-
I really don't care how many children the author or anyone else has if they are able to care for them. It seems Granju wants people to respect her personal parenting choices, yet I found her book on attachment parenting to be very dogmatic and judgmental towards parents who made different choices than she did. A little hypocritical to me.
posted by : momto2 on 7/24/2008 at 12:20 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I think part of the thought is that there are a LOT of people out there that need someone to look out for them, or a little help, that it seems selfish to bring a life into the world that you would devote yourself to instead. I'm not talking about adoption (unless it's an older child, no one has a problem finding homes for healthy babies), just people in general.
(This is said without judgment or smugness, as I'm not helping out anyone)
posted by : Eerf on 7/24/2008 at 12:52 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Well said, Katie (and you know I agree!) I think honestly that there are many women who would really like to have larger families, but it so goes against social norms when it comes to how much energy and time and money it takes to raise a child--not to mention the financial circumstances that many are dealing with--that they really feel it's impossible to do a good job at parenting more than one or two kids. As a result you have ridiculous theories like the "competitive birthing" story from last year, or the "baby collector" accusations directed toward Angelina Jolie...people seem to assume that a trend back toward having larger families stems from competitiveness and "keeping up with the Joneses" or some kind of mental illness. Isn't it possible that people just like children, and some people like having a house full of them? When it comes to how many kids we have (whether it's one or six) why does a choice that's slightly different have to be pathologized?
posted by : Meagan Francis on 7/24/2008 at 1:01 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I am the oldest of six children, the mother of three children and the grandmother of three children.
We live next door to a family of seven children, aged 7 years to 3 months. She is a stay at home mom, and home schools. I work outside of the home full time, but neither one of us have the time, energy or inclination to be judgemental of each other's life style. I have been known to sidle up to new mom's in the park, and I would by lying if I said that it does not make me sad to not have kids with my current hubby. but I am 44, and quite frankly, he does not want kids of his own, he gets his kiddy fix from my family. it is amusing that he is a grandpa, never having had a child. LOL
My best friend is childless by choice. I told her that there are 6 billion people on the planet, we are not gonna miss one more, so if she didn't want kids, that didn't make her any more freaky than my neighbor.
The point is that whether you want a crowd, an only, or none at all, that is YOUR choice and none of anyone else's business. To the "you know what causes that" crowd, shut up! To the "you never know fulfilment until you hold your own baby" crowd, Shut up! Are ya happy? if yes, then that's good enough for me!
posted by : L Alahem on 7/24/2008 at 1:09 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I am curious as to how the author would justify having more of her own children instead of adopting or fostering kids in need - after all, if your goal is to have more children in the house, and you can afford more, why do they have to be ones you gave birth to yourself?
Really, I think the author should just admit that her choice is selfish and get on with it. YES, it is selfish. Does she have the right to be selfish? Sure, it's a free country. But denial that it's a selfish choice isn't going to help her sleep at night. Just admit that your brood is the reproductive equivalent of an SUV (good for you, not great for everyone else) and move on.
posted by : Bunny 2 on 7/24/2008 at 1:09 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I am jealous of woman who manage many. I am on #3. We thought we were down with 2 but fate had other plans. I am so burnt out from managing the first 2 I couldn't imagine having 5 or 6. I think I would really suck at it. So more power to the capable ones that can manage it.
posted by : carliec on 7/24/2008 at 1:10 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Oh, there's plenty of judgement to go around. Believe me, the "respect" you talk about for having "only" one kid? Not quite. The commenting is relentless. "Your son is going to be... spoiled, lonely, bossy, etc" Look, I've always wanted just one kid, you've always wanted six. Does this make us bad parents? God, I hope not!
posted by : robinl on 7/24/2008 at 1:14 PM Flag For Abuse
-
To Bunny 2. Wow. Adoption isn't for everyone. Usually the waiting list is long. It is very expensive and you can run into all kinds of mental and physical health problems. I would not ever adopt. It is not my cup of tea and to have someone assume everyone that wants children should adopt them is downright ignorant and self motivated to some ideal of save the children. You may feel responsible for other peoples children but not all of us do. Personally I prefer my own genetics. Some people like adopting some people don't...so go adopt a baby already and leave us "breeders" alone....jeeez
posted by : carlie on 7/24/2008 at 1:16 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Ugh, the "Don't you know what causes that, har-har" crowd.
