To wonder how big families have time for their DC?

[changethenarm]

I have a DS, and a DD.

I run a tight ship. DS does 1 activity and DD does 2.

But even without that, it isn't easy to fit in 1-1 time with them, and giving them my attention equally is a juggle but doable

I love kids but having a 3rd would negatively impact the attention and time I have to meet my current childrens needs properly

How do people do it with 4+ kids?!

Seriously. How? Surely other DC must be missing out?

Anyone noticing that the comments from adults who grew up with lots of siblings and the comments from people who are parents with lots of children are not saying the same things?

3 kids is pushing it, more than 3 is unquestionably dimished returns as far as attention goes.

Of course the trade-off is that it's (potentially) nice to have a lot of siblings in adulthood.

Same with all my friends from big families. Many have gone on to have only one child and two at the absolute maximum.

I see my friends with three kids and know I couldn't do it.

I'm a very happy only child with a very happy only child and I love being able to give her my full attention and spend so much time with her.

As the youngest of six I can confirm that my parents definitely didnt have time for all of us. By the time I was born they were frankly exhausted and fed up of it all.

Any indication that parents of lots of children don't have lots of siblings?
Anyone noticing the small sample size and inherent bias?
Anyone noticing that this means nothing at all?

Of course they dont become mini parents! I mean they do want to help and do stuff for the new baby before the novelty wears off.i think perhaos you just arent very capable and think because you struggle with a couple that everyone else is the same.Of course the children help out on running the house.i think all kids should do little jobs like bring down their laundry, put their plate on the dishwasher and so on.Nothing wrong with that!

Im not trying to suggest comments on mumsnet are adequate evidence of anything…it’s bloody mumsnet, not a piece of research.

However, I think it’s interesting.

I am one of three and I have three, although admittedly that's only some poster's definition of large.

I was one of three and I have three . Really don’t understand the controversy. To play devils advocate I have witnessed how children can actually be given too much attention which means they can lack empathy,lack their own resources to be independent and become very entitled !

Fuck me people, do you actually think its ok to have a thread where every other answer is "Parents of more than three children are terrible parents who neglect their children"?

Seriously? Would you start one that says "Parents with one child are selfish and mean and are overinvested in their single child" and invite everyone to agree with you? What about "Childless people are the worst" or "All Asian parents are abusive tiger parents"

Why single us out then?

Do you? It isn't.

Someone said on a previous comment that more is expected of parents now than 20+ years ago. I think that’s true. I think it must be hard to live up to the ridiculous expectations we have of parents now with 5+kids.

my mum was one of 10. However there was no expectation of after school clubs, help with homework or one to one time when she was a child. They went out to play and became independent quite young. I can see the positives and negatives from her large family.

It is to me.

This is a nasty judgemental post
i have 5 but the age difference means it all works out fine
I had a supportive hands on DH or else I wouldn’t have chosen to have a big family
life changes now a widow
the most the older ones have to do is watch younger ones for a hour or so so I can work
they don’t mind at all and it doesn’t impact their life their plans come first
for reference mine are 23,18,15,8,6
the second oldest has just had a offer to study medicine so I don’t think
I’m failing them too much x

I'm an only child, I have 3 DC.

I would far rather have had the close relationship with siblings than the endless boring 1:1 time with adults that I had. My DC have far better social skills than I had at their age.

Don't be daft - love may expand with every child but the number of hours in the day doesn't.
Children in big families get as much 1 to 1 time as their parents can spare. They get more time/input from siblings than children in smaller families do. It's just a different experience.

Yes, some defensive parents in denial, it's a shame.

I have 4 and I feel like I have plenty of 1:1 time with each of them. I read with each of them separately, I do their homework with them, I drop them to their individual clubs. I drive the eldest to school so we have nice chats. Each has a chance to speak at the dinner table. I play games with them. We go on family holidays with no screens so we chat about what we are doing, watch TV together. We watch TV shows with the older two together, we watch movies together with everyone at the weekend.

I don’t really get why 4 kids would fall in this bracket of not having enough time tbh. Yes, the big families of 15+ children I wonder how they do it, but I guess the older ones are older and have grown away from their kids.

I very very seldom spend any time separate from my family though. I think maybe that’s different from others. If they aren’t in school or club, I’m with them 100% of the time.

i have 3, aged 9, 7 and 4. They have never fought 🤷🏻‍♀️. Literally never. The odd bicker about who gets to choose what they watch on TV. They genuinely adore each other. So I guess that’s the ‘benefit’ and ‘joy’… another person to love.

Whereas every family with <3 children at the perfect epitome of devoted selfless parenting?
Oh hang on! You haven't derided single parent families with 4 or more yet! You've missed a trick there.

Stop judging others and see to your own life. Comparison is the thief of joy.

In reply to this, I am one of 6 and had plenty of attention from my parents. In fact out of my siblings 2 others have gone on to have 4 kids too, so we obviously didn’t think being in a bigger family was bad. The others have 2 each - but there were other factors at play in their choices whether or not to have more.

That’s why we stopped at 2. We wanted to ensure the DC could join the clubs they would like and to make sure we had plenty of time for them.

A friend of mine has 5 DC and she admits herself that the older DC suffered, often having to look after the younger DC and activities were an absolute no-go which is a shame.

It's not a matter of hours in the day divided by number of children. Unless you want to allege that working parents are by neccisity worse than non working parents?
I mean, if I have 2 and you have 2, but I am at home with them all day and you work all day, am I automatically better at parenting and have happier children?

(I don't have 2 and I work full time, for info)

I'm from a big family and it was only by the time I was in my teens that we got 1-1 time with either parent that wasn't you working alongside them doing housework or farm work. That's because they did a parenting course at the request of SS.

We also never had hobbies or extra curricular activites unless they were a) free, b) didn't require transport from DPs and c) didn't interfere with chores.

Older ones often had a responsiblity put on their shoulders far beyond their years. Things like reading with us was only for the toddlers, regular dentist /eye appointments didn't happen unless there was an issue.

All of us have had smaller families than we came from. For all but one of us, the size of our family of origin was a major factor in our own family size choices.

Well age gaps help. The toddler is with me while the older are at school. Eldest has left home. Two primary kids. Reception child and baby go to bed early and I hang out with the older. Activities, we do one each so it’s not too packed. We don’t watch tv so that adds a lot of time to the day for hanging out and spending time.