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!

[juule]

I read the rest of your post. I agree with it. I don't see how it fits with the first part. Of course, people don't always get what they want but why would whether you did or didn't stop you taking into account what is right for your family?

[Medal]

I haven't read all of this thread although it is very interesting. Personally we went through a fertility struggle to have our two children which we're very lucky to have and although I'd love one more a bit later on it is not going to happen. I have friends (all SAHM) who have similar aged children to me (two under 4) and are trying for a third child now. I just cannot see how having three with a fairly close age gap is in any way good for the children or the parents - surely no matter how good a parent you are it is difficult to split your attention between them all?

Or maybe it is just me whose life is manic working PT and having two under 4's!

[fedupofnamechanging]

I doubt very much that those who had two children stopped at that number for the good of the planet. They had the number of children that it suited them to have, for their own selfish reasons - much the same as those who have had more than two!

There are people who have caused incredible damage to the planet. The number of children a person has is a really daft measure of accountability and 'wrongdoing' when you look at individuals responsible for environmental disasters etc.

[havingamadmoment]

medal - perhaps they just have better time management skills?
It is insulting to suggest people with more than two couldnt possibly give the adequate attention.

[Tasmania]

Havingamadmoment but that's sort of the argument used for smaller class sizes, surely?

[havingamadmoment]

its a bit different having 3 and 30 isnt it.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

I disagree. Why do you think damage is done? Generally it's because of an industry which is supplying a market. The bigger the market i.e. population, the more the damage. We can't just blame evil industry men and absolve ourselves.


There's also a tendency to separate "the planet" or "the environment" from anything to do with our everyday lives and leave it to the lentil weaving one child tree huggers, whereas generally people who try and limit their impact, and one way to do that is to limit the number of children you have, recognise the environment is part of us and we are part of it. It's not some separate entity.


However the problem with pointing any of this out is that you are accused of taking the moral high ground, as this thread has proven.

[Tasmania]

Ariel - I did laugh out loud at the "lentil weaving one child tree huggers" comment...

... now, where are my lentils. :)

[havingamadmoment]

Ariel you are accused of taking the moral high ground with pretty much every issue if you express a strong opinion .

I was once accused of being a smug bitch on here because i stated that I thought it was a bit shit that other parents in my class couldnt find time in a week to cut out some labels for year one homework.

I dont even bother posting on the driving threads or the controlled crying threads (the list is endless) because it never ends well!

Most of my interest in this sort of thing has happened since having my children, when I had dc1 for example we were standard city dwellers now we are veg growing, cloth nappying, walking (no car) and label checking maniacs. I just dont think many people limit their family based on the environment - im not saying that NO one says "i really want another child and can provide for it but hmm I better not increase my environmental impact" but I think the numbers are few and far between. Its more likely a case of " I cant have anymore or my DH doesnt want any more - aren't I being good for the environment!"

[fedupofnamechanging]

Damage is done because big business wants to make money. They would do what they do, no matter what number of people live on the planet.

As I've said before, people impact on the planet in all sorts of ways - number of children is just one. I will accept criticism from someone leading an exemplary life ( in environmental terms), but not from people whose choice of family size just happens to coincide with what is deemed to be right for the planet. No way do I buy the idea that they only had two children because of the planet. They made that choice because it suited them, so they are being smug about something it suited them to do anyway.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

Bug business would not exist without a market.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

And since when does having a strong belief about something and acting on it equate to "smug"?

[Tasmania]

karmabeliever

That would be bad business practice. Seriously, businesses actually go under for doing what you just said. Any businesses that produces things blindly, regardless of the market will screw up their balance sheet.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

Big not bug.


Don't know what bug business would be...

[havingamadmoment]

Ariel - it doesnt thats my point.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

And actually, seeing as I've not said it, no I don't think people limit their family size based on environmental concerns. They do it for financial concerns.


But saying that larger families don't have more of an adverse impact is wrong. Over population is the single biggest global concern there is. All the other stuff stems from that.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

Sorry, madmoment. I didn't pause long enough mid rant to check properly :)

[havingamadmoment]

lifestyle of the population matters. A population which behaved in a more responsible way would not be a problem. There is a choice that HAS to be made between limiting population growth (realistically this would have to be strict and unpleasant to work) and changing lifestyle which would mean restructuring cities, economies and beliefs. Just talking about this country (because I have no knowledge of lifestyle in most countries!) your average garden can grow enough food for about 50% of that homes needs, houses can be fitted with solar panels, wind farms can be forced through regardless of people worrying about the view . Cities and towns can become car free. It is the lifestyle of the people not the people themselves who are the problem.

[havingamadmoment]

With regards to oil etc limiting population growth only postpones the inevitable - far better to move away from reliance on it that drag out the process.

[havingamadmoment]

than

[Francagoestohollywood]

I think most people only want to start a conversation. To be honest, I am genuinely curious about the motives of people who have more than 4 children, because, I could never contemplate it as a possibility, regardless of how much I like children.

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

Just talking about this country (because I have no knowledge of lifestyle in most countries!) your average garden can grow enough food for about 50% of that homes needs, houses can be fitted with solar panels, wind farms can be forced through regardless of people worrying about the view . Cities and towns can become car free. It is the lifestyle of the people not the people themselves who are the problem.

I agree with all that 100%. It's not going to happen unless we rethink the economy, government, renewables, education, NIMBYism, society and communities however. And a small tp average plot isn't going to feed a huge family, just a small to average sized one. I guess that's what put people off in the past - the inability to feed a huge family limited family size.

However, if Cuba can manage it, it shows it can be done.

[Tasmania]

havingamadmoment

Yes, I do believe we could do with a lifestyle change. I for one, would not mind going back to the days when you could grow your own vegetable, etc.

One of the ideas I'm keen on is simply "Working from Home". You can keep meeting rooms in certain locations, where if you really need to meet... their there for you. But with most office jobs, you could do your work from home.

You save the planet from the environmental costs of commuting, as well as the heating of big buildings. Also, those big buildings could be turned into affordable homes. And if you think about it - I can actually work from home perfectly fine, as long as I have internet and a phone.

But governments and corporations are too stuck in their current thinking to encourage this...

[fedupofnamechanging]

Ariel, I didn't say that having a belief and acting on it was smug. I did say that people are being smug for no reason, because their desire to have two children would exist regardless of whether that is best for the planet or not. They are doing what they want, the same as everyone else

[havingamadmoment]

I totally agree with working at home in fact dh and I both work from home in a business we started. We employ 3 other people who also work from home. Meeting rooms can be hired on a daily basis and so far (3.5 years since dh quit his old job!) we have been hire successful certainly working from home has not limited us in any way.

If we are to live in a more sustainable way realistically you need to be working fewer hours as a family - if you have two adults both working full time outside the home it becomes difficult to stop relying things like supermarkets and labour saving machines / practices.

What is better is to have either one (either) adult at home Nd one working OR two adults both working say 25-30 hours each. But again this is a massive change to how a lot of people now live.