Talk to me about having a large family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4 doesn't seem large to me because I grew up in a family more than twice that size.

I personally don't look back fondly on my childhood but that's because my parents weren't equipped to handle so many kids. It was a huge stressor, we have long family histories of depression, anxiety, and mental illness, and we are all damaged goods because of that reality.

But that's just my tale.

Do you have kids? How many?

(Just curious. I know so many people from big families who only have 1 or 2 kids.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My dad was unhappy in a large family. He never said as much outright, but it’s pretty clear from a lifetime of being close to him. I’m not an only child because of fertility or health or financial issues. Two of his siblings each have four children and would have had more if finances allowed. The rest are either parents of an only or childfree. I guess my point is that you never know and can’t know how family size will affect your children, so make your own choices. I had a joyful childhood and never had a problem, for example, making friends, sharing a dorm room, feeling lonely, etc. It could have easily gone quite the other way, obviously. No number of children is superior to any other number of children. It’s like arguing over what we find attractive in a partner. These preferences and aspirations aren’t made in a vacuum.

This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more.
I had one sibling growing up and hated it. I have 7. There are always posters saying how they grew up in big families and would never have that many. It works both ways. Enjoy the family you have!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is this obsession with parental 1:1 time? I grew up as one of two and don’t remember ever really having 1:1 time with a parent, nor did I really want or need it. My sibling and I were close to my parents and knew we could go to them if we needed or wanted to talk about something, but we did not in any way crave hours of (or any) 1:1 time with a parent. Honestly that seems really weird and overbearing. We were busy playing together, with friends, or independently. We didn’t want to hang out all that much with mom or dad, and we were actually a very close and loving family.

+1
I think it’s the same poster over and over and it’s not normal. I have high schoolers and I don’t think they want to spend hours and hours with mom and dad. They have their own things going on. We have a great relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

You seem slow so I’ve bolded the examples where you have 1:1 time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

OMG. What are you doing during all this 1:1 time?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dad was unhappy in a large family. He never said as much outright, but it’s pretty clear from a lifetime of being close to him. I’m not an only child because of fertility or health or financial issues. Two of his siblings each have four children and would have had more if finances allowed. The rest are either parents of an only or childfree. I guess my point is that you never know and can’t know how family size will affect your children, so make your own choices. I had a joyful childhood and never had a problem, for example, making friends, sharing a dorm room, feeling lonely, etc. It could have easily gone quite the other way, obviously. No number of children is superior to any other number of children. It’s like arguing over what we find attractive in a partner. These preferences and aspirations aren’t made in a vacuum.

This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more.
I had one sibling growing up and hated it. I have 7. There are always posters saying how they grew up in big families and would never have that many. It works both ways. Enjoy the family you have!

OP - I was also pretty lonely. Lots of time spent alone I’m my room. I’m already envious of the bond my daughters have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

OMG. What are you doing during all this 1:1 time?!

NP. I have two kids. 1:1 time is time to do activities that one child wants to do but the other doesn't. For example my 5 year old likes when we have time to build huge structures, play music duets, and do complicated crafts together. My 2 year old likes the sensory bin, watching me draw the the same thing over and over, I'm-gonna-get-you games, and leafing randomly through Richard Scarry books.

1:1 time is also time where they get undivided attention. With the oldest one, I lie in bed and we talk about the highlights of our day -- happiest, saddest, funniest, silly moments. I tell stories from my childhood. Inevitably he brings up things that were emotional at school or with friends and we talk about them. I heard someone say once that bedtime is when you see your children's souls, and that seems about right. There's something about curling up together in the dark that invites him to share things he wouldn't otherwise. Just being present and having the time to listen helps us connect.

A third would lead to more "group" herding and I'm not sure how it would change our relationships. My friend who has 3 certainly went through a rocky time adding the 3rd, and she is in a Scandanavian country where both parents get a year off from work. I think the middle child was upset for about a year and the marriage struggled.

My mom is from a family with 9 kids. 1:1 parental attention for them was if my grandfather took one on his bike to school, or my grandmother gave an individual spanking. I think a large family works best when there is extended family around and a somewhat group-centered culture or religious ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is this obsession with parental 1:1 time? I grew up as one of two and don’t remember ever really having 1:1 time with a parent, nor did I really want or need it. My sibling and I were close to my parents and knew we could go to them if we needed or wanted to talk about something, but we did not in any way crave hours of (or any) 1:1 time with a parent. Honestly that seems really weird and overbearing. We were busy playing together, with friends, or independently. We didn’t want to hang out all that much with mom or dad, and we were actually a very close and loving family.

+1
I think it’s the same poster over and over and it’s not normal. I have high schoolers and I don’t think they want to spend hours and hours with mom and dad. They have their own things going on. We have a great relationship.

Do you have 9 kids? did you grow up in a family that large? It's not 1:1 time as in the parent standing over you, but literally time to think about and attend to the child's needs. With a truly large family, that time simply doesn't exist to anywhere near approaching smaller families. The research bears out that large families mean less parental investment per child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My dad was unhappy in a large family. He never said as much outright, but it’s pretty clear from a lifetime of being close to him. I’m not an only child because of fertility or health or financial issues. Two of his siblings each have four children and would have had more if finances allowed. The rest are either parents of an only or childfree. I guess my point is that you never know and can’t know how family size will affect your children, so make your own choices. I had a joyful childhood and never had a problem, for example, making friends, sharing a dorm room, feeling lonely, etc. It could have easily gone quite the other way, obviously. No number of children is superior to any other number of children. It’s like arguing over what we find attractive in a partner. These preferences and aspirations aren’t made in a vacuum.

