Multiple children

[WanderingTrolley1]

What do you think of couples who have large families - say 4/5/6+ children?

I think big families tend to have better manners just because usually the Mum is at home all the time, so the children don’t have to adjust to different rules and expectations and get one consistent message. I really don’t care how many children people have but I personally loved being part of a larger sibling group and like having lots of children.

I have four. DH works hard to support us and I am about to rejoin workforce after 6 years as a SAHM.

We cloth nappied, clean with vinegar, I cook from scratch, lots of things 2nd hand, we camp for holidays. We are plant based. We do care about the environment and are very careful about our impact.

We are very very very happy. Our kids all love each other. We don't need anyone else, they aren't spoilt and they don't whinge at us for 'stuff'. DC1 is autistic and the best gift we ever gave that child was siblings. We weren't blessed with fertility, and we never set out to have a large family. But we are ever so grateful that we do.

Does that answer your judgmental question?

I think me and my husband are great, thanks for asking.

I have 3 and that is plenty for me. Environmental reasons were nowhere on the list at all for not having another (and the list why number 4 would be a bad idea is as long as my arm)

I know quite a few families of 3, then 4/5 +. Most of them are not blended and all from the same relationship. Housing/ money does not seem to be a deciding factor (the CTC cap doesn't seem to have made a difference)

What do I think? If I am honest I swing between 'It's up to them' and 'Really? Another?'

A lot of them are #busymakingmemories and #myfamilymyworld

I do get the occasional stranger who will say my hands must be so full

And the above answer with 'But my heart is fuller' I just go 'yeah they are', but I don't see it as a judgement, just a statement.

(The Tele comment isn't funny though)

And my 3 will have an environmental impact going forwards. When/If they leave home that is 3 homes they will require. It is pretty irrelevant that we don't fly as a family and are frugal with things as they will only be in my 'care' for 18years, they have many more years as a grown adult. I have reduced my impact, but I still have more impact than a family of 4 with a similar outlook.

Kids don't play out as much, it's frowned upon to let them walk to school at a young age or leave them home alone

Where I live the children do play out in the street from roughly age 4/5, they're encouraged by school to start walking there/back by themselves from Year 4 (age 8-9) and once they're in Year 5 it's expected that they'll do this. DS peers (all aged 10, some of the September-borns approaching 11) are starting to be left home alone for brief periods. It's the norm here to see DC being sent to the shop from around age 7/8, going to the park with friends and no adult from around 9/10, etc.

I read that 4 is pretty much the maximum if you want to give each one enough individual attention. More than that and there literally aren't enough hours in the day to nurture all the relationships.

Having said that, I reckon you can probably stretch that a bit if you have massive age gaps or loads of money for staff (or very helpful grandparents).

Personally I find that 2 kids take more than enough time and effort. I take my hat off to anyone who manages more.

The main issue for me is that we know that we are less than 12 years from a catastrophic environmental tipping point and it makes me sad that our children and their children might have to live unimaginably hard lives in a boiling world.

Really? Less than 12 years? Is there an article/link to this news?

My best friend and her DH her six, they are all wonderful kids and are a close knit family. They also homeschooled them, the eldest graduated from Uni and is now a PICU nurse at our Children’s hospital and recently married. The second daughter graduated from Uni and is working in marketing, two more are at Uni and two are still at home.

The birth rate overall in the UK is less than 2, from an environment point of view that's good, it doesn't much matter if one family had six while six others have one each. It's about the average rather than the individual.

I'm envious of large families. I'd love to do it but I don't think I could afford it in terms of money, energy or patience!

I have 4 dc. As a pp, environmental concerns did not feature as a concern for us as it wasn’t a ‘thing’. This is despite being pretty environmental myself. I haven’t used cling film for about 25 years, always own shopping bags, buying in bulk. All small but lifestyle changes. I was one in a family of 5, dh one of four, so I guess we don’t see anything wrong with how we were brought up (that was a result of number of dc).

Of our combined siblings - 9 - there are 7 grandchildren, so it’s a bit annoying that we’d be condemned for having 4! The youngest is 36 and would like 2 dc, but no others will have children.

What annoyed me is that Harry and Megan (who actually I quite like apart from actually having a big problem with the institution of monarchy) can announce that they will only have 2 dc for environmental reasons but then still continue to travel in planes, have a huge wardrobes, conspicuous consumption etc etc, it seems like hypocrisy not to completely embrace what you preach.

