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.

OP you make a number of assumptions which there seems to be little basis for:

*the first (and in a way most naive) seems to be that anything that involves greater social or emotional cost has to be the Wrong Choice

if that were true, then nobody would ever choose a more demanding profession instead of an easier one, nobody would ever become a writer or a musician or an elite athlete, because it's obviously far easier not to be any of those things

the truth is that some people like challenges, some people enjoy working hard and some people have an innate drive to do their utmost with an ability they sense they have- whether that is the ability to paint beautiful pictures or parent children

• the second assumption is that there are plenty of children ready for adoption in the UK and that any couple would be allowed to adopt them

the truth here being that there are virtually no babies to be adopted, the older children who do need adoption typically have severe physical or emotional needs, and potential adopted parents are vetted very carefully.

adopting from abroad is also difficult- and very expensive

• that caring for somebody is only worthwhile if you get paid in gratitude

note everybody is quite as calculating as this: some people genuinely enjoy lavishing love and find that rewarding on its own

• that you run a greater risk of encountering ingratitude in a larger family

no substance in this that I can see

The environmental point is the one that does seem valid.

hmmmm

this read to me like

western people are selfish fuckers so why bother having loads of kids as (a) you wont help each other out and (b) why add more selfish western arseholes to the world

but yes, call everyone bullies why dont ya

Beebee12

I was brought up in India, so I can only talk from that context.

When I grew up, I didn't have toys or a separate room for myself. May be I had some dolls when I was toddler, but that's about it. I went to school, came home, played and went to bed. My neighbour's children and my own cousins were my playmates. We played in the nearby playground (or on the streets), unsupervised by adults. I only studied when exams loomed nearby. Chocolates were a treat, obtained only when somebody celebrated a birthday.

Whenever I passed a year at school, my parents will take me to a movie, where I will also enjoy an ice cream (naturally, happened only once a year). We didn't have a TV or a phone at my house, until I was 12 years old. Cellphones, videogames, xbox, FB all were unheard of. Because of their absence and also because of the absence of their influence, we children - 20 years ago - relied on other human beings for entertainment, communication and emotional contact.

No, I am not from a poor family, but I was not rich either. I was just from the Great Indian middle class.

Last week, I visited a friend whose 7-year old son was playing an intense game on xbox. I stayed an hour in her place, and he just looked at me once to say hi. He didn't have anything else to say to me. I look back at the 7-year old me, who would pestered the life out of a guest. Times, my friend, have indeed changed.

BTW, I agree with your comment about the maternal instinct. Perhaps it is not possible for me to understand it, because I have never felt it myself.

Your post is a bit muddled so it's hard to know where to start. But I think in the UK, you are more likely to have a large (4 +) if you are a) very rich or b) very poor. The inbetweeners tend to opt for smaller famliies.

It's hard to have this debate in the UK because anxieties about population growth are not on the political agenda. This is an elderly country. The big issue is how to support all the old people, not how to feed all the babies.

I didn't read the whole of the thread but I bet there were lots of "I'm one of ..." or "I have ..." and we are all wonderful.

I expect India is miles apart as they are not as rich but20 years ago when I was a childyone I knew played games consoles, ate daily chocolate and had more than 1 tv.A lot of my friends families were on benefits and had all that even 20 years ago.

Well, OP, your posts are coming across to me as rather dogmatic. You've only been here four months, which is no time at all. I think you will end up understanding and enjoying much more about the UK if you avoid generalising, rushing to judgment or working on assumptions that you haven't really scrutinised.

It is tempting I know-I've both studied abroad and have a large circle of friends from around the world. All of us have made the mistake of noticing something and extrapolating too far from one observation to make general statements about the country we're in. Just bear in mind how irritating it is for your hosts to hear (in the same way you don't like being preached to about conditions for women in India). The experience of your unhappy friend does not tell you anything about families in the UK generally. It just tells you about your friend.

So your childhood, 20 years ago, in India was different to how you percieve other people's childhood to be now, and therefore the world is a completely different place?
sigh

This is the kind of discussion I have with my mother all the time - because you grew up in a certain way, does not mean that it is

1. Typical
2. the normal way or
3. the best way

Again, you're using anecdotes as the evidence for your views

Are you going to clarify the near autistic thing?

Are you oing to stop with the generalisations at any stage? My DC all have electronic games. They pester the life out of guests.* The 9 year oldcspends much of the time in the garden acting out plays of her own construction.
Knowing one slightly rude child is not licence to dismiss any child who owns a wii

*Except the uber autistic one of course.

How bigoted. I was born and raised in the UK and my parents are both Indian. I get so fed up hearing their relatives back home completely denigrate our way of life. Apparently all white people grow up getting drunk and having sex on the streets and my parents couldn't possibly bring up decent children here.

I find that just as insulting as the bigoted comments I get from here about Indian people all smelling of curry or whatever.

I agree with Pag.

My DNs have play stations etc. and the oldest one (early teens) is getting very much to the monosyllabic stage, and has to be dragged away from the playstation. From this, I could conclude that all children in the Uk are monosyllabic and spend their whole lives playing with playstations
My cousins DCs, on the other hand, do not have any electronic games and don't watch TV, and when I stayed with them, they spent the whole time making boats from plastic containers and racing them across a pond, playing cricket and running around and are very sociable and quite delightful. I could conclude from this, that all children in SA are highly sociable and spend their time playing creatively and are delightful.

