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

[slightlystunned]

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.

penis. It could be puzzling if someone starts to question their own viewpoint after observing what others do that is opposite to the way the currently think. By asking they might learn something that changes their point of view or reinforces it. Without asking we can't learn to understand other perspectives.

ismeyes yes I do have a larger family😊. And sometimes I'd agree with the op that it's a "bonkers" thing to do😄. Not entirely logical when you stop to think about it😉

kingfu. Was it.? I didn't read it like that.

Question their own perspectives on how many children they have by observing your family size? Not generally how people decide to create new people or not, I would have thought.

I did. The arguments aren't natural offshoots of the large family point. It feels like the OP is trying to attach a whole load of criticisms about British/western people to one central point.

And the chippy follow-up posts don't remotely feel like someone who actually wants to discuss a perfectly reasonable discussion point properly.

It feels to me as though the OP has some vague feelings of superiority over the poor, rude, disconected British people and is looking for a valid reason for these feelings.

kungfupanda I'm inclined to agree.

It's a pile of factually innaccurate twatwankery IMVHO.

kungfu I agree too.

I left because I had given up - people were trying to make this into a British vs Indian war and I thought the only way to stop it was to let this thread die. However, I am very VERY relieved to read posts by Juule, MorrisZapp and Winegoggles (THANK YOU!), because that means there is someone here who understands what I am trying to say.

For the first and last time, let me say this - I never claimed or claim that the "Western culture is the root cause of all evil". I studied in the West. I live and like living in the West. Most of my friends are from the West- in fact this whole post was triggered by a friend - born and brought up in UK in a large family - who is in dire need of emotional and financial help, but is ignored by her affluent siblings. I see her suffering on a daily basis. She herself raised 3 children who have all abandoned her. Yes I am biased and I am confused, and coming from a culture where it is almost an obligation to help your siblings/parents, it is very hard for me to understand this. So I am seeking some perspective.

A very small number of people (most noticable CallinDiana) has been greatly helpful in making me understand the other point of view.

Rest of all has been pure drivel.

That ratio itself should make one realise the majority kind of people who post in these forums!

People who want psychoanalyse my OP and post various hypothesis, what can I say - perhaps you post in internet forums like MN only so that you can bizarre judgements on people, statements that you'd never have the courage to say face-to-face (how does that sound for a hypothesis?)

I agree I have made 2 mistakes:

1. To post m question in a forum populated by proud mums/parents. A friend passed this MN link to me and I thought what better place to ask for an opinion about large families, but I forgot to first google about MN and learn about the bullies here :)
2. To post without thinking about the tone of my posts. (To that person who accused my posts as being "chirpy". English is not my first language. I write like how I speak. Perhaps polite and even-toned posts, posts that do not resort to name calling are termed as chirpy?

I am most happy to have people tell me "You are completely wrong/stupid/immature, I come from a large family and I am very happy". What I have absolutely no use or respect for is, "How dare you talk about Britain/US/the West when you are from a country that is famous for female infanticide blah blah blah"

To make things clear, I am NOT anti-children. That's just plain laughable because I love kids! I come from a small family (only one other sibling) but like most Indian children in a semi-urban town, I was brought up in a joint family, my father's brothers lived with us in a big house, so naturally my cousins/nieces/nephews all lived together as a big family.

I grew up taking care of my cousin's children. But that does not mean that I want a large family. I know the advantages as well as disadvantages of a large family because I grew up in one. And this was 20 years back. Now, the world is completely different, and it still - TO ME - feels like a large family is more of a disadvantage. I am happy to be proved wrong.

Why is the world completely different 20 years ago?

I have one child, can't afford more so I can't see why I would want more. In the past people had large families because there wasn't readily available contraceptives or abortion. There really isn't any excuse for it nowadays.

Here is a thread that helped me gain more perspective

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/larger_families/1146134-What-would-you-consider-a-large-Family-and-pros-and-cons-to-having-one/AllOnOnePage

Did you ever explain what 'near autstic' means?

"Op if the thought of having children scares you then remaining childless is an option"

StealthPolarBear, I am well aware of such an option. Much as I love children, I have so far not felt the necessity to have one. I am in the childcare industry - if I say anything more there is a chance you can google and find my real identity online, and with some of the replies here, I am sure I will soon get my very own stalker :) - and I have daily contact with children, I enjoy being with them and my life is richer because of kids.

As I said previously, I also grew up with lots of kids and babies in the house. Perhaps that is the reason I don't have this urge to procreate? I don't know. All I know is I am lucky enough to have a partner who shares my views (and who incidentally is an American-born British resident, so I hope that stops the anti-West comment!) and we have decided not to have children until we feel the urge to have one - and if that is too late for a biological one, then we will welcome an adopted child in our lives.

I am surprised by all these questions about "near - autistic". I thought everyone must have heard about mild autism.. or is the question supposed to be a "bait"?

www.jonathanschild.com/explaining_mild_autism

It sounds like you just arent very maternal op.Nothing wrong with that but that will make it hard for you to understand how people who want lots of children feel.I had the urge to have a child at 18 but managed to wait a few years the broody feeling can be all consuming in a lot of people.