EVERYBODY who says this acts like they've just said something totally clever. I get it on behalf of another family member: "Four kids! Don't they know what causes that?!" Ba-dum-dum-crash! Might as well say, "Take my wife, please!"
Heavy sigh. Although I do think one suggested response was funny enough:
Blank, questioning look: "No, what?"
posted by : Chiara on 7/24/2008 at 1:18 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Bunny, I happen to think that my children are resources who will make a positive, maybe amazing contribution to the world they're in...it's hardly accurate to compare children to an SUV.
posted by : Meagan Francis on 7/24/2008 at 1:19 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Personally I say have as many kids as you can care for WELL. My only problem is when people have more kids than they can care for and the kids suffer and society suffers because society bears the burden of then caring for the kids. If you have enough resources to care for six kids, I congratulate you.
With regard to the theory that one should adopt or foster instead of having biological children because it's somehow more selfless, I say this.... you cannot ignore biological imperative.
I want to pass on my own genes. That's not selfish. That's nature. To deny so is to deny our very essence and is more than a little naive.
That said, I think fostering and adoption is a great thing to do if it's in you to do so. But to think anyone has an obligation to do so is a repressive mindset.
To Bunny 2 - having a "brood" is not the equivalent of an SUV. People are not objects. You have made an ignorant and callous statement that is characteristic of intolerant "progressive" dogma. Try thinking for yourself.
posted by : k1 on 7/24/2008 at 1:25 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Okay, seriously? Who are all these busy bodies who go around making these stupid comments to people with more than two kids, people with one kid, people with no kids, people breastfeeding, people bottle feeding...etc?
If a kid is in immediate danger, call 911. If you think a kid may be in some sort of danger, call CPS. If not, then it is none of your business, really.
I'm not talking about the commenters here, because this is an article, asking for comment...I'm talking about all the people who walk up to random parents in the mall or supermarket and share their parenting "wisdom."
Honestly, it isn't about how many kids or how you feed them, there are just some people out there who feel the need to comment when it is not their business. It isn't unique to any one situation and I don't know that any really conclusions can be drawn from this behavior other than there will always be a percentage of people who say stupid and insensitive things, regardless of the topic or their position on the topic.
posted by : CaliMama on 7/24/2008 at 1:46 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I come from a very large family. I hope that parents who want to have many children consider that for some children it does feel like you are short-changed. Having lots of people around who are loving helps but does not replace the time and attention a child needs from their parents. Children raising children, which is generally a part of this "old-fashioned" idea, does not respect the needs of either the older or the younger children. This is, of course, my perspective.
posted by : More than 7 on 7/24/2008 at 2:24 PM Flag For Abuse
-
To Bunny 2 or anyone who casually throws out adoption every time this subject comes up, please do some searching of adoptee blogs (try the phrase "anti-adoption") and think very hard about these things.
Adoption is not always sunshine and roses. While some adoptees are very happy to have been adopted, that is not the case for everyone. There are issues of identity that some people never resolve, about loss of cultural identity in international adoptions, the wound of losing parents that may never heal in some people, pain of rejection, the mothers who never get over the child who's gone but not really gone, to say nothing of the ones who wanted their babies, but were forced by others or pure desperation into giving them up (less of a problem here now that it used to be, but a huge consideration in international adoptions).
