Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pregnant with #4 (my oldest just turned 5). I don’t work anymore and we have a lot of help (nanny + part-time housekeeper, and I’ll have a night nurse for the first 12 or so weeks). It’s not uncommon in my circle to have 3 or 4, but I definitely have gotten a few “whoa!” comments. All of our children were planned, but I get a lot of assumptions that we couldn’t possibly want 4 under age 5. We always set out to have a big family and I’d rather get the baby stage finished! Plus it’s so lovely to have them near in age. My oldest two are 17 months apart and they are very close.

I can’t even tell you how many people freely and vocally assumed or asked if my third was an “accident” when I was pregnant just because I already had one boy and one girl and then looked at me like I had multiple heads when I told them the third was very much planned. It was very strange. And rude.

Speaking of strange and rude, as someone who has two boys, people are ALWAYS asking us if we are "going to try for a girl". Like why can't our two existing kids be enough??

Anonymous wrote:I’m had our only at 41 and people still asked if we’d be having another until I hit 45. Most people implied we should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care how many kids you have, but I think it’s weird when people have kids at 43+.

I don't think it's weird, but I just assume they used a donor egg.

If we’re going with the logic that it’s “bad” for kids to have 4 other siblings, I think it’s “bad” for kids to have 60 year old parents when they’re in high school.

How is it bad? The parents generally have more time and money. My husband had kids young and old. Its much easier as an older parent. More money, time and patience.

Diabetes, cancer, heart disease. See, I can quote things too. Things that happen to you in your 50s and 60s. It’s not all “accumulated wealth” and happiness.

We had a family member die at 23. You can die of illness at any age. The difference is if we died, now vs. 23-30 with young kids, ours would be set for the next 15 years including college and graduate school because we were in a position to save.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pregnant with #4 (my oldest just turned 5). I don’t work anymore and we have a lot of help (nanny + part-time housekeeper, and I’ll have a night nurse for the first 12 or so weeks). It’s not uncommon in my circle to have 3 or 4, but I definitely have gotten a few “whoa!” comments. All of our children were planned, but I get a lot of assumptions that we couldn’t possibly want 4 under age 5. We always set out to have a big family and I’d rather get the baby stage finished! Plus it’s so lovely to have them near in age. My oldest two are 17 months apart and they are very close.

I can’t even tell you how many people freely and vocally assumed or asked if my third was an “accident” when I was pregnant just because I already had one boy and one girl and then looked at me like I had multiple heads when I told them the third was very much planned. It was very strange. And rude.

Yes! I’ve posted about this before but my MIL cornered me just as soon as she could after I announced I was expecting #3 to ask with faux concern if “this was an accident.” She truly could not understand WHY we would purposely have another child when we had “one of each.”

Are you poor? Maybe she was worried she would have to help you financially. My BIL has three and when #3 came along (planned!) he asked everyone in the family to “help” financially. True story. MIL paid their down payment when they “outgrew” their apartment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess having more kids due to religious reasons qualifies as “weird”... classic dcum religious persecution!

I always find the discussions of how many kids are acceptable on the very politically correct DCUM eye opening. We can’t judge people on anything else but everyone has an opinion on this issue, and usually those opinions are based solely on the family that grew up down the street 30 years ago and zero current personal experience.
Good (and bad) families come in all sizes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pregnant with #4 (my oldest just turned 5). I don’t work anymore and we have a lot of help (nanny + part-time housekeeper, and I’ll have a night nurse for the first 12 or so weeks). It’s not uncommon in my circle to have 3 or 4, but I definitely have gotten a few “whoa!” comments. All of our children were planned, but I get a lot of assumptions that we couldn’t possibly want 4 under age 5. We always set out to have a big family and I’d rather get the baby stage finished! Plus it’s so lovely to have them near in age. My oldest two are 17 months apart and they are very close.

I can’t even tell you how many people freely and vocally assumed or asked if my third was an “accident” when I was pregnant just because I already had one boy and one girl and then looked at me like I had multiple heads when I told them the third was very much planned. It was very strange. And rude.

Yes! I’ve posted about this before but my MIL cornered me just as soon as she could after I announced I was expecting #3 to ask with faux concern if “this was an accident.” She truly could not understand WHY we would purposely have another child when we had “one of each.”

NP. We have 2 boys and a girl, and we had comments from well meaning people about how "perfect" it was now and that our family was "complete" and stuff like that. It's annoying because I really want a 4th (and DH is open to it), and we would definitely do it if our circumstances were a bit better. But it would be annoying that people would think it was strange and then question our judgement (or feel bad for us if we had a boy because they assumed we must be going for another girl).

I think once you hit 40 people also assume that you're done having kids, even when the others are still very young. Some people want to convince themselves that if you're 40 then you can't have kids naturally (because they couldn't) so they have to be expensive and a lot of treatments and why would do you do all of that if your family is already "perfect"?

Generally, nationally, it’s not typical to have a kid over 40. And it’s less safe and advisable than having a kid before 40. So it’s totally okay for people to assume that you’re done having kids once you hit 40.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pregnant with #4 (my oldest just turned 5). I don’t work anymore and we have a lot of help (nanny + part-time housekeeper, and I’ll have a night nurse for the first 12 or so weeks). It’s not uncommon in my circle to have 3 or 4, but I definitely have gotten a few “whoa!” comments. All of our children were planned, but I get a lot of assumptions that we couldn’t possibly want 4 under age 5. We always set out to have a big family and I’d rather get the baby stage finished! Plus it’s so lovely to have them near in age. My oldest two are 17 months apart and they are very close.

Also, the earlier comment that all families with lots of children are relying on government handouts and scholarships is so inaccurate in my experience. Everyone I know with lots of kids is able to have lots of kids because they are financially capable of doing so. I would have never had so many children if we couldn’t easily swing it financially without cutting out the extras. We don’t have enough bedrooms to give each kid their own room, but that’s about the only sacrifice. We live in a large city in Europe so that’s not an unusual “problem”.

Anonymous wrote:I guess having more kids due to religious reasons qualifies as “weird”... classic dcum religious persecution!