Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

A thing that has happened to a number of women I know is that they get lax about birth control because they are older and think they can't get pregnant anymore. I think sometimes all the fear mongering about fertility wraps people's perspective and they assume that if they are over 35, the odds are too low. Especially if they had any trouble conceiving.

Several of the oops babies I know of have a big age gap with the next youngest child. The parents were probably initially on top of birth control, but may have assumed "eh, I'm over 40, what are the odds?" Without looking to see that actually the odds are much higher than zero, especially if you've successfully conceived before.

Yes this was us. I was 45 and laughed when my ob suggested birth control because we had done ivf in our thirties. We are thrilled with our surprise baby who miraculously has had no health issues so far and we had spent quite conservatively on our house so we feel fortunate but definitely stretched! Weirdly it’s made life easier because it takes lots of options off the table (travel sports, private school, etc)

It's a surprise, but not an oops. People who say "oops!" come across like they don't understand how babies are made.

This seems weirdly pedantic. Given her age and reproductive history, PP had ample reason to consider herself infertile. Is it not an oops if a condom breaks? Or if a breastfeeding mom gets pregnant on the mini pill? Presumably people in these situations know how babies are made.

Yes, those are both an oops. It's not hard to understand that condoms break, so track your ovulation and double-up on protection. It's not hard to understand that if you are breastfeeding, pills might not work, so double-up on protection if you really don't want to get pregnant.

I don't consider those an oops. It's not trying but not preventing. But I think people think it's cute to say "oopsie!". But it makes you look not very smart.

Using birth control and/or condoms is definitely "preventing" and many people would view their failure as an "oops." But anyway, people are being very pedantic about terminology in this thread. Maybe your pill failing while BFing isn't an "accident" because it's known to happen, but it's unplanned. Getting pregnant at 45 because you skipped BC due to your history of infertility is unplanned. Being willing to accept the risk of twins that comes with fertility treatments for a shot at one baby is unplanned. That's the point people are trying to make--that in their circles, the third kid may not have been an "accident" in the most literal sense and maybe isn't even a super unexpected result of your actions, but it's not planned.

Then say unplanned. Oops sounds cutesy and dumb. Like calling your children kiddos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 and live in a MC suburban neighborhood. It does seem like more MC people around me are having 3. I imagine a lot of this has to do with where we live; very family friendly, more affordable but safe, strong community etc.

This is just to say, while wealthy people may also be having 3 or 4 and can afford to in major metro areas, I think other groups are also doing this by settling in areas where they can comfortably raise 3 kids.

+1

Without family help or a SAHP, 3 kids is a ton of work and stress, anywhere you live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 and live in a MC suburban neighborhood. It does seem like more MC people around me are having 3. I imagine a lot of this has to do with where we live; very family friendly, more affordable but safe, strong community etc.

This is just to say, while wealthy people may also be having 3 or 4 and can afford to in major metro areas, I think other groups are also doing this by settling in areas where they can comfortably raise 3 kids.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 and live in a MC suburban neighborhood. It does seem like more MC people around me are having 3. I imagine a lot of this has to do with where we live; very family friendly, more affordable but safe, strong community etc.

This is just to say, while wealthy people may also be having 3 or 4 and can afford to in major metro areas, I think other groups are also doing this by settling in areas where they can comfortably raise 3 kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

A thing that has happened to a number of women I know is that they get lax about birth control because they are older and think they can't get pregnant anymore. I think sometimes all the fear mongering about fertility wraps people's perspective and they assume that if they are over 35, the odds are too low. Especially if they had any trouble conceiving.

Several of the oops babies I know of have a big age gap with the next youngest child. The parents were probably initially on top of birth control, but may have assumed "eh, I'm over 40, what are the odds?" Without looking to see that actually the odds are much higher than zero, especially if you've successfully conceived before.

Yes this was us. I was 45 and laughed when my ob suggested birth control because we had done ivf in our thirties. We are thrilled with our surprise baby who miraculously has had no health issues so far and we had spent quite conservatively on our house so we feel fortunate but definitely stretched! Weirdly it’s made life easier because it takes lots of options off the table (travel sports, private school, etc)

It's a surprise, but not an oops. People who say "oops!" come across like they don't understand how babies are made.

This seems weirdly pedantic. Given her age and reproductive history, PP had ample reason to consider herself infertile. Is it not an oops if a condom breaks? Or if a breastfeeding mom gets pregnant on the mini pill? Presumably people in these situations know how babies are made.

Yes, those are both an oops. It's not hard to understand that condoms break, so track your ovulation and double-up on protection. It's not hard to understand that if you are breastfeeding, pills might not work, so double-up on protection if you really don't want to get pregnant.