No. It's not a bait. Mild autistic I understand completely.
I don't understand near autistic. I think of autism as a condition which you either have or not in various degrees from mild to severe.
Near autistic just sounds like 'I am a bit ocd' which is lip pant and crass.
I just asked because I don't recognise the term and it makes no sense to me.

Why not just use mild autism if that is what you mean. Do you have mild autism? Why not just say that?

I am interested as my son has autism. Severe autism. Or mega autism as I shall now call it. Or über autism maybe

Ooo oh lip pants.
I quite like that. But I actually tried to type flippant.

To sum it up very simply - people have large families if that is what they want and the truth of it is that they don't have to justify it to anyone. Not you, not anyone.

To waffle on a bit - you don't need to understand why some people want four or five or six children - you just need to accept that they do and that is their choice and their right.

I have 2 children. My sister has one child. I have a friend with one child. I have a friend with 4 children.

Most of the people I know have one or two children. A smaller number have 3. I only know - in rl - one person with more than three.

Your questions

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?

It is no statement at all. Nobody has lots of children to prove anything to anyone. It's not about showing other people anything. Many people just want children. Some only want one and some want more than that. Most people don't think about the social, financial and emotional consequences of having a large family in today's world - or perhaps don't agree that they are negative. I do find it odd that you would think that people bring someone into the world in order to hold them up for the neighbours and send some sort of message. How we are seen is not that big a deal!

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?

your mistake is here, in the words "valid reason" - It is instinct not reason. You are demanding some sort of logical reason that can be offered up to you and which you can analyse and see the value of - but the truth is there is none. People are driven, biologically, to reproduce. They may then find reasons to put on top of that, to articulate why it's good, but you strip that away and we are animals driven to breed.

Not everyone. In practically every species there are those who do not breed. It is a form of population control. I see no reason why humans should be any different. But if you do have the urge, it is a physical pain to you and a torment to not satisfy it (I know. I have it! My sister does not. She never wanted any children, although she loves her happy accident very much, it was never her plan)

You should also know how difficult it is to adopt. It is not a case of have one myself and oh, give me another one please, ta very much... Many people are turned away. You have to go through years of scrutiny, have every part of your life analysed and judged. And rightly so, they are giving you a child (although you can make one yourself with nobody assessing your suitability at all)

If you don't want children, then fair enough, don't have them. Good! You shouldn't have a child if that's not what you want. It wouldn't be fair on you, or on the child who would have to have you as a mother. It is sensible of you to recognise that it's not right for you. There is no reason on earth why you should have children you don't want. you don't have to justify your choice to anyone, and anyone who judges you for it is a twat.

But. There are those who feel a desperate need to reproduce and they don't have to justify their choice to anyone, and anyone who judges them for it ...

So. in conclusion. People have them cos they need and want to. They don't handwring over it or analyse it or have to justify it. We are animals and we reproduce. It is our biological purpose.

You expect an answer from here

When the truth is it comes from here

Bloody hell. That was longer than it looked before I pressed post!

Oh, and when you say 'near autistic' - do you mean you have gone to a gp and they have referred to for an assessment and you have been diagnosed with an autistic spectrum disorder, or do you mean you have done an online test and diagnosed yourself?

paggy - uber autism. I love that! I'm nabbing that for my two!

you are welcome Hec.
I am enjoying the idea of my own categories of asd. I want more.

Mild autism is NOT near autism.

You are not near autistic. You have made it up because people keep telling you how rude you are.
You don't want to be 'proper' asd so you have chosen the more glamorous option.

You can laugh in a tinkly way, toss back your head and trill 'oh don't mind me! I am nearly ausistic'

In the way people say 'I'm mad, I am'

Thanks for the link though. I am sure we will all print it off and file it away with the years and years worth of stuff we have already.

you'll have to hold onto mine, MrsD, I've no more room.

S'ok hec I'll take it to the office. In that place where we diagnose asd.
Funny in all that time I have yet to see a case of Near Autism.
It must be ever so rare. The op is truly special

Op, this is why people got upset (IMO) and maybe you should think a bit more carefully about how/what you post:

1. You made sweeping (largely negative) generalisations about British and Western culture, based on a very small possibly group who are misrepresentative and THEN said that many of the views posters were discussing about India were based on sweeping generalisations and not representative of life in India as a whole. For e.g. when people were asking about female infanticide. You say only a tiny portion of people do this, and that it's all blown out of proportion by the media. Likewise, people in the UK could argue that only a tiny proportion of people in the UK have children with the expectation that it's going to be paid for by the tax payer, but the media Daily Mail blows it all out of proportion

Do you see how that kind of hypocrisy would get up people's backs?

1. You then went on to say that people should follow the "trend" in your country to have one child and adopt one child. This "trend" is based on your observation of around FOUR families. In a country with over a billion people. 4 swallows does not make spring

People on MN are quite happy to discuss various topics and issues BUT

1. If you're going to argue something, prepare to back it up with data (not anecdotes)
2. Try not to make negative sweeping generalisations
3. Grow a thick skin, there are people who are erm, rather robust, in the terms they use.
4. Having a British-American partner doesn't make it alright to make sweeping negative statements about Western culture. It would be like if I said "all French people stink of garlic*" and then being "but I'm not anti-French, my husband's french".

*this is not true