Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to ask why it's seen as rude, unreasonable or seen as taboo to point out certain things

189 replies

pillow56 · 06/01/2023 17:57

Example I have seen many threads on mn saying how expensive it is to have kids and how people can't afford them/more kids which is fair enough.

Yet when people both in real life and on mn say that struggling parents who had alot of kids shouldn't have had so many kids if they couldn't afford them then it's an unreasonable thing to say and they get criticised for pointing it out?

Like it's different if the parents had good jobs before the kids came along but they lost them or some unforeseen thing happened that hit the finances but I'm talking about parents who never had cash or a great career before the kids came along. It is perfectly their right to have kids but surely they know that kids equate to expense before they have them so are they surprised?

I'd love to have kids myself but I can't afford them but I wouldn't find it offensive somebody pointing out the financial realities of kids if I suddenly planned to have kids tomorrow. So why do people get offended by this?

OP posts:
BubziOwl · 06/01/2023 20:46

Tbh this thread has given me a chuckle, because I have someone currently going round saying that I'm having babies I can't afford (currently pregnant with my second) and how I shouldn't be having another.

Sure, I moan about the cost of living. I put in a lot of effort to live cheaply. I grew up poor, so I'm determined to build wealth for my children. That's why my husband and I view saving and investing as a non-negotiable outgoing, and we will live as frugally as possible to enable that.

We're doing quite well. But I'm sure it looks like we're poor. I certainly talk like someone who is poor. So I'm sure you'd be thinking I ought to abort my well-fed, well-loved, and well-provided-for babies 👍

And of course, I do just inherently believe that procreation isn't just for the wealthy 🤷‍♀️

HarrysNeighbourhood · 07/01/2023 03:04

pillow56 · 06/01/2023 18:05

What was I supposed to do with them?
I know when I got divorced, lost my home, started again that my kids made that more expensive
Was I just supposed to give them away

i'm talking more about parents who were skint from the beginning but kept having kids in the face of it , not ones whos circumstances changed

As someone with a lot of children I find this incredibly rude. Both myself and DP work full time and are by no means rich but manage on our wages. The cost of living increase could have put us in poverty if we had debts to manage ( as many low income families do) or didn't have our emergency fund. It doesn't take much to tip the balance if one of us lost our job for some reason.
Families that are large are usually very hard working and for me personally I am proud of the fact that we both work hard and do have our own income without having to rely on the state.
Families that struggle and happen to have lots of children likely don't enjoy it being that way and likely didn't set out to struggle as they do.

JudgeRudy · 07/01/2023 04:24

YANBU - l think its fair game to respond to something that someone else has mentioned but perhaps a bit provocative to bring it up. Using your example if someone said how they were broke I'd probably not say anything, but if they were banging on about the cost of childcare or how they couldn't afford a better home/car/holiday, I might respond with "that's why we stopped at one".
I got 'blocked' today on a community FB page. Someone looking for a skip but wasn't prepared to pay the going rate which she said was 'ridiculous', 'stupid expensive', and 'a rip off'....I pointed out that if you broke it down, £250/week wasnt a lot to deliver,collect, empty, and maintain a skip, plus all the 'office' overheads. Apparently that's rude. I do not say half what I'd like to though.

MysteriesOfTheOrganism · 07/01/2023 05:48

Of course it seem daft to say they shouldn't have had so many kids, as it's something that cannot be undone - but that's not the point, surely? When we are being asked to sympathise with somebody we tend to react to the whole scenario, which includes their part in ending up in a mess. I feel more sympathy towards, say, someone injured when hit by a drunk driver than to a drunk driver injured crashing their car. Children are expensive, and the more children you have the more you're exposing yourself to the risk of financial troubles. You may have a great job - but jobs end. Economic downturns happen regularly. We cannot forsee everything, but wilful ignorance doesn't really get my sympathy.

healthadvice123 · 07/01/2023 06:23

I get what some are saying obviously the kids are here but maybe if it made others think twice
I know people around me who have kid after kid etc and then moan about money but they had no money with 3 kids so why then have another 3
We have two , would of loved 3 but had to make the hard choice that financially we couldn't afford a 3rd etc especially as it would of meant 2 dc we had missing out on lots

HarrysNeighbourhood · 07/01/2023 07:39

healthadvice123 · 07/01/2023 06:23

I get what some are saying obviously the kids are here but maybe if it made others think twice
I know people around me who have kid after kid etc and then moan about money but they had no money with 3 kids so why then have another 3
We have two , would of loved 3 but had to make the hard choice that financially we couldn't afford a 3rd etc especially as it would of meant 2 dc we had missing out on lots