I don't consider those an oops. It's not trying but not preventing. But I think people think it's cute to say "oopsie!". But it makes you look not very smart.

Using birth control and/or condoms is definitely "preventing" and many people would view their failure as an "oops." But anyway, people are being very pedantic about terminology in this thread. Maybe your pill failing while BFing isn't an "accident" because it's known to happen, but it's unplanned. Getting pregnant at 45 because you skipped BC due to your history of infertility is unplanned. Being willing to accept the risk of twins that comes with fertility treatments for a shot at one baby is unplanned. That's the point people are trying to make--that in their circles, the third kid may not have been an "accident" in the most literal sense and maybe isn't even a super unexpected result of your actions, but it's not planned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

A thing that has happened to a number of women I know is that they get lax about birth control because they are older and think they can't get pregnant anymore. I think sometimes all the fear mongering about fertility wraps people's perspective and they assume that if they are over 35, the odds are too low. Especially if they had any trouble conceiving.

Several of the oops babies I know of have a big age gap with the next youngest child. The parents were probably initially on top of birth control, but may have assumed "eh, I'm over 40, what are the odds?" Without looking to see that actually the odds are much higher than zero, especially if you've successfully conceived before.

Yes this was us. I was 45 and laughed when my ob suggested birth control because we had done ivf in our thirties. We are thrilled with our surprise baby who miraculously has had no health issues so far and we had spent quite conservatively on our house so we feel fortunate but definitely stretched! Weirdly it’s made life easier because it takes lots of options off the table (travel sports, private school, etc)

It's a surprise, but not an oops. People who say "oops!" come across like they don't understand how babies are made.

This seems weirdly pedantic. Given her age and reproductive history, PP had ample reason to consider herself infertile. Is it not an oops if a condom breaks? Or if a breastfeeding mom gets pregnant on the mini pill? Presumably people in these situations know how babies are made.

Yes, those are both an oops. It's not hard to understand that condoms break, so track your ovulation and double-up on protection. It's not hard to understand that if you are breastfeeding, pills might not work, so double-up on protection if you really don't want to get pregnant.

I don't consider those an oops. It's not trying but not preventing. But I think people think it's cute to say "oopsie!". But it makes you look not very smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

I actually told a lot of people this when I was pregnant with #3. I didn’t want their judgement and jealousy.

This doesn't really make sense. I'd think people's reactions would be more harsh if you said #3 was an oopsie. I mean, look at how feisty the people on this board are being about it.

To be honest you are not me so you really have no idea what my day-to-day lived experiences are. I’ve had people who I work with (all women) say nasty things, like having three is showing off and that having three is fine, but I shouldn’t have four. At work.

It’s jealousy and judgement and it’s reflected in the pew data where many people say larger families are what they desire but for whatever reasons they can’t or don’t actually have that. Don’t get me wrong, many people have one or two children or no children and are very happy with that (I am a mom of three but could probably be very content in all of those scenarios too) but for whatever reason a woman having more than two children makes a lot of people feel like they have license to say really vicious and mean spirited things both to your face and on anonymous message boards. And I find the people who feel the need to express their views and judgements the most on this topic are women. Like somehow my family planning decisions were made as an affront to them and they need to let me know that I’m wrong for having three kids because they will never get enough time or attention from me and my husband, we will never have enough money to provide all three of them with a “comfortable” existence, and the idea that another sibling could be a net positive for my children is absurd because somehow the dynamics will make it so everyone is miserable. And moms of three? They always looked stressed, they are overbreeders, they paradoxically can do nothing (no PTA or volunteering or date nights or book groups or vacations) but also have nannies and grandparents raise their children, their houses are a mess, they can’t have meaningful careers and if they do it’s because they had twins after having an older child (I can’t imagine the person who made that comment on DCUM was a mom of twins because it’s brutal), they mooch off of other moms for carpooling and playdates, and they are religious - usually Mormon or Catholic. It seems the only acceptable way for women to have more than two children is for it to be an oopsie baby - birth control didn’t work or twins.

If someone were to start a thread about how they love having an only child or how they love parenting two children there would probably be 100% affirming posts and if anyone said otherwise they would be called out as unhinged.

A few reasons people might judge or be unhappy about people having 3+ kids that aren't about jealousy:

1) They are from a family of 3+ kids themselves, and think it's bad for kids or families generally.

2) They are in competition with the larger family for resources. I have seen this with siblings where one sibling has 3+ kids and the other sibling has one or two -- there can be resentment about money/inheritance/help that goes to the larger family from grandparents because it feels unfair to the family with fewer kids.

