10 kids? To judge it not to judge?

[Sekena]

I don't have 10 kids lol BUT boyfriends Dad was one of 10 - boyfriend's dad was a 'rainbow' baby born after a stillbirth -although doubt if this term was used then. Boyfriend himself is one of 5 - and all the sibs get on.

On MN - you get for instance a lot of 'only child' threads and parents potential guilt for not providing siblings and the opinions on these quite rightly are overwhelmingly that onlies don't miss out and these only child stereotypes are nonsense - which I completely agree with - I firmly believe an only child can thrive and doesn't need siblings. However - I also believe that a child in a large family can also thrive - just like my boyfriend's dad did. However if I was to say I'd like 10 kids - would I be judged ? I haven't decided on this at all - I'm currently pregnant with my second - but honestly felt my DD thrived as an only so definitely didn't conceive to give Dd a sibling - am delighted for this child in its own right !

I'm currently open minded about family size and am a SAHM. But what are your opinions on families of 10 like my boyfriends Dad's - WIBU if this is what I wanted ?

I had a student a few years back and both his parents were one of 13. Family gatherings had to happen in halls.

If you can honestly give all your attention to them and think they won't suffer and will be provided for, I was one of 6 raised in poverty and hated it. I had a miserable childhood in lots of ways

Depends, an awful lot of larger families aren’t thriving like smaller ones and vice Versa. My DP is one of 5, mother only has eyes for the youngest, my DP has brought himself up really and to a degree his siblings too. I’d say he’s the only one thriving now, siblings are off on the wrong track. Mother doesn’t care either. If you have the funds, emotional and financial, go for it. Otherwise I’d avoid a larger family. My DP is very disconnected from his family, which are dysfunctional, and he has no interest in making this better as it’s only him who would try.

Thing is it’s all moot when heavy industry and consumerism is causing much of the damage to the planet, not people having more than two children.

My Dad is one of 10. All the siblings get on and are very close, I couldn't have grown up in a more loving family all the cousins are close too. I know some siblings don't get on but I see it mostly on MN, I only know one friend who doesn't get on with her siblings but she can be difficult at times so I think her siblings are similar in nature.

It's rare now days to see families that big thanks to contraception choices but I don't judge big families, it wouldn't be for me, 10 kids to worry about would be too much for my nerves!

I honestly don’t think it’s anyone’s business. I have a large family and I wouldn’t have chosen to have a small one but I understand some people don’t like the same things I do and some can’t choose. I understand some people don’t want children at all.

I have 4 children. It's enough. But they're a great gang.10 children is madness.

I know quite a few families with 4. And have never felt judged in RL. Maybe I will be on here.

My OH is one of 5 and they're a great gang too and he adores being part of it.

I think mine like being one of 4. It costs lots obviously but we live to our means. And I've been cooking massive suppers for about a decade.

This is crap. ⬇️And frankly there are lots of ways you can do your kids a disservice.

Even if you had 4 or 5 you would be doing a disservice to them all because you are spread so thin.

Interestingly, fertility rates are falling and we have an ageing population. My kids will be working to provide for many of the MN on here via their taxes.

I don’t understand the spread too thin thing. People have children and full time jobs why wouldn’t they be spread too thin.

I think if you had 10 kids I'd only judge you if you were still standing, sane and dressed in clean clothes

But I'd be judging you in awe rather than negatively.

My mum was 1 of 7. My dad an only.

Sadly my died in her 60's of cancer and I'm so glad we still have a large family on her side as on my dads there's just him, my siblings and our DCs - who are all onlys!

Kids coped fine before. Kids create their own social group. Large families can be very beneficial for kids.

I'm from a large family, none of us felt that we were given enough emotional, financial or practical support.

Having a large family that the parents can provide for, financially, emotionally, practically wouldn't get judgement from me. Each to their own.

Having a large family where older siblings have to keep stepping into quassi-parent roles, children are quickly replaced with a new baby because mum and dad love babies, and keeping having babies when you're not providing adequately for the existing children would get judgement from me.

I simply cannot imagine, in this day and age, that a sane woman would put her body through enough pregnancies and births to end up raising 10 children. By choice!
Quality of life and affordability, all this is the practical side.
But to willingly go and have 10 children, surely it can't be all that good for the mother. Pelvic floor for a start. ..

My main issue would be environmental.
These children would have been born decades ago though when this wasn't so well known about.
My own parents were both from big families (five (all girls) and six kids) no money, grinding poverty instead. I'm sure there have been more to go round with fewer kids, both time and money. My aunt said they had a saying 'first up, best dressed'.

Also gonna judge the large family YouTube channels. Parents getting rich from selling their kids childhoods. But that’s in general.

No judgment here. I've my own life to get on with, and I like my life. If you'd be comfortable with 10 then why not? People judge as they want to feel superior but it must be hard for them, pointlessly needing to value themselves by wanting to feel better than others/make others feel bad. I've seen people talk of 'carbon footprint' on MN but I'm sceptical that they've done or are doing everything they can to reduce their own in other ways. It's not just about family size.

I'd judge. I'm one of 11. I'm not that old either. In some ways it was OK but mostly it was grim. There's simply no need to have that many any more

My great grandmother had 22 children and 16 died, this was 100 years ago. Most of the babies or toddlers who died were boys and they kept naming them Seamus after my great grandfather, it was something like 13 boys called Seamus died, my grandfather was the only boy in a family with five sisters, and incidentally he was called Seamus! Mental!

I am Irish and 42. When I was at school (convent school), there were a good number of children from big families, with 6 or more. A feature of them all was a lack of parental attention, with older siblings carrying the slack, or had to do it themselves for younger siblings. Most did not have very much money. Not one of them had the dad who would give us lifts, or had sleepovers. I felt sorry for them, which was mad, as we were poor ourselves. But they seemed lacking in the non monetary stuff too.

I realise that other families maybe are very different, but in my experience, hi once you get to 5/6 plus, you need the older ones to take on a lot of responsibility that I just do not think it is fair to put on a child. I do not conciously judge, but I pity the children. So I suppose I am judging really.

DH is one of 11 and hates it. His childhood was completely chaotic. There were no days out, meals out, holidays etc as his parents simply couldn't manage it financially or logistically. They missed out on school trips and there were no extracurricular activities. He had to share his bedroom with two brothers and never had any space to himself. Most of his siblings are now adults and their Mum relies on them for support rather than it being the other way round.
I think I would really struggle not to judge because I don't see how it is possible to provide everything a child/teen/adult needs times ten. Yes you can argue that small families may not be able to afford to do much and may have to share a bedroom, but if you can afford to meet the basic needs of 10, I'd much rather give two the best quality of life possible.

If the population angle is an issue, apparently the worlds entire population could squash into New York City.

That’d be an interesting experience

But it’s more how much land would be needed to provide the resources for each person per year and throughout their lifetime. How much damage that would cause to ecosystems

I think it was more common a couple of generations ago. Now? Yes I’d judge, mainly due to the fact that there would be no way they could give each child the attention / emotional support that they needed. It wouldn’t be fair.

I’d be really impressed that you could afford to house, clothe and raise 10 kids to be honest!