To be fed up when people have an opinion on how many children you have or want

[brummiegirl1]

I have 2 young boys aged 2 and 7 months and would like 4 children if i'm lucky enough as i was an only child and knew i wanted a big family. Before i went off on maternity leave with my youngest a woman at work said are you done now and i said i would like more children in the future and she said im mad.

Other people have also asked the same thing. Is it me? I wouldn't dream commenting on how many children someone wants or has as it's up to them, when im asked now i feel all defensive about it and don't want to tell them like im a naughty teenager not a 33 year old married woman!

Our school is small and rural with declining enrollment...the principal would probably swoon with delight if a couple six-kid families moved in.

And we don't have an NHS.

To my face at least people have only ever been positive when they comment on the fact I have eight. I've always got all the usual jokey comments about how I got there etc. but all very good humoured. I've never once been challenged about environmental issues at all. I tend to think that my DC will put in more than they took out, but I suppose we're not quite at the stage yet to know.

It doesn't even out. Who ever came up with this quote?

It all evens out because not all people have six kids. I can use someone else's quota. (Regarding population growth. First of all: why should you use someone's quota? Did you get permission? Because if someone wants my quota, that person and his/her partner better be geniuses.)

Ever seen the figures? It took THOUSANDS of years to get to 1 billion people on the planet. But within less than a century, we grew from 2 billion to 7 billion people in less than a century!!! Fact.

It all evens out because not all people have six kids. (regarding food / services, etc.)

If food actually reflected prices fairly, I can assure you, you would NOT be able to afford too many kids. The demand for cheaper and cheaper meat is partly responsible for the horse meat scandal. Same with cheaper and cheaper vegetables, clothes, etc. If you actually paid the actual FAIR price for everything you have now, you would find it hard to pay for everything you have. China has been providing the West with cheap goods for decades. Do you know that China's wages are climbing rapidly??? The new government over there made it one of their priorities to sustain that trend. How long do you think will your cheap prices last? Go on, look around in your home, and see how many items you have that says "Made in China". Now think about how much it would have cost, if it had been "Made in England".

If someone once again says that it all evens out, this would just confirm that those who are having large families are not necessarily the most intelligent people on this planet. Great. And they are the ones having multiple kids.

Tasmania I was going to write a long response to your post.

Instead I will ask you to google "Fiona Wood". This truely marvellous woman has 6 DC.

I'm sure we can all name numerous other women who have contributed greatly to society.

I don't think that people with more than 2 or 3 DC are decimating the planet anymore than the childress couple I know (both teachers) who spend every holiday travelling the world. All that Airplane fuel can't possibly be good for the environment.

But citing examples of 'marvellous women' who have 'contributed greatly' to society is hardly the point, is it? Unless all people with six and more children are just like Fiona Wood it really is irrelevant.

Tasmania I'm trying to understand why you are citing China as an example in your posts. I think I'm missing whatever point it is that you are making with regard to China and larger families. ?

I agree with Fellatio in that I can't see the relevance of mentioning Fiona Wood.

We just had our third and I get loads of the "you're mad" or "you have your hands full now" comments. IME it seems they often cone from people that are are struggling to parent their 1 or 2. I like to think I have brought my first two children up to be pleasant and well-behaved. I generally enjoy their company and hope to do the same with the third.

As for people that have the audacity to ask if third was planned I hive a very fake laugh and declare loudly "what a VERY strange question to ask" unusually leaving them embarrassed instead of me!

We have 5, I have never had any negative comments in real life but have had plenty online. I dont really mind - people are entitled to their opinions and it doesnt upset me that they have them. I have opinions on plenty of things which go against the lifestyles of plenty of people (childcare, car ownership, benefits all the mumsnet favs!) - that is the nature of humanity - people disagree!

We have planned our family and built our lives based on that, we didnt want to use childcare but needed two incomes so we built a business we could work from home doing. We also now employ three other people in the business so I like to think that we do contribute to society in our own little way. We needed a bigger house so we moved from the South East to the north so we could adequately house them etc. People seem to assume that people with lots of children dont give the enough attention but tbh in my experience I dont see many children who are only children or from small families getting a huge amount of quality time. Half an hour a day is far less than they need imo.

I think the people who are worried for the environment are within their rights to be hostile IF they take few foreign holidays, only make the occasional trip in their (one) car, only buy goods they know to be ethically made, buy only ethically raised meat or better still eat no meat - the list is endless and as I say its all about opinions.

OP - as long as you care for your children, can afford them and have the ability to look after them not just as babies but as older chidlren and teenagers just ignore any negative comments you are getting.

People who are taking from the pot are also paying quite a lot into it. You have to earn quite a bit of money to pay for more than two children. I object to the idea that my family is ruining the planet and somehow sponging off all you smug, superior people with two dc.

I bet my carbon footprint is less than that of my friend with one child, who is always on a plane going on holiday!

There are no quotas. Would you tell someone with long term health problems they had used up their NHS quota? Or a child who needed one on one support at school that they were costing too much?

Hoe do you know Karma? Are there any statistics that tell us that people who pay the top rate of tax on high salaries are the ones who have most children? I'm sure some parents of large families pay a lot into the pot and I am sure that many do not. But that's not really the point. Whether you are a high or a low earner you pay your tax based on your earnings, not on the amount of children you have. Someone on 200k pays the same tax whether he has one child or ten. For people on average incomes having lots of children means you are given more money, not that you get more taken away.

If you're happy with the number of dcs you have then I don't understand why people get so sensitive to other people's comments. I have 4 dcs and get the comment of you must have your hands full a lot. Well the reality is I do have my hands full! Comments like that don't bother me in the least.