How would the two you have miss out? I'm curious as to what they could miss out on.
Finances aside, most of what children need can be done cheaply or free if you work hard to be frugal.

healthadvice123 · 07/01/2023 08:04

@HarrysNeighbourhood my financially huge amounts , holidays , activities , school trips already barely affordable a 3rd would of made impossible
Also both mine did 2 team sports which involved travelling around the county sat and sundays and often in different places so one of us went with one and the other one with one
We had a 2 bed council house ( lucky to have that) a 3rd would of meant 3 sharing a tiny room
Ds1 is now at uni its hard financially supporting him with that and helping even now and we only have one child at college of we also had one at school , no chance we could help ds here and there
His student loan because of our wages don't cover his rent even and he took a year out and worked to cover what he can so our help is only £50. Here and there really
Its ok saying love is all they need and of course thats important but if you can make a choice then you do what you think is best , very different when relationships break down and best plans go amiss so someone is now on their own with 4 kids they could afford
But we wanted to give our kids some of what we never had and when it comes down to it money and finances play a big part

2ApplesShortOfABasket · 07/01/2023 08:14

Your OP is a bit pointless here as reading your posts, it seems you know exactly why it is rude but just don't care because you happen to agree. However the reason you agree is because you would like 'said" children.

You also stated you are on benefits.....I could make a whole host of observations based on that like "get a job" without knowing your actual circumstances.......but that would be extremely rude of me wouldn't it 🤔

MeinKraft · 07/01/2023 08:28

I have a family member who doesn't realise it's rude to say to me (I have two children) that she thinks it's better to have an only child because she can afford to give her everything she wants. It would be extremely rude of me to point out the benefits of children growing up with a siblings but I did point out that I didn't think it was necessarily beneficial for children to have everything they want in life. Stick your oar in and you might hear some home truths yourself.

SmokeyPaprika · 07/01/2023 08:34

I'm 70 - when I was young people criticised others, could be racist, were sexist (still are) and there was an expectation to keep up appearances, be respectable. But underneath was a lot of very bad behaviour eg child abuse.

We are at the other end of the spectrum now where no ones choices are wrong.

And no one deserves respect. You can shop in your jamas. Slag of teachers etc

Hopefully over the next few years there will be a swing back to a more middle ground.

loveyours · 07/01/2023 08:37

pillow56 · 06/01/2023 18:04

How helpful is it to say that once the kids are here though? What are they supposed to do, give them away

a lady in my office had 5 kids and her dh was always unemployed. She'd tell us how broke they were and after she left the room my other colleague said to us she shouldn't have any more kids then. It was a fair point but the others told her it was a rude comment and I secretly agreed and could see nothing wrong with it.

So you suggest a job for him- not slam them for having children? Op you can't be this socially inept to think it's ok to tell people 'the truth' like this?

5YearsLeft · 07/01/2023 08:39

There’s an extremely short, simple list of how to determine whether you should say something. You need two out of three of the following.

  1. Is it kind?
  2. Is it helpful?
  3. Is it necessary?

People may still not always agree with you, and there may be people who think it always needs to be all three, which is also fine (I don’t think you always need to be kind, but if some people do, that’s their choice). But I think if you follow at least two out of three, you should seldom find yourself saying something that makes you a rude arsehole.

HarrysNeighbourhood · 07/01/2023 08:42

healthadvice123 · 07/01/2023 08:04

@HarrysNeighbourhood my financially huge amounts , holidays , activities , school trips already barely affordable a 3rd would of made impossible
Also both mine did 2 team sports which involved travelling around the county sat and sundays and often in different places so one of us went with one and the other one with one
We had a 2 bed council house ( lucky to have that) a 3rd would of meant 3 sharing a tiny room
Ds1 is now at uni its hard financially supporting him with that and helping even now and we only have one child at college of we also had one at school , no chance we could help ds here and there
His student loan because of our wages don't cover his rent even and he took a year out and worked to cover what he can so our help is only £50. Here and there really
Its ok saying love is all they need and of course thats important but if you can make a choice then you do what you think is best , very different when relationships break down and best plans go amiss so someone is now on their own with 4 kids they could afford
But we wanted to give our kids some of what we never had and when it comes down to it money and finances play a big part

I would have to respectfully disagree with this. Children done 'need' holidays, sports lessons etc, that is an lifestyle choice.
Just like I have my large family and I choose to place some of the children in music lessons, all of them except the smallest are able to swim as had lessons, though I would argue that music lessons are essential where I live as we are right next to a huge and unpredictable body of water.
Children can be very expensive but can also not be. We hand down clothing, share toys/ equipment and don't go on holiday every year. The children are not missing out,we just choose this lifestyle and you choose yours.
We would have to agree to disagree.

