Smaller families are better for kids?

[FlowersAndShit]

What does everyone think? What was your experience growing up in a small/large family?

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/small-families-are-better-for-children-research-finds-a6793936.html

@Bambambini - in the immigrant communities (that I'm aware of) the eldest children are still expected to help with housework but are also expected to ' help' raise younger siblings around their own school commitments; to the point where parents don't actually know their kids.

Most of the larger families I know of are Muslim. Parents have no idea what their kids are doing/what they're really like.

But Sykadelic, you are essentially describing your working week and commute. A sahp would have that 40+ hours at home often to spend with their toddler or preschooler. Also, from the end of Jan, my DH will work from 2 days a week. So from school pick up, my older ones will have 2 parents at home (DH will start at 7 to finish for school pick up)

There are many families with one or two children, neither parent home until 5.30/6pm. They often then need to cook (I tend to batch cook in the day whilst youngest sleeps) So, in many cases the time they do get with their parents is more fraught and less relaxed and if good quality.
Different families have different dynamics.

I know a family with 5. They are both teachers. She teaches p/t mornings. So she's there for pick up every day and during school holidays they have both parents 24/7. They often take her mum and go camping for 5wks in the summer. I think having both parents around all through every school holiday equates to a lot of attention.

Spacey if you have read any of my other post on mumsnet you would know my eldest two dc are disabled. They are not able to " raise" the little ones nor would we expect them to disabilities aside. Dc3 is 4.11 dc7 is 10m they are all too close in age to be raising each other!
Strange has negative connotations where unusual does not.
Think I may leave this thread, sadly it's turning into a " big family" bashing thread, no surprise there.

The research is US based and very clearly states that income is a massive contributing factor alongside education level of the mother. So a large affluent family with 4beds+ and lots of outdoor space plus a sahp is not going to be suffering too much.

tomatodizzy well I haven't read the study, so I may well be misunderstanding it!

SGADM 'strange' has derogatory connotations whereas 'unusual' does not - the two words are not inter-changeable. It's either a sloppy use of language or used intentionally to offend.

2016 it would be extremely easy to argue that having enough for swanky foreign holidays and indulging the vogue for a satisfying career are equally indulgent. Also that it's far easier to disguise that particular strain of indulgence by accusing others of indulgence first. We have choices these days and it's hard to sustain the position that one choice is inherently better or more selfish than the other.

The few muslim families i know who are young don't have large families - not that i know loads!

I came from an irish catholic background and there were quite a few largish families - most of thes chikdten went on to have quite small families.

AndNowIt'sSeven yes same. Mine were far too close in age to parent the others. They were however good company for one another (sometimes very quarrelly company, but nevertheless good company).

I was the 3rd of 3 girls, and by the time I arrived my DF was openly bored with children and fed up with the arrival of yet another girl, and resentful of the time my mother spent on me. I was treated very differently from sister number 1, who was obviously a novelty and was spoilt hugely. I think that there can be an issue with a last child, where they were conceived in the hope of them being the opposite gender from the first child or children, but they aren't, resulting in a bigger family than had originally been planned.

they're probably only raising the youngest few and the eldest siblings are picking up the slack in ways they can't even imagine - for eg: having sex talks, intervening with bullies, cooking/cleaning (most immigrant communities make elder children help out a lot here). So what's the point of having so many kids when you're making some of them raise the others for you?

But that's rubbish. That was your experience but why assume all large families are the same?

It is also quite offensive. My eldest children are not picking up any slack at all. Sex talks? All done by me and dh. Intervening with bullies? They have never done that. I do not make the older ones raise the younger ones, not even a little bit. I am the parent, I had them all and it is my responsibility to raise them and I do not put that onto the older children. I bet my children probably have less chores than most if anything. My eldest son does cook once a week but he is training to be a chef so he asks to do it and loves it and wants to do it more. The only cleaning they do is their own room and cleaning up any messes they make.

