Anonymous wrote:Were your parents working? If so, then it was completely appropriate for you to babysit. There isn't a guarantee of social time that takes precedence over family survival.

This can be kind of hard on the younger sibs who are being babysat, day in and day out, by resentful, violent older sibs.

Anonymous wrote:Were your parents working? If so, then it was completely appropriate for you to babysit. There isn't a guarantee of social time that takes precedence over family survival.

It is a parent's choice to have a child. It is not the child's responsibility to help raise their siblings because their parents cannot or will not pay for a babysitter/nanny.

Were you an older sibling in a large family, OP? Because my sister was and she had to help raise us. I feel bad that she couldn't have just been a kid like the rest of us.

As it was, I was forced from about age 13+ to stay home every weekend night and babysit my sibs (for free). I never went to football games or to movies like all my friends did occasionally. Can you explain why this is acceptable, to hamstring your child socially this way?



Were your parents working? If so, then it was completely appropriate for you to babysit. There isn't a guarantee of social time that takes precedence over family survival.

No, no. They were out socializing and drinking with their friends, playing cards, etc. We're talking Fri and Sat. nights. They partied, and made me babysit the sibs so they could do their thing. 'Cause that's how you do in Middle America with large families, even though it's not 1870 on the 300-acre farm anymore. That ethos lingers for some, maybe OP?

The division of labor in these families tends to be drawn on gender lines.

I had to raise my little brother and it sucked ass. He was horribly behaved and I had to deal with it starting at the age of 8. I had so many incidents of being stressed and panicking cause he would run away from me and I couldn't find him. One of the many reasons I can't stand my parents and don't have anything to do with them now.

If both parents are working, there may not be any money left over. Drop the entitlement and suchlike---kids should contribute to the family if they can.

OP - were you an elder sibling in a large family?

Anonymous wrote:Were your parents working? If so, then it was completely appropriate for you to babysit. There isn't a guarantee of social time that takes precedence over family survival.

You really think it's ok to keep your child home and babysit for free?? Even if the parents are working, why not hire a real babysitter very so often and have the older child do something with friends. There is helping out family, and there is taking advantage of your children.

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between changing the occasional diaper and being in charge, full time, of your sibling. If you watch the "19 Kids and Counting" show, you will see the older siblings are given "buddies". They are fully responsible for the care of their buddy. That is a far cry from helping every once in a while.

Not all large families are like this. However, the one that has been heavily discussed on this board is.

This. When people say raising the younger siblings, they mean LITERALLY raising them. Not just babysitting once in a while.

Were your parents working? If so, then it was completely appropriate for you to babysit. There isn't a guarantee of social time that takes precedence over family survival.

What if you are forced to care for younger sibs in excess, at the expense of activities that are more developmentally appropriate for a, say, 8 year old?

As it was, I was forced from about age 13+ to stay home every weekend night and babysit my sibs (for free). I never went to football games or to movies like all my friends did occasionally. Can you explain why this is acceptable, to hamstring your child socially this way?

There is a difference between changing the occasional diaper and being in charge, full time, of your sibling. If you watch the "19 Kids and Counting" show, you will see the older siblings are given "buddies". They are fully responsible for the care of their buddy. That is a far cry from helping every once in a while.

Not all large families are like this. However, the one that has been heavily discussed on this board is.

When someone criticizes large families, calls women "breeders", etc, it's almost always older Moms. They're bitter and pissed that they started their families late, so they think folks with 3+ children are just spitting out babies for the hell of it.

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.