. It was all 1-2 kids.

[Anonymous]

My husband and I grew up with one sibling each but in the 90s we had four kids together. Now those kids are married with children. What happened with a 4-child family is that our holidays, birthdays, etc. now consist of 19 people before we start adding any others. Considering this exponential growth potential, 4 kids is a big family.

[Anonymous]

I want to agree with everyone and reflexively say 4 (I’m 3 of 4 myself) but now that I’m a mom of 3DC, I get “big family” comments and responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha so true. I also find this obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

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

That does not sound umc. That sounds upper class.

[Anonymous]

These days, 4+ kiss seems like a large family. 100 years ago, 4 kids would have been a small family. I’m one of 5 myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha so true. I also find this obnoxious.

You both are missing the point.People aren't having 3 kids to showcase wealth, but people that can afford to raise three kids generally have more money than those that don't.

[Anonymous]

I have 7 siblings and grew up in a Catholic neighborhood where big families were the norm. I don't think 3 kids is a "big family" by any standard.

Personally I think 5+ is more of a "big" family. Maybe 4 by today's standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 7 siblings and grew up in a Catholic neighborhood where big families were the norm. I don't think 3 kids is a "big family" by any standard.

Personally I think 5+ is more of a "big" family. Maybe 4 by today's standards.

5+ kids I mean, not total.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha so true. I also find this obnoxious.

You both are missing the point.People aren't having 3 kids to showcase wealth, but people that can afford to raise three kids generally have more money than those that don't.

This assumes people will have only as many children as they can afford and no more or less.

Lots of wealthy people do not want three kids and don't have them. Lots of not wealthy people have 3 or more kids even though it strains finances. Claiming people are having a third kid because "they can afford it" is a weird way of framing the decision to have a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha so true. I also find this obnoxious.

You both are missing the point.People aren't having 3 kids to showcase wealth, but people that can afford to raise three kids generally have more money than those that don't.

This assumes people will have only as many children as they can afford and no more or less.

Lots of wealthy people do not want three kids and don't have them. Lots of not wealthy people have 3 or more kids even though it strains finances. Claiming people are having a third kid because "they can afford it" is a weird way of framing the decision to have a child.

It also highlights the degree to which having kids in the US is a capitalist choice because we do so little to support or help families. We make it very expensive to have children and provide a decent future for them. In a country with universal healthcare, free college and vocational training programs, and more of a social safety net regarding housing, unemployment, and old age, people could choose to have the number of kids they thought they could be good parents to. In the US, you could be amazing parents but simply not be able to afford additional kids because of the cost of healthcare, education, and your own elder care.

[Anonymous]

Three close in age seems to be popular with older working moms. I get it because you have a really short window to decide on the third.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha so true. I also find this obnoxious.

You both are missing the point.People aren't having 3 kids to showcase wealth, but people that can afford to raise three kids generally have more money than those that don't.

This assumes people will have only as many children as they can afford and no more or less.

Lots of wealthy people do not want three kids and don't have them. Lots of not wealthy people have 3 or more kids even though it strains finances. Claiming people are having a third kid because "they can afford it" is a weird way of framing the decision to have a child.

It also highlights the degree to which having kids in the US is a capitalist choice because we do so little to support or help families. We make it very expensive to have children and provide a decent future for them. In a country with universal healthcare, free college and vocational training programs, and more of a social safety net regarding housing, unemployment, and old age, people could choose to have the number of kids they thought they could be good parents to. In the US, you could be amazing parents but simply not be able to afford additional kids because of the cost of healthcare, education, and your own elder care.

Except we see lower birth rates in the countries you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These days, 4+ kiss seems like a large family. 100 years ago, 4 kids would have been a small family. I’m one of 5 myself.

Yes, but childhood mortality was higher then. You had spares, and you needed offspring to help work in the family business.