It is offensive, if I said only children were spoilt brats who grow into selfish adults there would be an uproar, but it's ok to say that if you have loads of children you only parent a few and shouldn't have them as you are getting your older ones to raise most of your children for you.

BTW, I don't actually think that about only children as I'm not small minded enough to put people into boxes and make sweeping generalisations.

A large family that is poor with two parents working to pay the bills, is obviously not going to be able to provide what a smaller family will get in the same circumstances. I grew up in a very poor, what would be called underclass area now. We were all poor, but the larger families struggled even more to provide the basics. But that is very different from a large family with money and a SAHP.

Yes, Cleaty, that's pretty much the conclusion of the study too. So I think it's inaccurate to extrapolate that the study is black and white it's it's assertion that small families are better than larger ones.

That should read as others extrapolate as it wasn't directed at you.

Molio a quick look at my desk dictionary tells me that strange=unusual or surprising, difficult to understand. Unusual= uncommon, abnormal, unexpected, strange.

So I would say that the decision to have 5+ children can be squarely described as either strange or unusual.

To take offence at one descriptor but not the other is another example of both.

The dictionary is a rough guide SGADM, a useful but blunt instrument. 'Strange' definitely has derogatory connotations which 'unusual' doesn't. I'm surprised you don't get that (perhaps you're desensitized to the word 'strange', given that you write crime fiction where perhaps a fair old number of your characters are strange ).

I have one child and probably won't have another but I suppose if I could afford to be a SAHM and we had lots of money I can see the appeal in a big family. I would need a LOT of money though - enough for some serious help in the house!

I don't mind strange or unusual or even odd.

I think of myself in all those terms. Far preferable to average or even normal.

Strange is definitely not interchangeable with unusual. I think it would be unusual if SheGotTheMoves didn't already know that.

Pressed too soon.

But I think the outlier nature of a large family is curious to most people. The why, being the central concern/interest.

What is it about multiple children that is compelling?

I think if you are very good parents and can support your children emotionally and financially etc and it's a stable happy family then crack on - we need more children being raised like that. I doubt myself as a parent all the time and often worry - i wouldn't dare inflict myself on lots of children!

Am a bit curious as to how the fathers who have to work to support all these children (considering many of the mums are SAH) feel about it - was it what they wanted as much as the mother?

I know a couple of large families that from the outside would fit the typical large family, benefit, council home image that people like to conjour up. One has 7 and the other has 8. Both families have been on and off benefits over the time, both live in council accommodation, both have parents that are not highly educated and not high earners. Both have polite, respectful, educated, happy and successful children.

I find it very sad that people assume that because people don't have enough bedrooms, or don't have a large income then they shouldn't have more children. Material factors are not the most important or only factors that govern a good family set-up. There are so many areas between rich and poor where people may not have everything they need or want, but that doesn't mean they are in poverty or desperation either.

The chap that fixes my white goods has just had his 11th child!

And all home educated.

But, SGADM, many women cannot comprehend why other women are overweight or spend no time on grooming. Likewise others don't understand the fuss about looking good and applying makeup to do the school run. Likewise chosing a partner. The fact that DH could debate and articulate his POV so well in a gentle non aggressive but utterly captivating way on a vast range of stuff from politics to science is without doubt, what did it for me. This would do nothing for some other women. It seems to me it's the same here regarding the size of family other women chose.

Bambambini, yes, DH is very happy and would probably have had more but I was sure that 4 was the right number for us. He is very hand on when he's at home and he takes them out individually, as do I. He also shares his love of sports with ds2 and his love of politics with ds1. He took ds1 to meet our MP at the HofP a couple of years ago and DS still talks about it.
I was always able to express lots of milk so he has always done his fair share of night feeds and he's had periods of working remotely so being at home to see the younger ones in the day. He was one of 2 and had nothing in common with his sibling. He always wanted 4.

Lentil - Glad you are happy. Saying that, don't think a family of 4 is what many might regard as that large a family - not in the context being discussed here.