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.

older mom with 2 young kids, married late in life

didn't plan either one - So I'm sure, with MY fertility record, I could have had a few more. The thought was NOT appealing to me.

People have children for selfish reasons. You wish to carry on a name, for example. How many men try so hard for that boy? My uncle did, and 5 girls later . . . Poor fool didn't understand this his Y was in hiding. You feel unfulfilled as a woman. Your professional life didn't turn out the way you planned. So you fill your time with making babies.

all for selfish reasons

Now, those who adopt SN kids are in a different category. But I'm fairly certain that these parents aren't adopting them in groups of 10.

So am I bitter? hell no! I love my 2. They're happy, receive individual attention, and participate in activities, and attend private school b/c we're financially stable.

Don't make assumptions, PP. You're the one who sounds bitter. Reread your post. If you come from a large family or have one yourself and were actually PLEASED with your situation, you wouldn't have posted what you did?

What happened? Didn't you cook a turkey large enough to feed a family of 10+?

Anonymous wrote:I am one of the bitter old hags who criticize big families. We have a great many of them in our area. And increasingly, I feel like having a big family in this day and age is a political act. They are the homeschooling, right-wing types who practice Natural Family Planning but can't seem to get it right. And more annoying that that, they are in my way. When we are at swimming lessons or dance, the moms are the ones sitting on their asses letting their kids throw the free newspapers on the ground or stick pencils in their eyes. They are the kids drowning in the swimming pool. One of them is always MIA. Hey wanna-be Mrs Duggars of the world, watch your children. I often wonder, I only have two kids why do I seem busier or more harried than Mrs. Duggar who is over there lounging b/c she's tired. She's pregnant again, of course. So her kids are out playing in traffic or the older ones have the little ones (maybe). The other day I saw one mom really berating her 7 (?) old for not watching the little ones. That just isn't right.

ITA. Some mom of a large brood is probably going to come on here and tell us all that the woman in your story is not stressed because she just has her act together or something whereas you are a disorganized, lazy mess. Nonsense. Most of the women like the one you observed do not take care of the family day-to-day. How can they, after all, they are always pregnant or breastfeeding an infant. Day-to-day care is done by someone else (if at all). The homeschooling is one of the more disturbing issues, and I believe that the OP has stated on other threads that she home schools. How does someone who is always pregnant or breastfeeding an infant also properly homeschool the older children? The OP of this thread is on this site posting so much that we know about her home births, her Catholic faith, her family blog, that she was the oldest of 10, her husband is in the military, and the gender of her kids. How can someone who home schools multiple older kids and presumably runs a household of 10 people have so much time for the Internet?

Anonymous wrote:The idea that childhood means no work and all play is cultural. Kids learn to be responsible by taking on responsibility. Babysitting younger siblings has been happening since the beginning of time and it is only modern day urban rich who now feel that is oppression. Still out on farms and in rural areas, kids help out.

I was one of 6 and yes I did lots of babysitting but it was never a bad thing. In our family being part of the family meant contributing whether you were child or adult. I really couldn't have been all that bad as various teens lived with us by choice when their own family situations were bad and yes they were expected to take on responsibilities as a family member, including helping with other kids.

I agree. I grew up on a farm in the midwest - my siblings and I shared one room (there were 5 of us). I don't feel like I was deprived of a childhood but we had chores we had to do everyday and before we could play/leave with our friends. Certain times of the year, we were too busy working to be able to do what we wanted (think late spring when vegetable gardens had to be prepped or during lambing season). I didn't always like it (and it took many years before I would plant a vegetable) but it's what our family circumstances required and none of us are worse for the wear because of it. It definitely taught us responsibility and consequences.

I am one of the bitter old hags who criticize big families. We have a great many of them in our area. And increasingly, I feel like having a big family in this day and age is a political act. They are the homeschooling, right-wing types who practice Natural Family Planning but can't seem to get it right. And more annoying that that, they are in my way. When we are at swimming lessons or dance, the moms are the ones sitting on their asses letting their kids throw the free newspapers on the ground or stick pencils in their eyes. They are the kids drowning in the swimming pool. One of them is always MIA. Hey wanna-be Mrs Duggars of the world, watch your children. I often wonder, I only have two kids why do I seem busier or more harried than Mrs. Duggar who is over there lounging b/c she's tired. She's pregnant again, of course. So her kids are out playing in traffic or the older ones have the little ones (maybe). The other day I saw one mom really berating her 7 (?) old for not watching the little ones. That just isn't right.

