There are GOOD big families and BAD big families. Just like there are good small families and bad small families.

In the worst big families the parents force the older kids to raise the youngest. I do mean force in the sense that the older children (girls) have no say in the matter. A few friends I knew grew up never wanting children of their own because that is all they did for the 20 years that should have been a childhood. In the good big families, there is still sharing of responsibility, but its done in a way that the parents are very much so still involved and help shape the dynamic of the family (usually for the positive). That being said, most people from the baby boomers chose not to have big families for a reason, it just wasn't that great to give up other things.

I have four children (2.5, 9, 12 & 16). I would never have my oldest babysit my youngest. She's not maternal in the least and would probably do a half-assed job at the task. I will however ask them to get my daughter a cup of water, help her down from a chair, etc. That's called being a family. I don't look on my oldest children as babysitters...no parent should.

Anonymous wrote:OP, could you be a little less condescending about older moms? Some of us are actually fine with the fact that we had kids later in life and plenty of us are perfectly happy with the number of kids we have. Not all of us have the drive to push out baby after baby until our vagina is like a wind tunnel. I'm exaggerating for effect, but a lot of us legitimately can't understand why anyone would choose to have many, many kids. Wouldn't you judge someone who chose to have 20 cats? Wouldn't you consider that abnormal? Isn't it worse to hoard babies?

How ironic. You want somewhat to be less condescending about older moms yet in the same breath you compare those who have large families with someone having " baby after baby until our vagina is like a wind tunnel". I don't think you're exaggerating...this is how you feel. Own up to it. There's nothing "abnormal" about having a large family. How would you feel if someone said having a baby at 40+ was "abnormal"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am one of those older women with ONLY two kids, and yes, I wish that I had 10 kids. Seriously, I would trade my MD for eight more kids. I NEVER criticize women with large families, as a matter of fact, I have told my patients who are on their 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th kids that I am proud of them.

Oh, wow, I wish you were my doctor!!

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, I am the oldest of 10. I loved it.

I did babysit a lot for my parents, but also for other families. I didn't really mean babysitting, though--more just the day-to-day "please change your brother's diaper" or "please put the little guys in the bathtub" or "please take the little ones on a walk" or the other little things that come up all the time. I did see, and still see, all of those requests as reasonable and beneficial to me. I especially loved babies--still do. And yes, my brothers had to do the same things, and as fathers now, they are wonderful, tender dads who can do all the things their wives can do--besides breastfeed and birth, of course

Perhaps it is just when parents are not appreciative, or do not explain why their help is necessary? I have asked other children from large families, and the rare ones who do not have fond memories of taking care of siblings usually felt unappreciated.

That's what I'm trying to tease out--what turns people sour about this aspect of being part of a big family. I very much appreciate the thoughtful responses.

OP, I don't think people from large families are soured on the size of their family, I think they're unenthusiastic when the family dynamics are abusive. In a small family, that equals abuse from a limited number of abusers. It's terrible, of course, but at least you can count your abusers on one hand. The difference with a large family, especially for younger children like me, is that younger children get abused by their parents and their older brothers and sisters. This can add up to a considerable amount of abuse and abusers.

Anonymous wrote:21:00, please your family sounds like it would have been dysfunctional with 2.2 kids or with 50 maids.

You're probably right!! My parents started having kids at 16 and 18, (32 and 34 when I came along) they were children raising children who then expected their children to raise their children.

Anonymous wrote:OP, could you be a little less condescending about older moms? Some of us are actually fine with the fact that we had kids later in life and plenty of us are perfectly happy with the number of kids we have. Not all of us have the drive to push out baby after baby until our vagina is like a wind tunnel. I'm exaggerating for effect, but a lot of us legitimately can't understand why anyone would choose to have many, many kids. Wouldn't you judge someone who chose to have 20 cats? Wouldn't you consider that abnormal? Isn't it worse to hoard babies?

I don't think it was OP who was being condescending.

OP, could you be a little less condescending about older moms? Some of us are actually fine with the fact that we had kids later in life and plenty of us are perfectly happy with the number of kids we have. Not all of us have the drive to push out baby after baby until our vagina is like a wind tunnel. I'm exaggerating for effect, but a lot of us legitimately can't understand why anyone would choose to have many, many kids. Wouldn't you judge someone who chose to have 20 cats? Wouldn't you consider that abnormal? Isn't it worse to hoard babies?

