Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that it's completely bonkers to want a large family?

281 replies

slightlystunned · 26/08/2012 21:38

I read a recent thread where a mom is contemplating having a 4th child and the responses were largely (and cautiously) supportive.

If she had asked the same question to someone from my country, she would have been considered a freak.

I come from a country that is struggling with over-population and poverty and a large % of crime and thus a lot of orphans / abandoned children. I am also enough of an environmental nut to realise that 2+ children or 4+ humans per household means more consumption of natural and artificial resources.

And, face it, in the western culture the child leaves home at 18. The rude behavior and ingratitude and f&ck off attitude starts well before that, around 13, 14 years? So I genuinely don't understand why one would sacrifice their best years & money for that relatively short period of time (13+years), to bring up 3+ children, who may or may not stay together, or keep in touch with you, or worse, hurt you. I have lived extensively in US and Europe, and ALL the families I know see their children only during holidays, about once a year. In fact, one of my British-born, Caucasian friends is in deep emotional and financial crisis and none of her 5 siblings have time to spend with her, they are all well off and can help her, but they politely looking the other way while she a single mom is struggling with a day job.

This is not just a one-time observation, even the people in my acquaintances who have good relationship with their siblings or parents do not help out, saying that "I can't be involved, I have my own life to lead". So if large families do not teach other to help each other, what else is the purpose?

In my grandmother's generation, it was common to have 6 or 8 or even 10 children every household. More children was sign of ""manliness" and ""fertility"

In my mother's generation, 2 and 3 were common. 4 was considered slightly overdose.

In my generation, just one or at the most, 2 seems to be enough. And the trend right now in my country is to have one ""womb" child and one "heart" child (adopted). Which is fairly a good idea, considering the number of orphans and destitute children in the world.

So my two questions are: 1. is this what it is in the West - a trend, a statement to say that "I am a domestic goddess" and have a large family? Do people actually realise the social, financial and emotional consequences of having a large family in today's world?

  1. If there is any other valid reason, why this craze to have children from own "blood"? If a person is lucky enough to have financial security and the means to raise another child, why not share it with a child from "outside" who is not so fortunate?

I don't wish to hurt any one, I have been plagued by these questions for many years. I just want some perspective. I am not married, nor do I have children.

OP posts:
Pagwatch · 30/08/2012 13:13

Foul, bitter and overly sensitive.
That is quite busy for me in one morning.

AbsofAwesomeness · 30/08/2012 13:18

So bats ... do you have children?

batsintheroof · 30/08/2012 13:19

AbsofAwesomeness why?

AbsofAwesomeness · 30/08/2012 13:21

Curiosity. You seem to think it's a terrible idea and is spelling the planet's doom, "but to be honest all our children are fucked anyway, so it won't make that much difference"
It seems reasonable to ask if you have children your self.

I do agree though that some of the comments on this thread have been pretty nasty, particularly the one about the OP not having children

reluctanttownie · 30/08/2012 13:22

batsintheroof I'm with you. See my post above re Ponzi scheme. Not a proper solution and even a disservice to all the babies we say we need to fund the old people. What is their inheritence? A planet in an extremely bad way and a country that's too expensive (because it's too crowded - supply and demand) for them to buy a place to live, with over-strecthed infrastructure and job market that is horrific for them. All to fund our short-termism. It doesn't help anyone, or the planet.

Kewcumber · 30/08/2012 13:23

If I'd done on an Indian forum after 4 months in the country to state that their teenagers were dull, unenthusiastic about anything, robotic (choose any suitable adjective) that families lived so much in each others pockets that no-one was capable of having an individual life. That poor people were so badly treated that everyone should feel ashamed of themselves and not have any children because they should instead adopt a child from an institution - I would quite rightly be pasted. And it wouldn't be anything to do with my use of language.

There are many things I don't like about the way British society is heading, but there isn't another country which I think gets things right - we all fall down in some way. I could point out the dearth of Indian athletes at the paralympic games as a failing of Indian society's attitudes to disability (which it is) and maybe there is a sensible conversation to be had about disability in India or teenage dysfunction in the UK. But a sweeping dig at a whole population and asking why anyone would have a large family given how horrible our children are isn't the way to go about it.

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 13:26

oh boo fucking hoo, you deep thinking eco-warriors. Such a shame you haven't managed to understand the basic principles of life yet are so pessimistic about it.
Won't anyone think of the children....?

EldritchCleavage · 30/08/2012 13:27

You are foul, bitter, overly-sensitive creatures that need to wash their mouths out.

Nope, not me.

