So........is it socially unacceptable to have more than two children these days?

[electra]

I have three. I have one friend in particular who has regularly makes snippy comments about how many more am I going to push out.

Recently I took dd3 to the GP and dd2 was with us. The GP is one I have known for years but have not seen for a while. She looked at dd3, looked at dd2 and back again. And then looked at me and said

'So....how many have you got now??

Do the rest of you encounter this? Is it worse if you're a lone parent perhaps?!

We are an ageing population and it is causing problems, we desperately need to balance out the population and if people don,t have more children we will have to address it through immigration anyway.

I think immigration is the perfect solution actually.

Tbh honest this is the one thing I do feel judgey about, not 3 maybe but larger definitely, think concerns about the size of the future pension pot are shortsighted in the extreme, fracking, deforestation, climate change, the world needs more people like it needs a whole in the head, also think we need to think globally now, not think about Northern Europe as a separate entity when it comes to population growth, environmental concerns, birth rate may be through the floor here but there will be large migration of populations from areas affected by climate change in the future. Climate change predominantly caused by the western lifestyle we all want our children to have. Rant over, totally not judgemental on any other topic promise

1dad I family with two wohp and 2dc could only have one hour before school and 1.5 hours after school to spend with them. That's 1.5 hours per child mon-fri.
I am a sahm four of my 7 dc are at home that gives me more time mon- fri per child than a two child family with no sahm.
As for one two one attention dh and I make sure that happens. Any extra dc has not resulted in less time for the older ones . For a start they go to bed a lot later.
I don't have hobbies, or go out more often than once every couple of months. Neither does dh any free time we want to spend with our dc.

I've no issues with larger families as long as there is no reliance on benefits or tax credits. Also, parents who rely on the older children to look after the younger ones.

We have 5DC and I've been asked lots of times in the past if I'm a childminder,I've had alot of surprised reactions when I told people that know they were all mine.

We've had the same lame joke "couldn't you afford a Tv licence" hundreds of times.

Usually I get mainly positive responses though,younger generation Mum's and Dad's will usually say I don't know how you do it we struggle with 1,2 or 3 children.Older generation Mum's and Dad's and Grandparents usually tell us that it's really nice to see a larger family and that it's not something you see so much anymore.

I'd ignore anything negative anyone says,some of the assumptions some people make about family's with more than 2 children are the complete opposite to the way we are as a family.

AndNowItsSeven please don't think I am having a pop. If it works for you and your all happy great. Just saying it sounds bloody hard work and not for most. I guess that why we don't have that many family's that large. Plus I think most would think that having to look for a 9 seater as a bit of a special arrangement. Everything you do I would assume must take great planning and organisation. After all there is only two of you; you are somewhat outnumbered. Do you have older kids to assist with the younger? You have both clearly sacrificed a lot to live this lifestyle and that's fine. But done in the wrong way there would be scope for some of the kids to miss out and I bet in some family's they do.

I think a lot of it stems from either people thinking:
(a) You have more children than you can afford.
(b) You have more children than the planet can afford.

With (a) it is a straightforward question of whether you and your immediate family earn enough or have enough money to support your children. If you rely on benefits, people will feel it is justified to criticise you - they are paying for your children, after all.

With (b) it is more complicated. Maybe you are wealthy and don't need taxpayers' money to raise your kids. But, overpopulation is a serious problem. Every child eats up a little more of the planet's resources. Whether you believe in global warming or not, the planet can only support a finite number of people. It will not kill us as a species in the next 50 years, but it will eventually.

There is also option (c) of course, the perception that the people who have the most children tend to be the least suitable parents. Think of Karen Matthews or Mick Philpott for example. These are the people who spring to the forefront of the mind of many people when they think of those who have had many children.

Not all serial-mothers and serial-fathers are as wicked, evil or downright stupid as those two, but it fuels the belief that people with lots of children are sexually irresponsible, deluded, idiots or money-grabbing scum who will gladly risk their kids' lives and/or wellbeing for the chance of a big cash payout.

The best way you can counter this perception is to demonstrate through your actions that not all serial-parents are like this. You can do this by showing your friend, and society at large, that you can support your own family and that you can raise them to be responsible, well-adjusted adults.

It will take time to change perceptions but you can demonstrate that your friend is wrong only through your actions.

Also life doesn't always work out as planned. Breakups must be difficult especially if you found yourself a single parent say with 8 young kids?

With the risk of sounding unfair it seems a little unfair to criticise Western family's who can support their kids. The overpopulation of the 3rd world is a growing problem. Especially because these are the area's of the world least equipt to cope with such population growth. Western families having more than 2 kids is a drop in the ocean, almost a negligible quantity on the scale of things and at least they are born in a society that can feed and educate them. If you look at things in perspective it seems unfair to criticise the very few large western families. Over population of the 3rd world is what is swelling the planets population.