3) They fear that if their friend has 3+ kids, they will no longer have time or want to spend time with their friends with smaller families. This is grounded in truth, because larger families can be much harder to host or get together with, not only due to the number of people but also due to kids' ages (introducing a baby to a dynamic that had previously been older kids means some activities will be harder or impossible).

It's complicated. I would never tell someone with 3+ kids that there is anything wrong with it, but I definitely sometimes have private, negative opinions of the choice. And I'm sure sometimes people suspect I have those opinions. Oh well. I am a mom of an only child and I know lots of people judge me for that (and plenty will tell me their judgment out loud). That's life.

It’s really awful when people judge people for having just one kid. Disappointing that you’re trying to justify the judgment of other choices as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

A thing that has happened to a number of women I know is that they get lax about birth control because they are older and think they can't get pregnant anymore. I think sometimes all the fear mongering about fertility wraps people's perspective and they assume that if they are over 35, the odds are too low. Especially if they had any trouble conceiving.

Several of the oops babies I know of have a big age gap with the next youngest child. The parents were probably initially on top of birth control, but may have assumed "eh, I'm over 40, what are the odds?" Without looking to see that actually the odds are much higher than zero, especially if you've successfully conceived before.

Yes this was us. I was 45 and laughed when my ob suggested birth control because we had done ivf in our thirties. We are thrilled with our surprise baby who miraculously has had no health issues so far and we had spent quite conservatively on our house so we feel fortunate but definitely stretched! Weirdly it’s made life easier because it takes lots of options off the table (travel sports, private school, etc)

It's a surprise, but not an oops. People who say "oops!" come across like they don't understand how babies are made.

This seems weirdly pedantic. Given her age and reproductive history, PP had ample reason to consider herself infertile. Is it not an oops if a condom breaks? Or if a breastfeeding mom gets pregnant on the mini pill? Presumably people in these situations know how babies are made.

Yes, those are both an oops. It's not hard to understand that condoms break, so track your ovulation and double-up on protection. It's not hard to understand that if you are breastfeeding, pills might not work, so double-up on protection if you really don't want to get pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s more correlated to education than income. DH and I attended top undergrad and grad programs and almost none of those friends have more than 2 kids. Like maybe 2/20 couples off the top of my head have more than 2 kids.

Do you come from family wealth?

I think many of these people are saying that they are seeing 3+ in fams that earn a lot but also get grandparent help

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

I actually told a lot of people this when I was pregnant with #3. I didn’t want their judgement and jealousy.

This doesn't really make sense. I'd think people's reactions would be more harsh if you said #3 was an oopsie. I mean, look at how feisty the people on this board are being about it.

To be honest you are not me so you really have no idea what my day-to-day lived experiences are. I’ve had people who I work with (all women) say nasty things, like having three is showing off and that having three is fine, but I shouldn’t have four. At work.

It’s jealousy and judgement and it’s reflected in the pew data where many people say larger families are what they desire but for whatever reasons they can’t or don’t actually have that. Don’t get me wrong, many people have one or two children or no children and are very happy with that (I am a mom of three but could probably be very content in all of those scenarios too) but for whatever reason a woman having more than two children makes a lot of people feel like they have license to say really vicious and mean spirited things both to your face and on anonymous message boards. And I find the people who feel the need to express their views and judgements the most on this topic are women. Like somehow my family planning decisions were made as an affront to them and they need to let me know that I’m wrong for having three kids because they will never get enough time or attention from me and my husband, we will never have enough money to provide all three of them with a “comfortable” existence, and the idea that another sibling could be a net positive for my children is absurd because somehow the dynamics will make it so everyone is miserable. And moms of three? They always looked stressed, they are overbreeders, they paradoxically can do nothing (no PTA or volunteering or date nights or book groups or vacations) but also have nannies and grandparents raise their children, their houses are a mess, they can’t have meaningful careers and if they do it’s because they had twins after having an older child (I can’t imagine the person who made that comment on DCUM was a mom of twins because it’s brutal), they mooch off of other moms for carpooling and playdates, and they are religious - usually Mormon or Catholic. It seems the only acceptable way for women to have more than two children is for it to be an oopsie baby - birth control didn’t work or twins.

If someone were to start a thread about how they love having an only child or how they love parenting two children there would probably be 100% affirming posts and if anyone said otherwise they would be called out as unhinged.

A few reasons people might judge or be unhappy about people having 3+ kids that aren't about jealousy:

1) They are from a family of 3+ kids themselves, and think it's bad for kids or families generally.