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 13:27

Wash your mouths out? Do you somehow imagine us typing with our tongues? Confused

batsintheroof · 30/08/2012 13:31

It is programmed within our DNA to reproduce, I don't think it's an urge I could ever fight even knowing the future is not bright.

I'm just one of those crazy leftie scientist types and come to MN with my own issues. It pains me in my day-to-day job to know how bad it is whilst the rest of the world lets life sail past with apathy and non-action. I also work with a lot of very clever non-native English speakers and know that it's all in the semantics, which non-natives tend to get muddled.

Wash your mouths out is an IDIOM. Hmm

ExitStencilist you only save life by placing limits on it, or you could go looking for another planet......

TheBigJessie · 30/08/2012 13:32

I remember an abusive dad washing his daughter's mouth out with soap on Grange Hill.
[/tangent]

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 13:33

No thanks, I'm perfectly happy with this one. My country is underpopulated and very roomy, and I'm not a handwringing pessimist with savior-issues. Smile

AbsofAwesomeness · 30/08/2012 13:35

"It is programmed within our DNA to reproduce, I don't think it's an urge I could ever fight even knowing the future is not bright. "
So you do have children then?

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 13:37

Is it programmed within our dna? Where in the genome is that then? And why are so many people missing it?
Or is that another misused idiom?

EldritchCleavage · 30/08/2012 13:38

Wash your mouths out is an IDIOM

Are you this bossy with the very clever non-native English speakers?

reluctanttownie · 30/08/2012 13:43

exit what country is that, then? And what about the planet as a whole?

Abs are only people WITH children allowed to have any opinion on any aspect, however theoretical and abstract, of having children? Bit Confused by the obsession with whether bats has children? Seems a bit like arguing that only people with loads of money should have an opinion about, say, taxing rich people.

Surely when something is an issue that affects everyone, society, our planet, everything, everyone is entitled to an opinion?

Emmielu · 30/08/2012 13:43

Op I really don't think you need to be concerning yourself over what another op wants with her life. If she's able to look after them then what's the issue? You worry about your country and your life. Don't fret about other peoples and certainly don't judge large families. Although I only have 1 dc I would love more.

batsintheroof · 30/08/2012 13:44

I'm not a geneticist unfotunately.

I do know on a basic level we are 'programmed' to reproduce through finding sex fun, not necessarily through liking kids, although for many people they do find kids quite cute and have an urge to reproduce. You don't need to like kids in a world of no contraception, you just need to have sex. Maybe I should have said it is programmed into MY DNA to reproduce, by which I meant, it's an overwhelming urge.

I have retired greyhounds, children soon.

Kewcumber · 30/08/2012 13:45

"Wash your mouths out" well if Bats isn't a mother, she should be... she sounds just like mine!

AbsofAwesomeness · 30/08/2012 13:45

I don't have DCs either, I was just wondering.

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 13:57

There are plenty of relatively underpopulated countries you know. Pretty close to your own even. And the planet as a whole...well that was my point if only you could see anyone elses. You want certain countries to fall way below replacement level while other countries still have much higher birth rates, don't you see what imbalance that will lead too, and what that will mean for the planet?

batsintheroof · 30/08/2012 14:15

There's no such thing as an 'underpopulated' country.

I don't think I really see what you're getting at Exit, although I'm all ears (eyes). If you're talking about resource wars, then we're pretty much past men fighting with guns if there's a threat to base camp aren't we? If we distract ourselves with population imbalance problems the planet will die in the background.

BTW, Scandinavia is lovely and I hear they have great maternity laws and regulations over there ;)

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 14:19

Did you miss the word "relatively" there? There are relatively underpopulated countries. For example the UK has 256 people per sq km, my country has 65. Australia has 3. Huge difference. There are masses of land everywhere.

No, not resource wars. Seriously, if you can't see what I mean, there is no point explaining it to you.

Why would I care what Scandinavia has? Hmm

batsintheroof · 30/08/2012 14:47

No, there's no such thing as an underpopulated country I'm afraid. 'Relatively' underpopulated has even less meaning. If you can't see why I ain't going to tell you.

There are land masses of relatively little natural resource value everywhere, is what you mean and that's why people don't live there. There isn't much in the middle of Australia, practically a desert. It doesn't help our environmental problems because there isn't much 'environment' there to ruin.

I was referring to myself in the Scandinavia reference, not to you. Wondering where is the best place to bring up children.......

ExitStencilist · 30/08/2012 14:53

There is, of course, such a thing as a relatively underpopulated country. Just because you can't grasp the concept doesn't mean it doesn't exist.