Something I don't understand about criticism of big families

[Anonymous]

I got married when I was 32, and I laugh when I remember my grandfather telling me later that year "start with one (kid), but don't be afraid to have nine." I think I told him that I didn't think nine was in the cards for me, even if we started right then. What I didn't tell him was that he was not a good spokesperson for having a big family, considering he left my grandmother for another woman after they had raised nine kids together. However, in fairness, grandpa would likely have been an asshat to grandma regardless of if they had 2 or 20 kids.

My dad was the oldest of the nine, and while there were some issues related to he and the oldest daughter being responsible for a lot of the child rearing, and one of the middle kids wound up feeling bullied, all the siblings grew up more or less normal and happy. 6 got married and had kids (most anyone had was four, and the only ones that had more than two were ones that didn't get a boy and girl on the first tries). The stories from their childhood are hysterical-the time uncle x borrowed uncle y's car to take uncle y's girlfriend out in a date, and then got in an accident; how my grandfather used to throw bread products at the dinner table to keep order; how my grandmother used to spend her evenings listening to the police scanner to find out if anyone got into trouble. Now my moms family is decidedly more toxic, go figure, and there were only four of them.

I'm one of two kids, and my husband is one of five. Having a giant family neither really appeals to me, or was ever in the cards for us. I am rocking our second and likely last baby as I type. Maybe if we had gotten started earlier, we'd've had another, but who knows. In any case, big families just don't seem that strange to me, nor do families without kids or folks that stay single etc. I just can't work up the energy to get so flipping angry about other peoples families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Open to children" is Catholic Speak. Why anyone today would cede over their uterus to the Catholic Church is beyond me. I think that bunch squandered their moral authority a long time ago by protecting pedophiles and allowing them to abuse more and more innocent children, not to mention their fundamental disprect of women. Encouraging women to bear children until their innards fall out is madness.

It's not just Catholic. There are several other religions that encourage "openness" to children.

Every world religion revered fertility as a gift from God until some Christian churches broke away in the 1930s, during the heyday of eugenics, when the intelligentsia wanted to restrict the fertility of the "unfit" and encourage the fertility of the "fit."

The term "birth control" originally meant controlling the births of the unfit, not individual women making the choice to control how often they gave birth.

Being "open to life" means the unitative and procreative aspects of sex cannot be separated, and that is still the teaching of orthodox Christians, Muslims, and Jews.

[Anonymous]

What are the stats on incest on breeder families?

[Anonymous]

"Every world religion revered fertility as a gift from God until some Christian churches broke away in the 1930s, during the heyday of eugenics, when the intelligentsia wanted to restrict the fertility of the "unfit" and encourage the fertility of the "fit."

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Open to children" is Catholic Speak. Why anyone today would cede over their uterus to the Catholic Church is beyond me. I think that bunch squandered their moral authority a long time ago by protecting pedophiles and allowing them to abuse more and more innocent children, not to mention their fundamental disprect of women. Encouraging women to bear children until their innards fall out is madness.

It's not just Catholic. There are several other religions that encourage "openness" to children.

indeed. for example, don't both hasidic jews and the amish have large families? mormons also tend to have large families?

[Anonymous]

" indeed. for example, don't both hasidic jews and the amish have large families? mormons also tend to have large families? "

What are the stats for abuse of women and children in these groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Open to children" is Catholic Speak. Why anyone today would cede over their uterus to the Catholic Church is beyond me. I think that bunch squandered their moral authority a long time ago by protecting pedophiles and allowing them to abuse more and more innocent children, not to mention their fundamental disprect of women. Encouraging women to bear children until their innards fall out is madness.

It's not just Catholic. There are several other religions that encourage "openness" to children.

indeed. for example, don't both hasidic jews and the amish have large families? mormons also tend to have large families?