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am one of those older women with ONLY two kids, and yes, I wish that I had 10 kids. Seriously, I would trade my MD for eight more kids. I NEVER criticize women with large families, as a matter of fact, I have told my patients who are on their 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th kids that I am proud of them.

I have a friend who can remember her brothers making her chug beer so she'd fall sleep.

Agree with PP - it's not always ideal to have older sibs in charge. They lack the maturity often.

21:00, please your family sounds like it would have been dysfunctional with 2.2 kids or with 50 maids.

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

Yes, I am the oldest of 10. I loved it.

I did babysit a lot for my parents, but also for other families. I didn't really mean babysitting, though--more just the day-to-day "please change your brother's diaper" or "please put the little guys in the bathtub" or "please take the little ones on a walk" or the other little things that come up all the time. I did see, and still see, all of those requests as reasonable and beneficial to me. I especially loved babies--still do. And yes, my brothers had to do the same things, and as fathers now, they are wonderful, tender dads who can do all the things their wives can do--besides breastfeed and birth, of course

Perhaps it is just when parents are not appreciative, or do not explain why their help is necessary? I have asked other children from large families, and the rare ones who do not have fond memories of taking care of siblings usually felt unappreciated.

That's what I'm trying to tease out--what turns people sour about this aspect of being part of a big family. I very much appreciate the thoughtful responses.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Maybe if there is not a lot of money they shouldn't have huge families. I'm not saying low earners aren't entitled to have a family but if you are talking about kids contributing, I doubt you'd find it acceptable for parents to make their kids drop out or miss school to get a job to support the family. It's not "entitlement" for a kid to want a childhood. How sad.

Anonymous wrote: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.

This case sounds excessive. OP is talking about the responsibilities that come with being in a family.
Oldest kids ahve it harder even w/o the responsibilities of the younger ones, so you will always hear groans from them.

I'm from a large family. I was born the youngest and my older sisters were 10 and almost 15 yrs older and I had brothers 2, 8, 12 and almost 14 yrs older. My oldest sister was regularly left in charge of all of us. They spit milk in the ears of my brother 2 yrs older than me. My sister wanted to give me a bath when I was 6 wks old and didn't have the sense to put me someplace safe while she prepared the bath so she put me in the bathroom cupboard and I rolled over (according to my mom I was rolling at 4 wks) and fractured my skull. They put me on a hot burner and laughed at me when I cried that it was hot and my diaper was melting. (The burner wasn't on, but it was still hot from being recently used.)

The fact is kids don't have the experience or common sense to be left in charge of small children or babies for any length of time regularly. Kids are by nature dumb. And sometimes mean. And sometimes pissed off that they have to be home babysitting.

When my oldest sister graduated HS and moved out at 16, my next sister was left in charge. (My parents divorced around this time and my oldest brothers went with my dad.) She is generally an angry bitter person and was even as a kid. (I haven't spoken to her in 3-4 yrs because she hasn't changed even as a 40-something adult.) She would ignore my brother and I, lock us out of the house etc. It was miserable having her in charge. And she was miserable.

Fast forward to a month before my 8th b-day and my oldest sister was murdered by her estranged husband at the age of 22, leaving behind a 7 mo old who my mom and step-dad adopted. Like my sisters before me, I was left in charge of her only in my case I was taking care of her 40 hrs a week in the summer when I turned 12 or 13. I had no better skills than either of my sisters did and this child was really really difficult to deal with. On top of it I was expected to get dinner on the table and whatever other household chores my mom wanted done. I did get paid, but it was something like $1.25 hr.

When my step-brother got his then 15 yr old girlfriend pregnant (I was 11) their baby spent weeks at a time with us b/c the parents weren't ready for parenthood...guess who had to take FULL care of that child every day after school? Me. While my mom sat on the couch watching TV. Who had to miss school when the baby gave me scabies? me again. Granted I loved that baby, but I'm not sure assuming full responsibility for her when I was 11 yrs old was developmentally appropriate for either of us.

I think all of us would have benefited by me (and my sisters before me) having fewer obligations to raise the babies my parents took on. I think it's entirely appropriate for kids to help out around the house, help out with the siblings and even babysit for a FEW hrs a week but I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to have a child caring for a child w/o parental supervision. I am a nanny now and I love kids, and I certainly credit my family life with teaching how to (or NOT to) take care of kids but I think an adult should be in charge, not kids. If Grandma is too old or infirm or busy or whatever, then hire a babysitter, even if it's part time.