Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Too many kids

377 replies

OoerBlah · 05/08/2016 02:42

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

OP posts:
HairyToity · 05/08/2016 15:14

I don't think children need to cost huge amounts. I understand why you would still have them poor. Also circumstances can change. We are in a better position now than when I conceived DD. I do think big families are selfish - rich or poor.

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 15:20

Don't worry callherwillow Smile

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:27

callherwillow if this is you sober I would hate to read what you have to say after a bottle of wine!

at what point do we withdraw financial assistance to those having them

We don't because we are a society and "A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable" (thanks Gandhi). This is not Sparta!

big families are selfish because you think all dc need 1-1? I am from a big family, it is nice, there is always someone around when you need them. I feel quite sorry for those with small families - must get a bit lonely.

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 15:28

I'm a bit confused over all the anxiety over a possible population decline? I mean, what's so great about maintaining our population? (Yes, I can see that in the short term there would be issues with a sharp decline, but long term, what's the problem?)

Personally I think it was probably better when there wasn't a massive school places crisis and parents didn't need to do a ridiculous amount of manoeuvring to get in to a decent school.

I asked someone who was a Primary Head from the 1950's to 1970's what they thought about the school places crisis, and they genuinely didn't know what a catchment area or 'distance from door' was!! She said everyone just went to their local school, there were always enough places (leafy area of London) but that occasionally people did want a school which wasn't technically their nearest, but that was fine too.

Also, the NHS. another public service under too much pressure.

Oh, and the lack of affordable housing.

Trashbox · 05/08/2016 15:29

Maybe, we should send the 3rd, 4th, 5th kids off to the work houses? That could be a nice deterrent?

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:31

nah Trash, they need to get up the chimneys and earn their keep!

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 15:33

I can assure you I'm completely sober!

We may disagree which is fine, but to accuse everyone who doesn't view things your way of being reliant on alcohol is a tad extreme!

Point is, the current system is not sustainable. But once we get to workhouses it all gets a little silly. Tax credits were if I remember correctly a legacy of Blair. I have no love for Major or Thatcher but workhouses? Ffs! :)

callherwillow · 05/08/2016 15:34

And I'm the one who is spouting such shit she must be pissed? :)

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:36

And I'm the one who is spouting such shit

Well since you mentioned it, also you brought up the subject of wine...

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 15:37

I think very large families can be detrimental to the kids as they only receive a fraction of the parents resources. I can't see how you could supevise 7 sets of homework or facilitate 7 sets of extra curricular clubs. Even if you can afford nannies to do all this for you the kids still get less parental attention.

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:42

It works because the dcs are not all the same age so natural delegation is going on.

cannotlogin · 05/08/2016 15:46

Can you please point me to a viable study with outcomes which demonstrate how much less parental attention is detrimental to a child's outcomes at 16/18/25? How do you quantify what is enough parental attention so as not to have a negative impact on your child's overall upbringing?

Can you also find me a study that shows without question that only children are always more successful at 16/18/25 than children with 2/4/6 or more siblings?

cannotlogin · 05/08/2016 15:47

Oh, and a study that shows receiving one third/one quarter/one fifth/one sixth of a parent's resources reduces outcomes, in comparison with receiving all or half, at 16/18/25?

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 15:49

I do think big families are selfish - rich or poor

I could say small families are selfish. I could say child free families are selfish, or not traditional families....I wouldn't though, because a) its a dick move to criticise other people and their families, and b) all families are selfish anyway. Having children is a selfish act inherently.

angelos02 · 05/08/2016 15:50

Of course you shouldn't have children if you can't afford them. What a stupid question.

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 15:50

I think very large families can be detrimental to the kids as they only receive a fraction of the parents resources. I can't see how you could supevise 7 sets of homework or facilitate 7 sets of extra curricular clubs

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean others can't do it, it only means you lack imagination!

You're also forgetting that in larger families they are getting peer attention and gaining hugely from that.

seafoodeatit · 05/08/2016 15:51

I'm sure it's probably already been mentioned but the majority of people take many things into consideration before having children/adding to their family, the people who just casually have them are in the minority and accidents make up a tiny proportion too. How many women agonize over abortion? and how many of those will do so because of their circumstances?

Finances are one of the biggest things couples argue about, I thought it was supposed to be the number 1 thing? it makes sense that it would affect every aspect of peoples' lives, including how many children they have.

As how for how many is too many is a personal thing, I'm not sure I could handle more than two and I'm infertile so it would be a big pain/expense to get pregant again. My father is one of 10, got himself a bursary at 13 and shipped himself off to boarding school, he doesn't speak very well of large families. However I know his twin sisters think otherwise and have had large families themselves as have 2 of his brothers. (5+ kids).

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 15:54

Yes, I saw that in a family I know with 4 kids. I've got no objections to kids chipping in with a bit of housework (child A does 2 laundry loads a week, child B does washing up twice a week etc all fine) but I think it can be problematic if a parent needs to rely on this regularly or frequently enough that it has an impact on the older children.

Also, how do you deal with having less time for each child? More trivial example but my (admittedly PFB) DC does 6 extra curriculars a week. If I had 6 kids, how would I cope with 36 clubs a week? Impossible. They'd probably have to do 1-2 each max.

NobodyInParticular · 05/08/2016 15:55

Massive X post there, sorry, will read above...

cannotlogin · 05/08/2016 15:56

What child needs 6 clubs a week?!!!

2016Blyton · 05/08/2016 15:58

Most families in the UK are small, except in a very few cases and even new immigrant families in a generation or two tend to be smaller. I don't think large families is anything like the big problem it used to be. The new rule that tax credits do not go to new 3rd and later children is very popular and working very well and the benefits cap (also very popular with voters) is effective in some areas too with the same issues.

Most of us only have the children we can afford. I see my children as my responsibility for life and would never let the state provide for them in any circumstances at all.

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 15:59

All children should do chores, it is part of how they learn to be healthy grown ups. Some only children never see their parents and live between school and nannies, the number of children bears little relation to your argument.

Why does your PFB attend 6 clubs per week, for peer interaction per chance?

HeddaLettuce · 05/08/2016 16:01

Also, how do you deal with having less time for each child? More trivial example but my (admittedly PFB) DC does 6 extra curriculars a week. If I had 6 kids, how would I cope with 36 clubs a week? Impossible. They'd probably have to do 1-2 each max

Most children would do 1-2 a week max no matter how many siblings they have.

Vipermisnomer · 05/08/2016 16:02

Blyton if you got sick and had no family to depend on how would you look after your family?

People do not necessarily set out to "let the state provide for them", it has generally come about through circumstances beyond control.

cannotlogin · 05/08/2016 16:05

Wow, Blyton. Hope you don't get run over by a bus, be left with life-long injuries, your husband leave you because he can't cope with it all and would prefer something less complicated, and you be unable to work ever again due to your injuries.....what happens then?