Facepalm

Perhaps you saw the same GP I did. who also looked us all up and down as we filed in and then asked if they were all mine (all 3 of them )

Ahh ok 1dad sorry I was being a bit sensitive, because attention for our individual dc is something dh and I prioritise. Especially so as we have multiples.
Our eldest dc are 17 and 13 they have asd though so yes they help by playing with their younger siblings and dd1 may put them in and out of their car seats but we don't ask anything of them.
Tbf even if they didn't have asd we would want them to help out too much as they didn't choose to have younger siblings dh and I did.

GreatAuntMary

ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE ZOMBIE

Seriously MNHQ, can't you fathom out an algorithm to put a lock in threads that are FIVE FUCKING YEARS OLD?!

Can't think my kids missed out on much really. They learnt much from being a part of a larger family and remain, very, very close. Our eldest ones 'ping money' to the youngest when her budgeting at uni has been less than successful or when she 'needs' new clothes etc.
As babies we had a good number of bottom shufflers and no crawlers - younger ones pointed and older ones fetched (even when told not to). They all learned to consider others, to share, to wait patiently and to negotiate. Between husband and me, I don't think they lacked attention ever. All were breastfed to 2 plus years. They did learn the whole world didn't revolve around them and were perhaps able to play more freely than singletons whose parents were more involved in their every breath.
Was it ever hard? Of course it was. Would I recommend it? Absolutely.

1DAD the '3rd world' is really not the problem - rampant consumerism in the West is the issue.

Even the largest '3rd world' family (which is no longer the terminology tbh) doesn't have the kind of carbon footprint the average 2.4 western family has.

If a thread has been dead for such a long time, it probably should be locked but, then again, what's the harm? It saves someone starting a new thread.

(Of course, I didn't realise it was a zombie when I posted before, but I am a dullard, so that's not too surprising.)

Seriously 1Dad? How many resources do those 'third world's families consume? How many live to old age and require care? Why do you think they have lots of kids? Lack of contraception maybe?

You can't compare.

Even the largest '3rd world' family (which is no longer the terminology tbh) doesn't have the kind of carbon footprint the average 2.4 western family has.

True, but infinitely mutable. Westerners are becoming more invested in consumption and green technologies; meanwhile, India's C02 footprint (for example) is expanding rapidly.

So........is it socially unacceptable to have more than two children these days?

Only if you're bound by the approval/disappoval of randoms who have nothing to do with your life whatsoever but have a pressing need to scapegoat or feel better than others

well i have three and i am always told they must be a handful, when actually i found the more there are the easier it is. plus it makes them sound like they are trouble which they are not they are actually really good kids.

as for the Green argument and over population, it would be better if we didn't think it a good idea to assist those who cannot concieve naturall to do so. IVF and its counterparts are making multiples a common occourance, so not only are we damaging the natural selection, we are increasing our numbers 2 and 3 fold.

I'm in Ireland and I've noticed that 2+ is a bit of a status symbol amongst the middle class. Either the couple can afford a third child on the one salary, or mother has such a good secure job that she can take maternity leave once every 18 months up to three times and still have a good salary and a secure role to return to.

I don't grudge that to any woman, just, it is a privilege, relatively, not every woman is in the situation where her job is that secure, her qualifiactions and her role sufficiently valued/remunerated adequately to cover childcare etc.

So yes, if even in holy catholic Ireland 2+ is a status symbol then I imagine in the UK, having more than two is a bit 'what how many?'

I know on my budget/earning potential and with my status (single) if I'd had three I would have felt even shabbier.

I have 3 and have never had any comments either. Friends with 4+ have though! I always say I have had ours plus DH's sister and brothers' share as my environmental excuse (no other kids on his side of the family).
I think you have one snippy 'friend' and a dippy GP!

Actually I stand by what I say. Well think about it proportionally when you look at the tiny numbers of high consuming large western families compared to the almost incomprehensible numbers of large 3rd world families. Especially if we look at population growth expected in the 3rd world within the next 20-30 years (particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa). Although a western family consumes more per head if we look at consumption as a whole? We are already seeing huge consumption increases in highly populous developing/3rd world countries such as China and India. Consider population growth estimates for 2050 totally dwarf population numbers for the western world.

For example if we look at food consumption. The average person in the UK consumes 3450 calories a day as in India the average consumption is 2,360. So in the UK we consume more food per head. What’s interesting in terms of overall consumption is when you factor the population. As a nation per day the

UK consumes 224, 629, 500, 000 calories a day
India consumes 3, 089, 499, 600, 000 calories a day

Roughly out of our combined consumption we consume 7.5% and India consumes 92.5%. Although India is a far more populous country in real terms per nation the rapidly expanding 3rd world is consuming far more food than the western world. If we were to tot up the food consumption of all developed and all developing/3rd world nations we would probably see an even bigger divide. Remember not all western countries are as greedy as the UK. Over the next 20-30 years populations in Sub-Saharan nations are predicted to shoot up rapidly and unlike any population growth seen before. Developed nations populations look to continue to stagnate. So yes I stand by what I say about over population in the 3rd world being far more a problem than a very small hand full of families in the UK deciding to have 4 plus kids. In terms of consumption their effect is totally negligible. So it is silly to criticise a very small amount of our population who want more kids for their almost none existent (on the global scale) impact on the world.