Large Families

[Czerny88]

I'm trying to understand the psychology behind people having large families (by which I mean anything over three children, I guess). NB I'm thinking about people in the 21st century, in the West, with access to contraception and low infant mortality, who don't belong to a culture where it is particularly encouraged to have a large number of children, such as Judaism. And obviously there are circumstances such as multiple births which don't apply.

My visceral feeling is that it is often wrong on many levels. In attempting to enunciate why, I would say people should not have more children than they can afford, than they have time to care for, than can fit comfortably in their living accommodation.

And even in the case where the parents are very wealthy, have a huge house and extra support such as a nanny, there is still the hugely important issue of over-population. It feels like we are at capacity already, without room to increase the population by the amount would result by every couple having even three children.

I'm trying not to be too goady or right-wing, and I have personal reasons for the way I feel (I am involuntarily childless) so please don't be too harsh, but it's something I struggle with ideologically as well as emotionally.

So... AIBU to think that people should be more responsible about how many children they produce and not act solely on their own desires regardless of the potential effects on others? Or is that an unrealistic, draconian expectation?

Have you been at the cooking sherry Google?

I'm one of 5 (brought up on a farm - so both parents around most of the time) - my parents have always had time for all of us (& one of us is disabled)

OP - if you can understand why anyone would want a child at all then you can understand how large families happen.
I can understand why people would want a house, a partner, one or two cars, one or two cats, one or two dogs, etc., but most people stop at a low number because resources (money, space, time, energy) are finite. Why should children be different?

Arseicle - And how often do you call someone a "goady fucker" in real life, hmm?

A11thesmall as with life in general it's about how you spend your money and what matters to each family. My children are all well clothed, fed and do extra curricular stuff/ trips - we go to theme parks and out to dinner have take always etc but we don't have new cars, the best sofa or lots of luxury items.
Lots of children mean things are shared - we don't have several PlayStations for example we have 1 and we would have 1 if we had 1 child, this is true of lots of things.

Lots of children mean things are shared - we don't have several PlayStations for example we have 1 and we would have 1 if we had 1 child, this is true of lots of things.

Another argument that I don't understand. Presumably they'll all grow up and lead separate lives, and acquire all the things that a typical Westerner would? And of course, go on to have children of their own?

To the ladies without children not by choice, i'm so sorry things haven't worked out the way you wished. Having suffered a late miscarriage and infertility before going on to be a mum, I hope you are able to ignore the nasty "you shouldn't be on here comments" perhaps this website should be called women's net instead. I would hate to think women who have been through sometimes devastating experiences then feel pushed out here, we need to be accepting and inclusive of everyone (that's not to say agree with everything) just learn to be more tolerant.

Museum yes of course - I was replying to the poster who asked how parents afford them as children

Because children are free. They don't sell them in the shop, do they? That's why people have them. I doubt people had the resources required in the olden days. And most had 10+ kids. This is nature for you. Try as you may, instincts are there for a reason. And sex is not only there for orgasms. Grow up.

Someone upthread sort of quoted me and then said that only children are spoilt, and it looked a bit as if I had said that and they were agreeing with me. Just want to make it clear that I didn't actually say that I think only children are spoilt.

Can you stop the tide? Can you make the sun stay out till midnight? Can you bring rain over the dessert? Can you stop a hurricane? Can you make people have less kids than they want?

NO.

I will admit that I haven't read the entire thread but one question I would like to ask related to this is how do you feel about people who have large families and depend entirely on benefits and tax credits?

I know that the law has changed with effect from next April but what about people who have five or six children and for whom (until the law changes) each new child just meant an increase in their benefit and tax credit payments?

Well, how do we feel. Just imagine, a squirrel in the forest. The government goes and leaves lots of nuts out on a table. Is she going to help herself to the nuts? Or not? Will she bring her kids to the table to eat nuts? Or not? Will the government start leaving more nuts on the table, after seeing the baby squirrels? Or not?

Will the squirrel stop eating nuts if there aren't any left for her?

YES.

The fault is with the giver, not with the receiver. You are barking up the wrong tree.

I don't get this idea that the moment anyone has more than 2 children their unfortunate offspring ends up going short of time and attention because parental energy is a finite resource. Finite, maybe, but the same in every family? To me, that's as stupid as thinking that every family has exactly the same financial resources (nobody should buy a 1 million house because it stands to reason no one could pay the mortgage...).