2) They are in competition with the larger family for resources. I have seen this with siblings where one sibling has 3+ kids and the other sibling has one or two -- there can be resentment about money/inheritance/help that goes to the larger family from grandparents because it feels unfair to the family with fewer kids.

3) They fear that if their friend has 3+ kids, they will no longer have time or want to spend time with their friends with smaller families. This is grounded in truth, because larger families can be much harder to host or get together with, not only due to the number of people but also due to kids' ages (introducing a baby to a dynamic that had previously been older kids means some activities will be harder or impossible).

It's complicated. I would never tell someone with 3+ kids that there is anything wrong with it, but I definitely sometimes have private, negative opinions of the choice. And I'm sure sometimes people suspect I have those opinions. Oh well. I am a mom of an only child and I know lots of people judge me for that (and plenty will tell me their judgment out loud). That's life.

It’s really awful when people judge people for having just one kid. Disappointing that you’re trying to justify the judgment of other choices as well.

I said that I would be happy with just one. Did you read what I wrote? I said that I find much of the negativity on DCUM to be around 3+ kid families and not 1 or 2 kid families. I personally do not judge people for their family planning decisions and have been surprised by the level of vitriol on here and the blatantly weird and bizarre comments that have been made to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

I actually told a lot of people this when I was pregnant with #3. I didn’t want their judgement and jealousy.

This doesn't really make sense. I'd think people's reactions would be more harsh if you said #3 was an oopsie. I mean, look at how feisty the people on this board are being about it.

To be honest you are not me so you really have no idea what my day-to-day lived experiences are. I’ve had people who I work with (all women) say nasty things, like having three is showing off and that having three is fine, but I shouldn’t have four. At work.

It’s jealousy and judgement and it’s reflected in the pew data where many people say larger families are what they desire but for whatever reasons they can’t or don’t actually have that. Don’t get me wrong, many people have one or two children or no children and are very happy with that (I am a mom of three but could probably be very content in all of those scenarios too) but for whatever reason a woman having more than two children makes a lot of people feel like they have license to say really vicious and mean spirited things both to your face and on anonymous message boards. And I find the people who feel the need to express their views and judgements the most on this topic are women. Like somehow my family planning decisions were made as an affront to them and they need to let me know that I’m wrong for having three kids because they will never get enough time or attention from me and my husband, we will never have enough money to provide all three of them with a “comfortable” existence, and the idea that another sibling could be a net positive for my children is absurd because somehow the dynamics will make it so everyone is miserable. And moms of three? They always looked stressed, they are overbreeders, they paradoxically can do nothing (no PTA or volunteering or date nights or book groups or vacations) but also have nannies and grandparents raise their children, their houses are a mess, they can’t have meaningful careers and if they do it’s because they had twins after having an older child (I can’t imagine the person who made that comment on DCUM was a mom of twins because it’s brutal), they mooch off of other moms for carpooling and playdates, and they are religious - usually Mormon or Catholic. It seems the only acceptable way for women to have more than two children is for it to be an oopsie baby - birth control didn’t work or twins.

If someone were to start a thread about how they love having an only child or how they love parenting two children there would probably be 100% affirming posts and if anyone said otherwise they would be called out as unhinged.

A few reasons people might judge or be unhappy about people having 3+ kids that aren't about jealousy:

1) They are from a family of 3+ kids themselves, and think it's bad for kids or families generally.

2) They are in competition with the larger family for resources. I have seen this with siblings where one sibling has 3+ kids and the other sibling has one or two -- there can be resentment about money/inheritance/help that goes to the larger family from grandparents because it feels unfair to the family with fewer kids.

3) They fear that if their friend has 3+ kids, they will no longer have time or want to spend time with their friends with smaller families. This is grounded in truth, because larger families can be much harder to host or get together with, not only due to the number of people but also due to kids' ages (introducing a baby to a dynamic that had previously been older kids means some activities will be harder or impossible).

It's complicated. I would never tell someone with 3+ kids that there is anything wrong with it, but I definitely sometimes have private, negative opinions of the choice. And I'm sure sometimes people suspect I have those opinions. Oh well. I am a mom of an only child and I know lots of people judge me for that (and plenty will tell me their judgment out loud). That's life.

It’s really awful when people judge people for having just one kid. Disappointing that you’re trying to justify the judgment of other choices as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

I actually told a lot of people this when I was pregnant with #3. I didn’t want their judgement and jealousy.

This doesn't really make sense. I'd think people's reactions would be more harsh if you said #3 was an oopsie. I mean, look at how feisty the people on this board are being about it.