Mormons and birth control are fascinating. A generation ago, birth control, even natural family plannin, was highly discouraged and their prophet went so far as to preach damnation to those who didn't let God decide. In the early 1990s, the church leadership came out with a statement essentially saying that number of children was between a husband, wife and God and discouraged church members from judgin each others decisions. So, now you still have some Mormons who have over three kids, even some that have 7 plus. But, most educated Mormons these days have 2-3. It's a great trend and hopefully will lead to more equality of the sexes in my religion! I grew up wih four siblings - my two kids are keeping me busy enough and we are DONE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
" indeed. for example, don't both hasidic jews and the amish have large families? mormons also tend to have large families? "

What are the stats for abuse of women and children in these groups?

Yes, those groups practice wife swapping and domestic violence.
And the women feel trapped. If they go to a shelter they betray their people.
the priest tells them to go home and be nice

[Anonymous]

I'm amazed at the prevalence of negative experiences among posters from large families. I was the oldest of 4 and never once felt like I wasn't a child anymore, or like I was raising my siblings. And my mom was a single mom for a couple of years too. I did "babysit" the younger ones a couple of times when I was 11 or 12 when my mom started dating again. But other than that my childhood was filled with playing, bickering, etc with all my siblings together. We always had enough kids for backyard sports and imaginary games. We all had chores and responsibilities to help run the house, but nothing onerous. I loved having lots of siblings, although maybe 4 kids isn't that large a family compared to some posters here. My husband is one of 5 and also liked his big family. We feel like we have a small family with only 3 kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
" indeed. for example, don't both hasidic jews and the amish have large families? mormons also tend to have large families? "

What are the stats for abuse of women and children in these groups?

and muslims, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm amazed at the prevalence of negative experiences among posters from large families. I was the oldest of 4 and never once felt like I wasn't a child anymore, or like I was raising my siblings. And my mom was a single mom for a couple of years too. I did "babysit" the younger ones a couple of times when I was 11 or 12 when my mom started dating again. But other than that my childhood was filled with playing, bickering, etc with all my siblings together. We always had enough kids for backyard sports and imaginary games. We all had chores and responsibilities to help run the house, but nothing onerous. I loved having lots of siblings, although maybe 4 kids isn't that large a family compared to some posters here. My husband is one of 5 and also liked his big family. We feel like we have a small family with only 3 kids!

It's not about YOU. Did you sleep though Stats 101?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You DID bring it on yourself!!! I really don't have any sympathy for anyone who has 4+ kids and can't seem to get a handle on them or their life. And all this bullshit about "being open to children" is getting on my last nerve. For most of human history, most children did not survive childhood. But now that we are all living into our 70's and 80's having that many children is just plain selfish.

I will give you the evil eye if you and your brood are in my way or your children are ill behaved and you are not doing a thing about it.

Something tells me when you are old and broke and wanting to draw social security and can't because the baby boomer generation sucked it dry by not saving and refusing to die and refusing to let their parents die at natural ages and staying alive way too long at tax payer expense...THEN I suspect you'll suddenly (much too late) see the wisdom behind having many children. You see, unlike the person you quoted, and the OP, you will have no one to care for you in your old age. Your children, should you maintain any type of relationship with them, will put you in the cheapest raisin ranch medicaid will pay for so as not to eat up their inheritance. OP will have 10 kids to rotate between, and in all likelihood will live a longer healthier life since there have been studies indicating people with more children tend to do so. Fewer children being born into the next generation also means fewer workers for the next generation...fewer doctors, nurses, CNA's, housekeepers, cooks....fewer of the kind of people you will depend on as you age. Think about it.

Nope. I'm 30 with two lovely DCs. But unlike OP and people with many children, we will be able to afford college for our two. We will be able to travel internationally with them (and will because we have family overseas), they will be able to participate in activities outside of school because we will have the ability to pay for them. Our older DC helps take care of our younger DC as much as a 4yo can and they have a great relationship. They will grow up having experienced a childhood free from the burden of raising their younger siblings. They have older cousins who they are very close to and who care for them. I will do everything in my power to make sure that my two have a great relationship with us as well as each other so get off your high horse, you know nothing about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: You DID bring it on yourself!!! I really don't have any sympathy for anyone who has 4+ kids and can't seem to get a handle on them or their life. And all this bullshit about "being open to children" is getting on my last nerve. For most of human history, most children did not survive childhood. But now that we are all living into our 70's and 80's having that many children is just plain selfish.

