Anonymous wrote:And not one word about the health of the mother and the physical toll even a healthy pregnancy takes on a mother’s body. Never mind the risk of the mother’s life, the risk of complications, the risk of long-term health impacts on the mother. Who cares about her health? Not Tim Carney.

But the flip side is the more pregnancies and the more breast feeding the less risk of breast cancer

If you've always craved the power and adoration afforded to cult leaders, but don't have the natural charisma to gain followers of your own...have 4+ kids instead.

But seriously, folks, this article just promotes the age-old parenting technique called "neglect." You can do neglect with any number of offspring, but at the 4+ range it just happens naturally.

Parents who have large families always say they are doing it for the kids, but in reality, they are doing it for themselves. The power, attention, adoration, etc is unparalleled. All the kids' needs come secondary to the parents'.

Anonymous wrote:Mom of five here. It is 100 percent easier to have 5 kids than 3. I found 3 the absolute hardest. Now my older kids entertain and help with the younger kids. The year my third was born was the least happy year of my life. I am now the happiest I have ever been since becoming a mom with my fifth almost turning one. I am way more relaxed and it is 100 percent true that older kids help so much. For example on Saturday mornings I will wake up and my 12 year old has changed my toddler's diaper, turned on his cartoon, and gotten him a bowl of cheerios while I lounge in bed with DH.

What I am looking forward to is parents of 2-3 kids trying to explain why those of us with 4+ don't actually know what we are talking about when we say it's easier and we are happier than you all.

I definitely believe you that it’s easier for the parents.

However, I would never want to force my older children to parent my younger ones. If I was sleeping in while my 12 year old changed my toddler, I would consider that a fail.

A family structure that requires any child to act like a mini adult is depressing AF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have and love a large family. This guy is an idiot! He doesn't speak for most of us.

The only sentiments I agree with regarding the article is that you tend to be more relaxed and anti-travel sports culture once you get towards the end of the line. I do agree the crazy competitive culture is not good for kids. Like everything, it's a balance. My kids don't do crap around the house and they aren't up early parenting their siblings on Saturday morning, that is for sure. They're texting me from their room to tell the little ones to keep it down and that's the most interaction they have Saturday morning (as it should be!)

Why should your kids sit in their rooms texting instead of interacting with their family? That’s your example of how it should be?

Not speaking to childcare responsibilities, but kids absolutely benefit from contributing to the household via substantial chores.

Treating our kids like little royalty is not healthy.

I have three and can see both sides of this debate.

If you can see both sides, then you should be able to see that kids need their alone time just like adults and in a large family, there is less of that. Saturday morning seems like a good time to have downtime and not be forced to interact with your siblings. Sucks to be an introvert in a large family, esp if you are the oldest and are expected to interact (take care of the younger ones) all the time.

Agree with you about the chores though those chores should not include parenting younger siblings. The parents chose to have the large family, not the older sibs. They should be changing the diapers on Saturday morning.

NP. Different scenario, because we have an only child, but Saturday mornings where we all just hang out in different rooms reading are the best.

Anonymous wrote:We have to have a DCUM thread on this one, even though we all know how it's going to go. I think it might be legally required. Anyway, here's the opinion piece from Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute, about how having four or more kids is actually ideal and easier for parents and better for kids: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/30/family-size-big-families/

Key points for people to jump all over:

- Carney claims raising 4+ kids is easier than raising fewer because his older kids do a lot of the parenting

- Carney cites some stats about how kids who get more intensive parenting (he assumes only kids and kids with just one sibling get more intensive parenting as a rule) are more anxious and unhappy

- He also cites a study that claims the happiness of mothers, specifically, declines with each subsequent child up until 3 (these moms are the least happy, according to the study) but then mothers of 4 are happier than all the others. He argues this is because of the efficiency of older kids helping with parenting and a gaggle of kids being able to entertain each other, and also that having more kids forces parents to do less because they can't do intensive parenting with that many kids

And some stuff Carney does not address:

- The financial costs of raising kids

- The impact on mothers' financial well being and career prospects

- Whether more kids ever results in neglect

- How special needs kids or other unexpected family stressors might play into this dynamic

Have at it, folks.

He doesn't consider finances or impact on parents' careers? That's pretty worthless analysis then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have and love a large family. This guy is an idiot! He doesn't speak for most of us.

The only sentiments I agree with regarding the article is that you tend to be more relaxed and anti-travel sports culture once you get towards the end of the line. I do agree the crazy competitive culture is not good for kids. Like everything, it's a balance. My kids don't do crap around the house and they aren't up early parenting their siblings on Saturday morning, that is for sure. They're texting me from their room to tell the little ones to keep it down and that's the most interaction they have Saturday morning (as it should be!)

Why should your kids sit in their rooms texting instead of interacting with their family? That’s your example of how it should be?

Not speaking to childcare responsibilities, but kids absolutely benefit from contributing to the household via substantial chores.

Treating our kids like little royalty is not healthy.

I have three and can see both sides of this debate.

If you can see both sides, then you should be able to see that kids need their alone time just like adults and in a large family, there is less of that. Saturday morning seems like a good time to have downtime and not be forced to interact with your siblings. Sucks to be an introvert in a large family, esp if you are the oldest and are expected to interact (take care of the younger ones) all the time.

Agree with you about the chores though those chores should not include parenting younger siblings. The parents chose to have the large family, not the older sibs. They should be changing the diapers on Saturday morning.

Anonymous wrote:I have and love a large family. This guy is an idiot! He doesn't speak for most of us.

