16 Kids and Counting

[Shinyfly]

So I've just watched this (recorded last night). AIBU to think that both of these couples just have stopped at one or two?

These were (just a couple) of the red flags for me.

1. The first family had 11 kids (number 12 made an appearance at the end of the programme). All of their children were home schooled and the only time they were permitted to mix with other children was once a week at boys/girls brigade. Mum Tania has a three year plan to have them living in the country and even more isolated from society very soon.

1. The second family were completely devoid of any rules/routines/boundaries, the house was complete chaos with children sleeping in their clothes and the older children being made to supervise the younger ones homework. Dad's clothes were always filthy.

Bth families seemed intent on having more children.

There are several mumsnetters with 5 or more children myself included who are working mothers some of us even pay HRT many of us also employ quite a few other people who in turn pay tax.quite a few of us do not use the state school system or NHS treatment for anything other than A&E.

So?

But still far less of a drain on society and resources than those who have chosen to have upwards of five children needs

SAHMs are a 'drain on society'? Charming. I thought on mumsnet childrearing might be a tiny bit more valued than that.

Billy, was that so? To me

Yes.

Confused as to why.

On this thread we have had two things stated as facts those being that larger families are a drain on tax payers because the mothers can't work and that the babies can't possibly be breast fed.

That's my sole reason for pointing out that many do breast feed (not that it matters if they don't) and that many do work

The PP was saying they are a drain, you seemed to be saying that you're not because you work etc, suggesting to me that you agree that those that don't are a drain. I disagree that SAHMs are a drain on society and therefore so what if you do work. If that wasn't your point then fair enough.

I dont think sahm are a drain on society and never have.

I do think perpetually popping out children uou do not expext to fund entirely is needless and a drain of your resource as you will nrver pay any tax to make jp for the thousands of pounds in tax money that those many children cost to educate and support by the state throughout their lives.

What difference does it make if one spends 20 years bringing up 10 children or 5 years bringing up 2?

Either childrearing is of value or it's not. What does it matter if we all have 2.5 children each or if some have none (me) and some have >5?

It's not a simple money in/money out relationship. Children cost money to educate, they also go on to work and pay taxes or rear children themselves, or both.

Also working part-time for £10k or under means you don't pay income taxes either. Are women who do that a drain on resources?

What if it turns out you take more out than you put in (in simple monetary value as that is the only thing that matters to you)?

So my dh is a hrt payer and we receive no chb znd I am a drain on society as I had the audacity to be a virtual sahm. Well err no actually we are net contributor s thank you very much.

I have been a SAHM, I saved money but home educating. Oh, and he's at university now.

by home educating

My friend comes from a large family. She doesn't want kids of her own as she says as the oldest child, she spent a lot of her childhood raising her siblings.

Can I just ask how you home school a secondary aged child? I'm thinking it would be tricky with subjects such as science without equipment or drama and performing arts.Genuine question, not meant as a argument.

lollilou, lots of home ed children join amateur dramatic groups or attend dance/performance classes (like stagecoach). For science, parents often club together and pay someone to teach a small group for experiments, whilst continuing the non-practical work at home, or one of the parents has science skills to teach the group.

I have 5 siblings, so from a fairly big family, and there are pluses and minuses, but I do think more than 5 or 6 kids gets quite tough on the children tbh.
A lot can depend on the age gaps though. We were all quite close in age, so had the advantage of being able to play together (when we weren't fighting) but we were probably a bit neglected in a lot of ways.
There were no extras, clothes were all hand me down,no music lessons, sporting activities,day trips were rare, food was limited. My folks weren't very organised, and we never really had chores, but they would get intermittently stressed about the housework and mess.
I was left to my own devices a lot, which has made me self sufficient, but there was no real help with schoolwork, or career planning, or any financial help either.I guess if you have a lot of money it's easier.
Both parents worked, and at weekends they wouldn't get up until around noon, so we were up to all sorts utterly unsupervised from a young age.
(Maybe that is probably more to do with my parents somewhat irresponsible attitude, and less to do with number of children, but I often didn't feel very looked after or safe.)
The positive aspects of a large family made me decide I wanted 3 or 4 children, but sadly that hasn't been possible.
I do think there comes a point, where people have upwards of 6 kids, where it becomes about some kind of personal addiction, rather than about just wanting a nice big family.

It's bloody selfish to keep having another baby every year. The family with the bakery, it is obviously an addiction. I thought they were a lovely couple but they honestly need counselling.

And to say 'I'm addicted to having babies' what sort of message does that give out to any of their other children? It's like that child will think they aren't good enough and Mum and Dad are bored with them. I honestly think it is a totally selfish thing to do to spread yourself so thinly. At any one point there will be children in their family just desperate for 20 minutes with Mum on their own and knowing that might well not happen. Not that day when they need Mum, maybe not at all, but maybe when it's too late. They will wait and wait for the right moment and always one of the other children will come along and take Mum's time. What if they are unhappy inside and can't tell Mum or Dad? What if they are struggling but just can't find the right moment to tell their Mum? I remember waiting days to speak to my Mum and thinking "oh well, it's too late, I can't be bothered now" and pretending to my Mum that it was all OK when it really wasn't.

These families need their heads read.

And as for the Salim family, god help them. Yes of course he is a loving Dad, yes of course he loves children but FFS he is like a big kid himself. Kids need to look up to their Dad and although he is fun rough and tumbling on the floor, he is useless as coming across as a strong father figure. And his poor wife.. oh dear..

'There is no way those people support 17 children on 40k without tax credits.'

I agree from my own experience (not having 17 but having similar salary with much less children).

I totally agree Rousette, the Radfords couple admitted to being addicted to babies, so like with any other addiction need professional help, not more babies! I think on one of the interviews, one of the little boys said that they would not notice if he went missing, sad really!

Safe equipment can be bought, and there are a lot of universities running science days for children. My son didn't do drama (he is AS), but we took him to the theatre etc and he has an appreciation of drama. He is doing Lit at uni.
We did send him to the local sixth form to do his A levels, but he was ready for that.

billy you are talking nonsense, of course there is a difference between taking 20 years to raise 10 kids and 5 years to raise 2!

The latter is passing on your genes, making yourself available to support the next generation and giving the community and country a well-balanced young person to pay tax and change the world. The former is simply having children for the sake of having children, not bothering to acknowledge that there are too many people in the world already and that resources are stretched enough.

We have done enough breeding, we don't need to offer unbridled respect to people who do nothing but breed a bit more.

Whose asking for unbridled respect?

Not making inaccurate generalisations would be good enough.

Op I home school.
My childs severely disabled , physically and mentally.

schools could not cope and child could not cope.

homeschoolers don't lock their kids in basements to never see the light of day.

please do not judge homeschoolers.

Pointing out that there are enough people in the world and that having 17 more of them because you 'like babies' is an unnecessary drain on resources is not an inaccurate generalisation. It is a very accurate one.

Whether there are too many people in the world already is a debate in itself. If you are so worried about resources there are lots of things you could rail against before a small number of people who choose to have a large family for one reason or another.