I will give you the evil eye if you and your brood are in my way or your children are ill behaved and you are not doing a thing about it.

Something tells me when you are old and broke and wanting to draw social security and can't because the baby boomer generation sucked it dry by not saving and refusing to die and refusing to let their parents die at natural ages and staying alive way too long at tax payer expense...THEN I suspect you'll suddenly (much too late) see the wisdom behind having many children. You see, unlike the person you quoted, and the OP, you will have no one to care for you in your old age. Your children, should you maintain any type of relationship with them, will put you in the cheapest raisin ranch medicaid will pay for so as not to eat up their inheritance. OP will have 10 kids to rotate between, and in all likelihood will live a longer healthier life since there have been studies indicating people with more children tend to do so. Fewer children being born into the next generation also means fewer workers for the next generation...fewer doctors, nurses, CNA's, housekeepers, cooks....fewer of the kind of people you will depend on as you age. Think about it.

Nope. I'm 30 with two lovely DCs. But unlike OP and people with many children, we will be able to afford college for our two. We will be able to travel internationally with them (and will because we have family overseas), they will be able to participate in activities outside of school because we will have the ability to pay for them. Our older DC helps take care of our younger DC as much as a 4yo can and they have a great relationship. They will grow up having experienced a childhood free from the burden of raising their younger siblings. They have older cousins who they are very close to and who care for them. I will do everything in my power to make sure that my two have a great relationship with us as well as each other so get off your high horse, you know nothing about me.

Honey, you're 30 and your oldest child is 4. You have a LOT of living and growing up to do. A lot! Things are perfect now, but just wait a few years. Just wait.

[Anonymous]

Something tells me when you are old and broke and wanting to draw social security and can't because the baby boomer generation sucked it dry by not saving and refusing to die and refusing to let their parents die at natural ages and staying alive way too long at tax payer expense...THEN I suspect you'll suddenly (much too late) see the wisdom behind having many children. You see, unlike the person you quoted, and the OP, you will have no one to care for you in your old age. Your children, should you maintain any type of relationship with them, will put you in the cheapest raisin ranch medicaid will pay for so as not to eat up their inheritance. OP will have 10 kids to rotate between, and in all likelihood will live a longer healthier life since there have been studies indicating people with more children tend to do so. Fewer children being born into the next generation also means fewer workers for the next generation...fewer doctors, nurses, CNA's, housekeepers, cooks....fewer of the kind of people you will depend on as you age. Think about it.

So basically, have more kids so someone will be able to take care of you when you're old? Procreation as an eldercare strategy?

Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inevitably, anytime there is a post about big families, several people bemoan the fate of the older kids, for having to "help raise" the younger kids.

Of all the criticisms of big families, I understand this one the least. What is so awful about changing the occasional diaper, helping feed or bathe or dress a little one, keeping an eye on a little guy, teaching them how to ride a bike or read a book? Haven't children always helped out with their siblings? Isn't that a wonderful, natural way to learn responsibility and how to take care of babies? Should children spend all of their time thinking only of themselves and pleasurable activities?

Where does this pity come from? Honestly, I run into this criticism all the time, and I never know what to say, because it doesn't register as a problem for me at all. One of the best things about being from a huge family is just this: all the opportunities to take care of one another. I see it as such a positive aspect of large families, I can't imagine seeing it as a negative.I want to know how people turn it into a negative, so I can be sure to avoid that trigger with my children. Thank you for sharing any insights you might have.

Sure, you see it that way, because you're foisting your responsibilities for caring for your kids onto others. I doubt the foistees in your family feel the same way.