This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more.
I had one sibling growing up and hated it. I have 7. There are always posters saying how they grew up in big families and would never have that many. It works both ways. Enjoy the family you have!

OP - I was also pretty lonely. Lots of time spent alone I’m my room. I’m already envious of the bond my daughters have.

My sister and I hated each other growing up and she was always the favored child because she was more like them. Not all siblings get along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

OMG. What are you doing during all this 1:1 time?!

We go on activities, walks, sports, go out to eat, movies, travel. Hang out at home - games, video games, read, cook, get music concerts from child. Why have a child if you are not willing to spend that time with them? We have so many selfish people in the world and it starts out with their childhoods.

Likewise, I feel strongly parents should pay for college if they can afford it. Much easier to do with 2 vs.4/5/6+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

OMG. What are you doing during all this 1:1 time?!

NP. I have two kids. 1:1 time is time to do activities that one child wants to do but the other doesn't. For example my 5 year old likes when we have time to build huge structures, play music duets, and do complicated crafts together. My 2 year old likes the sensory bin, watching me draw the the same thing over and over, I'm-gonna-get-you games, and leafing randomly through Richard Scarry books.

1:1 time is also time where they get undivided attention. With the oldest one, I lie in bed and we talk about the highlights of our day -- happiest, saddest, funniest, silly moments. I tell stories from my childhood. Inevitably he brings up things that were emotional at school or with friends and we talk about them. I heard someone say once that bedtime is when you see your children's souls, and that seems about right. There's something about curling up together in the dark that invites him to share things he wouldn't otherwise. Just being present and having the time to listen helps us connect.

A third would lead to more "group" herding and I'm not sure how it would change our relationships. My friend who has 3 certainly went through a rocky time adding the 3rd, and she is in a Scandanavian country where both parents get a year off from work. I think the middle child was upset for about a year and the marriage struggled.

My mom is from a family with 9 kids. 1:1 parental attention for them was if my grandfather took one on his bike to school, or my grandmother gave an individual spanking. I think a large family works best when there is extended family around and a somewhat group-centered culture or religious ideology.

If you are able to have 1:1 time with two kids, you can also with three. Three isn’t some magical button where it becomes herding. At some point, the oldest will be in school and you’ll have individual time with the second while the baby naps or whatever. If you are the type of parent that carved out individual time with two, you can do it with three. You may feel like you personally are at your limit, which is cool, but others aren’t. Three didn’t phase our marriage at all.

And, again, OP is asking about 4, not 14. Or 9. Side note - every time this topic comes up there are several comments from posters whose parents grew up in a family of 9-15, in a completely different generation. I can never figure out how it’s relevant other than to bash large families. Do you think the grandmother who only spent 1:1 time when she gave spankings would have been carving out time to “connect” even if she had fewer children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9 kids in my family. You basically don't get to develop a deep parenting relationship with each individual kid. There are other benefits for the kids (independence, fun, family belonginess) but a lot fewer parental resources for each one.

I think 4 kids is really the max if you want to be close to your lids.

Based on your one experience. It really depends on financial situation; what you can hire out. The temperament of your children. So many things.
We have hashed and rehashed the really large families on this board and had all the haters come out. OP is talking about four here, not fourteen.

How many people can have 4+ kids and still afford to "hire out" to a significant degree? Also hiring out doesn't really solve the issue of individualized attention. My family had paid help, and they couldn't really pay attention to individual kids either.

Lots of people in this area can afford it. I’m a SAHM to more than four, and we hire stuff out. I personally know 6-7 others in the same situation although it’s not representative given my husband is in a high paying job.
Just because you can’t fathom it, or don’t like it, doesn’t mean it can’t work.

you can't hire out parental 1:1 time with the kids. If you have 4 under 8 to put to bed, everyone is getting 1 bedtime story all together.

You seem really rigid about this 1:1 time. There are two parents. So one parent could take two kids each. Or one parent could take three and the other child gets alone time. Or maybe two kids are older and don’t want stories read to them, and each parent takes one of the younger kids. Or - gasp! - they all do bedtime together and have great memories all cuddle up together. All of these options are great.

right - you don't care about 1:1 time. Other parents find it essential.

OMG. What are you doing during all this 1:1 time?!

We go on activities, walks, sports, go out to eat, movies, travel. Hang out at home - games, video games, read, cook, get music concerts from child. Why have a child if you are not willing to spend that time with them? We have so many selfish people in the world and it starts out with their childhoods.

Likewise, I feel strongly parents should pay for college if they can afford it. Much easier to do with 2 vs.4/5/6+.

You can do all those things having more kids. Should people only have one child because everything must be 1:1 in your world? You shouldn’t have two because it takes away time from the first.
It’s good to come out of your bubble and realize other people have different preferences.

[Anonymous]

I have found I get a lot more 1:1 time with each kid since I had the third. Often, I will be doing something with one (reading, studying, listening to music/performance/creative endeavor, talking, etc.) while the other two play, interact, or talk. This rotates regularly so that I am easily able to meaningfully engage with each on a regular basis. Much more often than I did when there were two. They also each get 1:1 time every night at bedtime. We’re done having kids so don’t want a fourth, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how great it is with three.

[Anonymous]

OP, I guess you didn’t get the memo. DCUM despises anyone with more than two kids. It’s simply unacceptable to veer off the two-kid path. Sorry.