From what I can see, some people seem to find even one youngster too much for them, others can happily find time to cuddle and teach and play games and enjoy 4 or 5 of them. Some people are brilliant at making money go a long way and save up out of a small income. Others have less energy and find they have to take financial short-cuts.

I have found 2 children was quite enough for me, both financially and energy-wise. But I cannot deny that my mother seemed able to do pretty well what I have done (attentionwise, educationwise, financially) with my 2- only with the 4 of us instead. She is not me, I am not her.

And speaking of the overpopulation problem, she did one thing I have not done: she adopted. She also managed without a car and with an environmental footprint which must be way below average.

I know that the law has changed with effect from next April but what about people who have five or six children and for whom (until the law changes) each new child just meant an increase in their benefit and tax credit payments?

I think these people are too rare to give a crap about really. They will be caught with the benefit cap anyway, and this 2 kids law is going to hurt/affect more than just the few who see kids as an increase in money.

cory parental love may not be a finite resource but parental energy most definitely is.

Well, how do we feel. Just imagine, a squirrel in the forest. The government goes and leaves lots of nuts out on a table. Is she going to help herself to the nuts? Or not? Will she bring her kids to the table to eat nuts? Or not? Will the government start leaving more nuts on the table, after seeing the baby squirrels? Or not?

Will the squirrel stop eating nuts if there aren't any left for her?

YES.

The fault is with the giver, not with the receiver. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Ah. Now you are making much more sense.

LeaveMyWingsBehindMe Mon 12-Sep-16 15:44:32

"cory parental love may not be a finite resource but parental energy most definitely is."

You can't have read my post properly. The point I am making is that though parental energy is a finite resource, that does not mean that everybody is issued with exactly the same amount.

Money is also a finite resource. But I don't think we should try to decide what house you can buy based on the kind of mortgage I could afford. Finite does not mean equally distributed.

I found 2 children was quite enough for my energy levels and patience. My mother coped fine with 4. Because we are not the same person.

As for the legality, I said "subsistence benefits", so basics - food, for example. I think a challenge could be made against a law that feeds child 2 but not child 4. The challenge would be on behalf of the child, not the parent. Child benefit is paid for the child.

What if the state decided to offer education to the first 2 children but none to any subsequent ones? Would the later children not have grounds for action on the basis that they are being deprived for no fault of their own? I think they might.

I have 2, DP has 2 every other week. Both of us youngest children in big families (5 & 6 kids).

We also always have a couple of foreigners living with us - often for years at a time. And big families are ace in our opinion. And they are ace for all you life not just up to 18/21/25.

So we like having a big family because we think it's more fun. The kids certainly benefit in lots of ways. Also in France society is set up to enable big families, so that helps too.

cory parental love may not be a finite resource but parental energy most definitely is

And how is that quantified exactly? Are you going to tell tired people they aren't allowed children at all?

Arseicle - And how often do you call someone a "goady fucker" in real life, hmm

I'd call it to your face, because you're either a goady fucker or just a giant arse.
The point of this thread was to insult and belittle other posters, what do you call that if not goady fuckery?

I notice you don't answer OP. Go up to a large family you know and ask them why they more children, and explain to them that you think they are morally wrong and shouldn't have done so. Maybe you could point to which of their children you think shouldn't be alive, see how well that goes.
You wouldn't though.

I'm entirely in agreement with Arseicle. OP is a goady fucker and a lot of the posts on here just depress me with their self-righteous judgemental smugness.

It's a topic that seems to have brought out the most unattractive side of a lot of posters.

I come from a big family (6 children ) & I really wanted the same. I adored my brothers & sisters & growing up round corner from my cousins. Unfortunately we just could not afford any more so have had to stop at 3. Still doesn't stop me being unbelievably broody though

wanking, I'm not sure that's true. I read something about it recently, large families are overwhelmingly found at the two extremes of the social spectrum in income terms. Either very rich people who have large families as almost a status symbol that they can afford them, or the very poorest who depend on benefits but whose income goes up dependent on how many children they have.

Large families are very, very rare in the middle where there is not a lot of cash floating about and income does not increase depending on number of children. So most people can and do control the number of children they have when they have a finite income which won't support an expanding family.

As a result it seems extremely likely that people will limit their families when the changes come in rather than large families being impoverished. Other families manage to do this very effectively when benefits are not an option, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the same.