HarrysNeighbourhood · 07/01/2023 08:44

Swimming lesson are essential rather not music.

Mummadeze · 07/01/2023 08:49

Having five children is excessive if you don’t have plenty of money to take care of a big family in my opinion. One, or two if you believe having a sibling is v beneficial, is understandable. Find it weird that most people can’t see this.

loveyours · 07/01/2023 08:51

Mummadeze · 07/01/2023 08:49

Having five children is excessive if you don’t have plenty of money to take care of a big family in my opinion. One, or two if you believe having a sibling is v beneficial, is understandable. Find it weird that most people can’t see this.

I don't think any person disagrees that having 5 children you can't afford is excessive and different to 1 or 2

Still bloody rude to bring it up. Especially when you could say something helpful like job advice instead.

Coffeellama · 07/01/2023 09:05

Mummadeze · 07/01/2023 08:49

Having five children is excessive if you don’t have plenty of money to take care of a big family in my opinion. One, or two if you believe having a sibling is v beneficial, is understandable. Find it weird that most people can’t see this.

You’ve obviously just missed the point of the thread. I bet we can all agree it’s excessive and not a good plan, the point is the OP doesn’t see why it’s rude to openly tell the person that they shouldn’t have had more kids. Most of the rest of us think it’s rude and unhelpful to say it.

daisychain01 · 07/01/2023 09:06

I'd love to have kids myself but I can't afford them but I wouldn't find it offensive somebody pointing out the financial realities of kids if I suddenly planned to have kids tomorrow. So why do people get offended by this?

You wouldn't be offended because in your case you'd appreciate the advice for the future, which would then give you your options as to whether you would go on and have children.

Thats not the same as the woman with money worries who already has 5 children, and having people expressing their unwelcomed opinions about the affordability of children. Can't you tell the difference?

a) it's none of their business
b) it's rude to point that out, not "taboo" just plain rude, embarrassingly so
c) they shouldn't be so judgemental and ignorant about other peoples lives and struggles

HarrysNeighbourhood · 07/01/2023 09:09

Mummadeze · 07/01/2023 08:49

Having five children is excessive if you don’t have plenty of money to take care of a big family in my opinion. One, or two if you believe having a sibling is v beneficial, is understandable. Find it weird that most people can’t see this.

What do you consider is 'plenty of money to take care of them?.
Many people think maintaining an excessive lifestyle is essential IMO. Cars are not essential, holidays are not essential, PlayStations/ iPhones are not essential, holidays etc are not essential to my family but maybe to a family of 1,2,3 children.

WandaWonder · 07/01/2023 09:09

Sure they can't send extra children back but they can stop complaining and blaming everyone for their issues

Emergencies and unexpected things happen but how many times can people on making bad decisions and choices and then going round in circles before people end up saying 'enough is enough' or 'think about what you are doing'

HikingforScenery · 07/01/2023 09:12

It’s your choice not to have kids.
It’s theirs to have them. If they’re able to clothe and feed them and give them the love they needs, what’s your issue? Cultural experiences don’t need to expensive to enrich the children’s lives either.

People who are better might complain about how much time consuming their DC’s activities are. Should they not have had them either.

People just complain for all sorts of reasons

I don’t know anyone irl who complains about how they’re struggling to provide for their children but I wouldn’t mind one not.

RampantIvy · 07/01/2023 09:18

Sure they can't send extra children back but they can stop complaining and blaming everyone for their issues

I agree.

I feel that many posters have completely missed the OP's point.

Shit happens. People split up, someone dies, people become ill or someone loses their job. She isn't talking about these people. She is talking about people who actively plan to have a child or multiple children when they aren't in a sustainable place to have them.

Having a child isn't a human right. It is a want or a desire.

The number of times I have had to restrain myself from posting on the education threads when parents of 5 or 6 children complain about the cost of school uniforms/donations/school lunches etc is ridiculous. Surely you factor this in when choosing to have so many children? I am referring to families where the "shit" hasn't happened BTW.

I do point out (very politely) on "shall I have another child/more children" threads how expensive teenagers are emotionally and financially though. It's no surprise that these posters only have primary school aged or younger children and have no idea of the avalanche that is facing them.

2ApplesShortOfABasket · 07/01/2023 09:22

@HarrysNeighbourhood

I totally agree with you. it also depends on how much the adults are willing to give up. Some people would believe things to be essentials when in fact they are luxuries.

Both DH and I are in public sector jobs. Children have all been supported in their interests and I give up my weekends to ensure that they all get to where they are going.