The only sentiments I agree with regarding the article is that you tend to be more relaxed and anti-travel sports culture once you get towards the end of the line. I do agree the crazy competitive culture is not good for kids. Like everything, it's a balance. My kids don't do crap around the house and they aren't up early parenting their siblings on Saturday morning, that is for sure. They're texting me from their room to tell the little ones to keep it down and that's the most interaction they have Saturday morning (as it should be!)

Why should your kids sit in their rooms texting instead of interacting with their family? That’s your example of how it should be?

Not speaking to childcare responsibilities, but kids absolutely benefit from contributing to the household via substantial chores.

Treating our kids like little royalty is not healthy.

I have three and can see both sides of this debate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

It wasn’t fine but people had lower standards and didn’t have birth control.

Your children will judge their childhood and life in comparison to modern day standards and how their peers are living.

There is a family across the street from me where their children don’t have birthday parties and aren’t enrolled in any activities. This is a disadvantage for their kids. Their children aren’t getting the opportunity to learn different sports. The children are also overweight which is unusual in my community and has some correlation to not being enrolled in any athletics. Because there are five children the kids travel less frequently because who wants to take 5 kids on vacation? The mom can’t work so she has no outlet outside of the family. The kids have less privacy and room to study. They don’t leave their home often since it requires two vehicles. It’s a rotten deal for the kids. They have plenty of money too.

Fake. I doubt any family with “plenty of money” doesn’t enroll their kids in activities or have birthday parties or travel. If anything they’d hire multiple nannies and outsource everything.

You don't know families with money.
And you are so wrong.

You clearly know no one with money if you think there aren’t families with multiple kids who do and have everything-multimillion $ house, fully funded college, private school, travel with all kids. That’s why they have tons of kids..because they know they can afford it.

I have and love a large family. This guy is an idiot! He doesn't speak for most of us.

The only sentiments I agree with regarding the article is that you tend to be more relaxed and anti-travel sports culture once you get towards the end of the line. I do agree the crazy competitive culture is not good for kids. Like everything, it's a balance. My kids don't do crap around the house and they aren't up early parenting their siblings on Saturday morning, that is for sure. They're texting me from their room to tell the little ones to keep it down and that's the most interaction they have Saturday morning (as it should be!)

Two nearly brought me to an early grave. There is no way I could have parented four.

Anonymous wrote:Mom of five here. It is 100 percent easier to have 5 kids than 3. I found 3 the absolute hardest. Now my older kids entertain and help with the younger kids. The year my third was born was the least happy year of my life. I am now the happiest I have ever been since becoming a mom with my fifth almost turning one. I am way more relaxed and it is 100 percent true that older kids help so much. For example on Saturday mornings I will wake up and my 12 year old has changed my toddler's diaper, turned on his cartoon, and gotten him a bowl of cheerios while I lounge in bed with DH.

What I am looking forward to is parents of 2-3 kids trying to explain why those of us with 4+ don't actually know what we are talking about when we say it's easier and we are happier than you all.

We have definitely observed that parents of four and more are the happiest and most relaxed parents. We stopped at three so I guess we chose the unhappiest route! It was hard when they were younger but I love our family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

It wasn’t fine “back then.” Especially since many of the women having back-to-back babies had no choice due to religious pressure and/or lack of birth control. There’s a reason that as soon as birth control becomes available, family size drops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

It wasn’t fine but people had lower standards and didn’t have birth control.

Your children will judge their childhood and life in comparison to modern day standards and how their peers are living.

There is a family across the street from me where their children don’t have birthday parties and aren’t enrolled in any activities. This is a disadvantage for their kids. Their children aren’t getting the opportunity to learn different sports. The children are also overweight which is unusual in my community and has some correlation to not being enrolled in any athletics. Because there are five children the kids travel less frequently because who wants to take 5 kids on vacation? The mom can’t work so she has no outlet outside of the family. The kids have less privacy and room to study. They don’t leave their home often since it requires two vehicles. It’s a rotten deal for the kids. They have plenty of money too.

Fake. I doubt any family with “plenty of money” doesn’t enroll their kids in activities or have birthday parties or travel. If anything they’d hire multiple nannies and outsource everything.

You don't know families with money.
And you are so wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

Standards of living were lower, people could get decent jobs and provide for their own families just by being HS graduates, never mind college graduates. 100 years ago there were very few “suburbs,” so if you lived in a city - not even in a high rise building right downtown, I’m thinking of places like Detroit where there were lots of single family homes in the city - you could take streetcars or walk everywhere and not have to think too much about transportation for your family of 4+ kids and 2 adults and maybe whatever older single/widowed relative was also living with you. It didn’t matter if your home had 3 bedrooms and 1 bath because that’s what was expected and kids shared. No paying for expensive after school activities - they just didn’t exist outside of middle and HS clubs and sports. People didn’t have big wardrobes or technology besides a family radio. Everyone was living just about the same life as each other apart from the very rich, and most people had no exposure to them so no one knew.

Now if you have 4+ kids and you want to give them the same life as their 2 kid family peers, it costs $$$$ and the logistics are so complicated. I mean if you have a partner who makes big bucks in a high paid career, great, go for it, but that’s not most people. And if you don’t care about giving them the same lives/opportunities, that creates its own issues. The kids who are being “homeschooled” while mom and dad make RV/bus/van life content for IG aren’t going to have nearly the same opportunities as young adults as the kid who goes to regular school and learns an instrument and takes AP classes and is on the school robotics team.

Wanting a lot of kids is fine. Not wanting a lot of kids is fine. Saying people should have a lot of kids is gross and creepy.