I read that 4 is pretty much the maximum if you want to give each one enough individual attention.
really where on earth did you read that? It sounds like something “they” say. . How do you quantify “enough” attention? What is it you are looking for from a family? Most of the ridiculous statement about large families could equally be directed at families with working parents, families who are poor, families with disability, families with one child, families who move house..... Totally ridiculous.

I am one of six and I don’t like it because even if you can afford it and even if your the nicest parent in the world you cannot give a child the one to one time that they all need. It’s just impossible. I was taken out once by my Mother for the whole day just the two of us. It’s my best childhood memory, she also always worked fulltime.

@Adversecamber22 how much 1:1 time do you think children need? What has lead you to this conclusion? I find a lot of these statements don’t really stand up to closer scrutiny. I suspect myself that humans are happier and do better in groups. The modern idyll of two parents creating quality time with one or two children to maximise their potential (for earning and achievement) in such an artificial and frankly obsessive way doesn’t necessarily lead to happy successful adults. MN is full of lonely isolated lost people trying to recreate pseudo family dynamics while “living the dream”.

I think one on one time with a parent does not necessarily trump the advantages of having many siblings.

I have one sister and we get on great.. I'd have loved more siblings.

It must be lovely as you get older as you have a bigger support network and extended family.

I have two dc...I'd love them to have more siblings but I'm just too exhausted and skint!

Fine iMO - as long as parents have enough time and money to feed, clothe, house and nurture them well enough.

I know someone with 4 children, she moans about how hard it is constantly (they were all planned) moans about the mess they make, how much they eat, how much they cost to clothe. Basically anything to do with the kids she moans. She can't afford them so relies heavily on her parents for help but doesn't help them in any way and has actually had an argument with them once when they asked to borrow some money off her as their bank card had broke on a day trip. She doesn't help the environment in anyway, doesn't recycle everything she should, drives everywhere. She expects the world to pay and bring up the kids she chose to have.

I have 4 DC with a 2.5 year age gap. I grew up with one older sibling (4.5 years gap) and was incredibly lonely as we didn't have much other family or friends that lived nearby. I was desperate for more siblings or to go to boarding school.
We can afford 4 DC. They all do plenty of extra stuff and I try and take them out individually for a treat regularly. They read and get read to on their own every day. They also have loads of fun together. They also argue and fight. It's swings and roundabouts. What they lose in some areas they gain in others but I would never judge anyone elses choices. I wouldn't have more as I am at my emotional, financial and physical capacity with four.

Massively impressed. I couldn’t hack it. I’m not in the habit of making myself feel superior by judging other people’s perfectly valid life choices. I have two myself so it would be quite hypocritical to disapprove of people who have more. So long as they raise their children kindly and without burdening others there is nothing to say.

I read that 4 is pretty much the maximum if you want to give each one enough individual attention.
grin really where on earth did you read that? It sounds like something “they” say. hmm. How do you quantify “enough” attention? What is it you are looking for from a family? Most of the ridiculous statement about large families could equally be directed at families with working parents, families who are poor, families with disability, families with one child, families who move house..... Totally ridiculous.

I read it in They Fuck You Up by Oliver James... I have given away my copy now, so unfortunately can't quote the research it was based on. But he is a chartered psychologist and psychoanalyst who knows his stuff and does provide references for the research. I just can't remember what they were!

Oliver James has said some other questionable things so I wouldn't necessarily set much store by that one.

I like the group theory. But I wonder if I would say that as I'm an extrovert...

The title of his book sounds extremely erudite

For sure, the title is an attention-grabber, It's designed to appeal to the popular market. (It's also a Philip Larkin quote, obvs.)

Can't comment on the vague "questionable things" he may have said without a bit more info.

I think it's a great book. Got borrowed by a lot of interested friends until sadly one of them forgot to return it .

He's good at evidence-based stuff. So my point is: the "4 kids" thing isn't just some "they say" bollocks. Although, as I also said in my original post, I wouldn't take it as set in stone.

I had to google him. His basic premise. Seems to be that nurture is all and nature (genetics) are irrelevant. I would imagine families with fewer children would find that easier to swallow.

I have 4, we can afford them, they’ve all got their own rooms, we recycle, don’t travel abroad, try to use as little plastic as possible, get one on one time regularly. I don’t see the issue. I think it’s really beneficial for them to have their siblings. They play together, they back each other up. My second starts school tomorrow (Scotland) and he isn’t scared because he’s looking forward to playing with his brother at break. I don’t know why sibling relationships are always denigrated on Mumsnet.