Uni was a negotiation, DD was offered a place at Oxford but decided to accept a place in London. I am sure that it was down to her knowing the financial strain it would place us under. She is so happy with her uni experience and I thabk my lucky stars that I have well rounded, compassionate children who place value on relationships and experiences over anything else.

We have family holidays in the UK or Europe but the children have all been further afield through club or school experiences. We do the best we can and there is no harm in going without.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 07/01/2023 09:36

Other posters have touched on eugenics so let's unpack that a bit shall we?

Humans are evolutionarily wired, for the most part, to reproduce, otherwise the species will die out.

For many reasons we live in a technologically enhanced world based on an economic system that is essentially a pyramid scheme - a minority reap huge rewards from the labour of the many. Yes, it's a simplified view but bear with me.

The system is rigged in many ways to create marginalised sections of society - often certain races, cultures, religions, the disabled, the poor etc bear the brunt of that.

Currently the pursuit of wealth and social stature is regarded as the holy grail of existence but the system does not support that for everyone - by design.

The design means that it appears we are running out of resources, we are killing the planet, we are dooooomed as a species unless we reduce the population.

Obviously most people would find a mass cull unpalatable - the last advocates of that ended up with really bad optics - and those "pragmatists" not opposed to such measures have had to find ways to advance their agenda via the long game. Or, as one might consider it "eugenics by stealth".

It's not that we can't create an equitable, environmentally aware society, it's that some don't want to, because it would require redistribution of wealth and resources, and they enjoy their elite status.

So what to do?

Create division is number one on the list. Do it by as many means possible. Technology gives propaganda and mind control the biggest reach it has ever had. Psychology is better understood and pressing peoples buttons has never been easier.

It's the oldest trick in the book - "People like that shouldn't reproduce".

Of course no-one will point to a particular group that is easily identifiable due to systemically ingrained and historical prejudice. This has to be done fairly.

So one solution is to persuade people, via various propaganda campaigns, to make their own decisions not to reproduce because it is the moral and responsible choice. (Allegedly)

Then peer pressure can be applied. The environmental crisis and crumbling economy is painted as occurring because there are too many people, when actually, before the rapid advance of technology, those people were needed to create an infrastructure allowing that advancement. Now, not so much.

But, I hear you cry, why all the valiant efforts to save everyone during the pandemic? Surely that proves this is a huge, tin foil hat worthy conspiracy theory.

Well, firstly, while lives were undoubtedly saved, it wasn't until it was economically advantageous to do so. The aforementioned minority who revel in wealth and power tripled their assets in a very short time. Many elderly and vulnerable did perish.

The economies and infrastructures of most countries are completely destabilised. Our healthcare system is crumbling. People are dying. People are complaining but the playbook turns it back onto the individual and their responsibility to society, yet society has less and less responsibility to those within it.

Jam tomorrow, carrot and stick, bread and circuses - t'was ever thus but the scale of the manipulation is far greater due to technology.

We are hardwired for survival but we live in a system designed for dependency on it - once it fails we can't all go off grid and grow our own food and be self sufficient, so some will fade away and others will have to compete via whichever means are available - scapegoating those on the ladder rungs below is inevitable.

So a post like yours, OP, is the result of careful manipulation to pit us all against each other and divert attention from the real problem, the bigger picture if you like.

If you want an idea of the way the "elite" think things should be going, look into some of the Silicon Valley higher ups, and their thoughts on having big families themselves because they are intellectually and economically superior and can thereby keep the future population to a desirable standard.

While the gen pop are chasing their tails and pointing fingers at the "feckless" these underlying ideologies are given a re-brand and the carrot that we can all benefit from certain sacrifices in the short term is held out. There is always just enough hope held out to keep us on the virtue treadmill.

So, essentially your "uncomfortable truths" are driven by the worst parts of human nature, and have been planted there in that form to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves and too busy trying to survive to see the bigger picture.

Fortunately it seems from this thread that a good number of people do see the bigger picture...., but as I say, the powers that be are playing a long game. Who knows how it will play out?

5128gap · 07/01/2023 09:40

If we remove the social taboo around criticising people's choices about having children, we step onto a slippery slope.
Some circumstances are considered by some people to be better than others for bringing children into the world.
So unless you want to live in a world where the only societally approved parents are in their late 20s, in a stable relationship, physically fit and healthy, with income above a certain level, pass a test for a certain intelligence level, live in the ideal type of housing in the perfect child friendly locations near the best schools...or whatever else people may argue to be optimum for bringing children into the world; its probably best that we preserve the current social norms, and accept that there are all different types of choices made about parenting and there is no consensus that some are more valid than others.

Swipe left for the next trending thread