I'm a singleton and was responsible for all family laundry at five and stayed alone all weekend by 10. Like the pp, I can't remember ever feeling like a child. I'm not sure it's *just* a question of family size.

I'm the oldest of five. Suffice it to say I stopped feeling like a child at around age nine.

The Duggars are making a lot more money with the show than most likely any family with 20 kids in the USA. More power too them. I think people need to realize that reality tv stars get paid. Things are played up for the viewers at home, scenarios, trips, etc... Personally, I believe this show is the best thing to happen for them. The kids otherwise would not have traveled the world - I saw one season/episode the oldest went to Malaysia on a mission trip, now they recently went to Europe and Israel for a Duggar world tour. This exposure should help them see diversity outside of small town Arkansas. Maybe one day a few of the kids will move to the big city or date instead of courting. Maybe even the girls will wear pants or kiss a girl or boy before marriage. Things kids experience everyday everywhere else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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[b].

Sometimes they have to. Mom develops a disabling condition, then the FAMILY (aunts, uncles, grandparents, and siblings) has to chip in and make things work.

Well of course in those extreme cases, the kids may have to help. This would be the case with small families too.

The idea that childhood means no work and all play is cultural. Kids learn to be responsible by taking on responsibility. Babysitting younger siblings has been happening since the beginning of time and it is only modern day urban rich who now feel that is oppression. Still out on farms and in rural areas, kids help out.

I was one of 6 and yes I did lots of babysitting but it was never a bad thing. In our family being part of the family meant contributing whether you were child or adult. I really couldn't have been all that bad as various teens lived with us by choice when their own family situations were bad and yes they were expected to take on responsibilities as a family member, including helping with other kids.

Anonymous wrote:Childhood as we know it is an invention of priviledge and the last 100 years. It is not an entitlement and looking at the kids I see today, quite probably a bad idea.

Yes, the world is going to hell in a handbasket so let's encourage everyone to have 10 kids. Especially in this economy. Great idea! That will make everything better.

Childhood as we know it is an invention of priviledge and the last 100 years. It is not an entitlement and looking at the kids I see today, quite probably a bad idea.

I have older and younger children, and ever six months or so, I ask the older ones to watch the younger ones while DH and I go out somewhere. They are not babies, so not that hard to watch. I think it gives the older kids a sense of responsibility. I tell them that they have to keep their younger siblings safe. The younger ones are old enough to tell me if their older sibs do anything mean, so they don't. And I'm always available by phone, so the older kids can call and tell me if the younger ones are giving them a hard time, which they do on occasion.

I've never heard my older kids complain about this "free babysitting". I think they feel responsible and grown up, and like that. If they had to do it every day or every week, I'm sure they'd resent it, but it's so infrequent, and I always make dinner and rent a movie for them to watch that it's a fun evening without their parents around.

Our family isn't huge, but there are definitely two age groups. I think if you take advantage of your kids, they are going to resent it. I don't think we are taking advantage, nor do I think they would like it if I hired a babysitter to watch the younger kids -- I think it would seem weird to the older ones, who are perfectly capable of watching the younger ones, and are capable of staying home by themselves.

I'm sorry for kids who were pushed by their immature parents into childcare at an early age. That is totally wrong, but occasional babysitting seems fine, and actually beneficial, at least in my family.

Anonymous wrote: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[b].

Sometimes they have to. Mom develops a disabling condition, then the FAMILY (aunts, uncles, grandparents, and siblings) has to chip in and make things work.

Parents are the ones who are responsible for their children. Siblings deserve childhoods too. OP, if you have to ask your older children to help with your other children, you have too much on your plate and are unfairly putting your own burdens on your children.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see that (OP again). My parents came from big families, too, and there were issues with bullies and abusers among the siblings, and I can see how, in that way, larger numbers make a significant difference.

So far, I have picked up some genuine wisdom, which I am taking to heart, thank you.

Oh, and PP whose feelings were hurt--you have me confused with another poster. And I am trying not to let your words bother me...after all, this is DCUM, and I know such comments will be made along the way, though I wish it didn't have to be like that.