But I didn't, because one or two experiences doesn't mean that EVERYONE is like that.

I can't face getting involved with most of the slightly bizarre detail in your post. In terms of personal preference I think each to their own. I can see good and bad points to having 1 child or 10 (assuming that you can afford however many you have). I think all your specific questions are impossible to answer without having to generalise to a ridiculous and unhelpful degree. I also think your perceptions about Western family life are wrong, and frankly odd. Moreover, given that the UK fertility rate is under 2, your whole line of thinking is really irrelevent. Having 4 children is unusual.

However I think that, environmentally, contributing to population increase is irresponsible and selfish. (I also think that it needs to be a bigger issue in the UK than it is, and serious thought needs to be given to how we can break out of the Ponzi scheme that currently traps us into needing more young people to pay for the ageing population.)

I would never volunteer that opinion uninvited, though, it's too emotive and contentious, but that's my opinion if asked.

Reading the original post was like being 18 again on a students' forum, reading yet another OP on "but WHY do people want children? I don't want them! They're expensive and stop you having fun!"

Did I step into a time-warp? Was the OP younger than claimed

I will give the same kind of answer I gave my unimaginative peers back then.

"You're quite right. Children are hard work and expensive. That is precisely why there has been evolutionary pressure on the human race to enjoy taking care of children. Nay, to feel a deep, overwhelming urge to look after children.

Like most things, it's a spectrum. There are human beings who would love to have eight children, to those who think two is ideal, to those who never feel such an urge at all. All are valid feelings and ideas, and no-one should be despised.

And yes, evolution is not perfect, so there are also those who want children, but cannot look after them well."

The only issue I have with large families is their environmental impact, but to be honest all our children are fucked anyway, so it won't make that much difference. All the ice is a-melting.....

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/29/antarctica-methane

MrsDeVere, could you explain the offensiveness of "heart child and womb child"? Apologies if this comes across as a silly question, but I've never heard the phrase before or read about its implications. I just thought it sounded twee.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/27/arctic-sea-ice-shrinks-lowest-extent?INTCMP=SRCH

Wait until your 30s to have children. Have 2. Mother nature will love you.

Considering that we need people to have children to keep our population at minimum replacement level, you really should be thanking those of us who have a few to make up for those who don't. Otherwise you'll have an aging population that you can't afford to look after.
No need to send wine and flowers, you're welcome. Consider my many children a gift to you.

Blah blah blah economics blah. Without this planet working there is no economics to argue about. What you're suggesting ExitStencilist is a self-perpertuating circlular progression towards planetal doom. Too many old people, make more babies = too many old people, so make more babies. It's NOT a proper solution.

Hi op, dh and I are from clseknt families, we would always help and support our sibs, dh says his brothers are his best friends.

We are "western" but tgat does nt mean we are selfsh.

My OH and myself have 5 children.
I have a brother who has no children and is definitely never having any.
OH has a sister who has no children and is definitely never having any.
If we had had 2 children each we would have 6 children between us iyswim.
It all evens itself out in the end!

batsintheroof, of course it is, its called LIFE. People keep on having babies. Do you want western civilisation to keep running itself on the ground and instead have to rely on imported labour from afar?

For what it's worth I'm disgusted by the way the majority of you have reacted and replied towards the OP. You are foul, bitter, overly-sensitive creatures that need to wash their mouths out. I read no anti-Western language from the OP, but I certainly read a lot of xenophobic comments in the thread. The OP wasn't talking about British culture in general, but one particular aspect of it, family life. Should we only allow ourselves to be self-critical, since we make a good-enough job of criticising other cultures?

It really shows how many of you have tried to learn a new language, it's fucking HARD and meaning doesn't not always come across in the way you mean it to, even if you're almost fluent. "Heart child" I see nothing wrong with this- certainly it would be a bit weird from a native speaker, but otherwise not.

OP, there are many great things about this country, and I am vehemently proud to be British, but I do delcare that it is also populated with a whole lot of twats as well.

Life life life. Imported labour is still life. I see no problem in importing life.

Your opening post is so littered with sweeping generalisations that it really impossible for me to engage with your discussion in any sensible way.

I object in principle to anyone with no personal experience of adoption and the challenges involved glibly using it as a reason not to have birth children. And I probably have the lowest carbon footprint of anyone on the thread - single parent with an adoptive child.

It would also be lovely if the Indian government allowed people from outside India (surprise surprise, despite the huge middle class in india there are still thousands of "heart" children in institutions) to adopt all these babies they have stuck in institutions adopted. But its virtually impossible.

Op, I think you are Unaware of what's happening in India. There are loads of kids in the metros in India who also spend hours on their wii and xboxes. Loads of well educated rich and middle class families who choose to have more than three children. I know of at least twelve families with more than three in Delhi and Mumbai, very loved and cared for by their parents. Likewise here in this country. I have lived in India all my life, regularly visit and constant contact with friends with children. In this country, have met lots of large families with parents who love their kids very much. The poor in India are different cannot go on on this forum but suggest you read ps sainath.
Please don't generalise from a few months here.