I don't believe people in rl decide that they aren't going to have another baby because of the environment. If someone said that to me in rl I'd just laugh. There are some strange views on this post about large families.

I think people need to be a bit less sensitive to general chit chat bog standard comments on family sizes. In my opinion it is the way someone asks a question/comments that distinguishes if they are being nasty or just saying it for general chit chat.

Tasmania your posts are now bordering on offensive and are ruining any sensible argument you may have begun to formulate.

To say that a couple of comments on the internet from people you don't know are confirming 'that those who are having large families are not necessarily the most intelligent people on this planet. Great. And they are the ones having multiple kids.' is really rather pathetic and only proves that you have ridiculous prejudices against those who have larger families that voids any argument you have about the welfare of the world.

I am one of 7 and I am currently pg with dc4. My Mum has 13 Grandchildren (3 of which are being norn in the next few months) so far and 2 of her children haven't even begun to have their own yet. Goodness knows how big this dynasty shall grow and I bloody love it!

Oh and these 7 unintelligent, selfish children include a DI, a top notch solicitor, a social worker and a head of service. 3 degrees, 1 masters and 4 who earn in the highest % of earners in the uk (not me as a trainee social worker unfortunately ) All of this and yet 3 of my siblings are still in their 20's (again not me )

I respect all opinions on family size but really some of the comments on this thread have been disgusting first we had the bright spark who suggested only ugly people had lots of children and now the argument that all people who have larger families are unintelligent. It really is rather pathetic and makes me lose all respect for the opinions of those who suggest such nasty, spiteful things.

Yes, there are some people who have big families and take more out of the pot than they pay in, but equally there are people with one child who are taking more out of the pot than they are contributing or people with no children who cost the country a lot of money or who use lots of resources/cause lots of damage to the planet.

When you consider environmental damage caused by politicians/industry, in the name of economic benefit (and more often their personal economic benefit), I just think that judging people by the number of children they have is perhaps not the smartest way of assessing who is 'better'.

If you follow this through to its natural conclusion you could argue that having two children to replace yourself and your partner is just as selfish, in a world which is over populated.

The people who have 2 dc, seem to think that's okay though.

Having children is generally done for selfish reasons.

I did laugh up thread though, when someone said that having children isn't a human right - it's the ultimate human right, imo.

juule Not a 'bit dim' if you know the historical context. Previously (up until the 60s), the government in China encouraged its people to have as many children as possible. The population nearly doubled within the space of approximately 30 years prior to the introduction of the one-child policy as infant mortality declined. Hence, the sudden "shit, we have too many people now"-thinking that ultimately led to the policy you now have in China.

Although what most people don't seem to understand is that the one-child policy does not necessarily apply to the entire population - it varies from location to location, but is obviously heavily enforced in the urban areas we know best in the West.

Population in China is incredibly dense in urban areas, as people tend to flock there from the rural areas where money can be immensely tight. Not too dissimilar from the UK, really, which unlike other countries is a "centralized" country, i.e. a lot revolves around London.

Agree JacquelineHyde

^^ So to add to the above - in order to not get to the state in which China found itself in, we have to stop getting to the "overpopulated" bit in the first place.

JacquelineHyde It can be a more than just a little bit frustrating for people to say that "everything levels out in the end" when the numbers (population growth specifically) shows otherwise.

And no matter how often you point at the exponentially increasing numbers, they maintain their point - that it "levels out in the end" - which you have to admit IS bordering on the offensively stupid, to be honest. When it took us thousands of years to breach the 1 billion point mark, but less than a century to grow from 2 billion to 7 billion... it would take a massive catastrophe for the numbers to "even out in the end" - which I'm sure no one would want.

JacquelineHyde / Journey I understand you may fine the comment about people being "stupid" offensive. But you can't argue with basic maths (you can at higher level, abstract maths, I guess), and the "all leveling out in the end" comment seriously, seriously makes no mathematical sense.

I do think that if you maintain that sort of comment despite what the numbers / other people tell you... it is simply denial, and it often takes some straight talk to point out such nonsense. It comes close to trying to reason with old people who have some skewed view of the world (e.g. racist)... and no matter what good arguments you may find, they maintain their stance.

And Rhiannon86, that film is hilarious.

But Tasmania, the situation changes all the time wrt how many children people choose to have - just because in recent years the population has grown significantly, it doesn't mean that it will continue that way. People now have choice regarding reproduction, in ways that they didn't in the past.

We may have just had a crossover period, where infant mortality reduced and healthcare got better, but people weren't using birth control until relatively recently.

You can't say that the birth rate definitely won't go down - I think that in many places it is. I remember hearing somewhere that there aren't enough young people being born to sustain the ageing population in some parts of the world.

The US is at its lowest birth rate in...I think ever, actually, karma.

karmabeliever The only thing that seems to have kept the population at bay in the past is the absence of modern medicine. With that, infant mortality has (thankfully) gone down, while people now grow older. People do use birth control, but the absence of medicine in the past was pretty much nature's equivalent of population growth control.

With birth control and modern medicine as a whole, the responsibility of controlling population growth is shifting more and more from nature to... well... us. Now, we have the choice.

But we are not as cold as nature was in the past. Every creature on the planet has an in-built instinct to procreate, and our instincts seem to have a complete disregard for what modern medicine has given to society at large.

And as for "not enough young people born to sustain the aging population in the world", that idea in itself is flawed, because it relies on a pyramid scheme where population growth is essential. In an ideal world, the aging population would not be reliant on the next generation to pay their taxes, etc. Isn't that the reason we are now meant to put money into our pension pot???

Tasmania then I would suggest you aim your childish insults about intelect at the people making the comments you disagree with, and not instead make a sweeping statement aimed at all large families based on your own ridiculous predjudices.