To be honest you are not me so you really have no idea what my day-to-day lived experiences are. I’ve had people who I work with (all women) say nasty things, like having three is showing off and that having three is fine, but I shouldn’t have four. At work.

It’s jealousy and judgement and it’s reflected in the pew data where many people say larger families are what they desire but for whatever reasons they can’t or don’t actually have that. Don’t get me wrong, many people have one or two children or no children and are very happy with that (I am a mom of three but could probably be very content in all of those scenarios too) but for whatever reason a woman having more than two children makes a lot of people feel like they have license to say really vicious and mean spirited things both to your face and on anonymous message boards. And I find the people who feel the need to express their views and judgements the most on this topic are women. Like somehow my family planning decisions were made as an affront to them and they need to let me know that I’m wrong for having three kids because they will never get enough time or attention from me and my husband, we will never have enough money to provide all three of them with a “comfortable” existence, and the idea that another sibling could be a net positive for my children is absurd because somehow the dynamics will make it so everyone is miserable. And moms of three? They always looked stressed, they are overbreeders, they paradoxically can do nothing (no PTA or volunteering or date nights or book groups or vacations) but also have nannies and grandparents raise their children, their houses are a mess, they can’t have meaningful careers and if they do it’s because they had twins after having an older child (I can’t imagine the person who made that comment on DCUM was a mom of twins because it’s brutal), they mooch off of other moms for carpooling and playdates, and they are religious - usually Mormon or Catholic. It seems the only acceptable way for women to have more than two children is for it to be an oopsie baby - birth control didn’t work or twins.

If someone were to start a thread about how they love having an only child or how they love parenting two children there would probably be 100% affirming posts and if anyone said otherwise they would be called out as unhinged.

A few reasons people might judge or be unhappy about people having 3+ kids that aren't about jealousy:

1) They are from a family of 3+ kids themselves, and think it's bad for kids or families generally.

2) They are in competition with the larger family for resources. I have seen this with siblings where one sibling has 3+ kids and the other sibling has one or two -- there can be resentment about money/inheritance/help that goes to the larger family from grandparents because it feels unfair to the family with fewer kids.

3) They fear that if their friend has 3+ kids, they will no longer have time or want to spend time with their friends with smaller families. This is grounded in truth, because larger families can be much harder to host or get together with, not only due to the number of people but also due to kids' ages (introducing a baby to a dynamic that had previously been older kids means some activities will be harder or impossible).

It's complicated. I would never tell someone with 3+ kids that there is anything wrong with it, but I definitely sometimes have private, negative opinions of the choice. And I'm sure sometimes people suspect I have those opinions. Oh well. I am a mom of an only child and I know lots of people judge me for that (and plenty will tell me their judgment out loud). That's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at everyone I know, I’d guess it is like this:

50% 2 DC
25% 3 DC
20% 1 DC
5% 4+ DC

I also know an absolute ton of couples that are childless by choice, or single people who never married or want to marry.

Most of the families I know with one DC didn’t plan on just one (for those who have said)…more commonly fertility issues or divorce/single parent.

A lot of the families with 3+ are due to an “oops”. I had a friend who had an oops #3 that turned into 3 & 4! twins. LOL.

I’d still say 2 seems to be the default.

Agree that a LOT Of the 3+ kid families are oops babies, or include multiples. I know two families that had oops triplets.

How on earth would you not have figured out how fertility and birth control work after having two kids? I suspect many of the people claiming #3 was an oopsie intended to have 3 all along and just need a way to justify it.

A thing that has happened to a number of women I know is that they get lax about birth control because they are older and think they can't get pregnant anymore. I think sometimes all the fear mongering about fertility wraps people's perspective and they assume that if they are over 35, the odds are too low. Especially if they had any trouble conceiving.

Several of the oops babies I know of have a big age gap with the next youngest child. The parents were probably initially on top of birth control, but may have assumed "eh, I'm over 40, what are the odds?" Without looking to see that actually the odds are much higher than zero, especially if you've successfully conceived before.

Yes this was us. I was 45 and laughed when my ob suggested birth control because we had done ivf in our thirties. We are thrilled with our surprise baby who miraculously has had no health issues so far and we had spent quite conservatively on our house so we feel fortunate but definitely stretched! Weirdly it’s made life easier because it takes lots of options off the table (travel sports, private school, etc)

It's a surprise, but not an oops. People who say "oops!" come across like they don't understand how babies are made.

This seems weirdly pedantic. Given her age and reproductive history, PP had ample reason to consider herself infertile. Is it not an oops if a condom breaks? Or if a breastfeeding mom gets pregnant on the mini pill? Presumably people in these situations know how babies are made.