The potential issues are way more than can even be mentioned in one comment. Adoption is a very serious matter and can be done well or very cluelessly. Don't act like this is easy and everyone should just go scoop up somebody else's kid to sate the parental urge while proving to our enlightened peers what wonderful environmentalists we are. Adopted children are whole persons, not objects to satisfy philosophical goals. Furthermore, spreading this attitude insults parents who do work through all the issues to adopt the "unwanted" children you are presumably talking about.
posted by : anon for this on 7/24/2008 at 2:26 PM Flag For Abuse
-
On a completely different note, I would like to agree with the author's statement about having many people love you. I am an only child, but both my parents come from families of seven children, and my husband is the youngest of seven, and I couldn't imagine not having aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents alwasy around. I may be an only child, but I'm a part of something larger than my nuclear family, and I have loved every minute. I hope that my husband and I will have at least a couple of children, but we both agree the more the merrier. Money may not alwasy be plentiful, and I may have to give up my morning Starbucks and designer shoes for diapers and school clothes, but I can say from experience that what you gain in return is priceless.
posted by : Anon on 7/24/2008 at 2:31 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Nicely written and very persuasive. I'm still sticking to the three kids I have, but I admit as they get older I have pangs for a baby.
I don't know that I buy the argument that giving birth to kids puts a burden on the world. Aren't you (we) producing the next generation of teachers, doctors, politicians, environmental scientists, and, dare I say, nursing home workers?
posted by : Kakki on 7/24/2008 at 2:35 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I do want to comment that having a largish family doesn't necessarily mean that your siblings will love you and be there for you. I come from a family of four kids, and haven't spoken to one brother for 18 years. My youngest brother I exchanged a few emails with a year ago, haven't heard a peep from him since then. When I had my daughter in Dec 2006 I made a concerted effort to have her know her family on my side a least a bit, so my partner and I have driven down to Pennsylvania once each summer to visit my middle brother and his family for two days. This is because I have basically invited myself to come. It seems fine with my brother that we are there, but I don't get the impression that he really cares that we make an effort to come.
I talk to my parents on the phone once every month or two and they come here once a year or so, when they want to come. When they come it is evident to me that they don't actually listen to a word I say about what I am doing or what I enjoy in life.
This turned into a "oh poor me" post, but I think it's important to realize that a sibling isn't a guaranteed friend.
posted by : KK on 7/24/2008 at 3:04 PM Flag For Abuse
-
As a mom of 6...it's not too many! :) It's just right.
If you're into what numbers "mean", traditionally 8 (the grand total of our busy household) is the number for "family" or "wholeness". I kind of like that.
And I can relate to all the "don't you know what causes that" statements. Interestingly, they stopped after #4.
I guess people gave up expressing their opinions at that point...since I was making my intention to have a larger family clear!
More importantly though were the people who have gone out of their way in the past years (my oldest is 11) to say "what fabulous children" or "I can tell you're doing such a good job". These statements are much more rare, but so appreciated! They have a spirit of kindness, support and generosity behind them. And we can all use more of that, no matter how many kiddoes we have (or don't). A pat on the back is a good thing, and kudos to those who give them, including Mama Granju!
Christy
www.mom-preneur.info
posted by : PicturePrincess on 7/24/2008 at 4:00 PM Flag For Abuse
-
It's fun to make babies!
As long as you can afford to raise them and stay off welfare, and your husband is agreeable to a larger family, why not have the family you want until you feel complete. However, have you considered what happens if a larger continually growing family never provides you with that feeling of completeness you desire.
posted by : rpwc on 7/24/2008 at 4:05 PM Flag For Abuse
-
For what it's worth, I'm from a family of 6 and we're extremely close. We have a blast together as adults, even though 2 of us are out of state from the rest. It's probably a lot of factors, though, from personality to home life growing up - we were homeschooled to varying degrees (me a couple years to the youngest all the way through), which seems to bond siblings, and didn't have much money, which means we were our own entertainment. It was also hard in a lot of ways. I'm the oldest and I could think, "If it weren't for them, I could have had so much more" (and they could think the same about me) but they are my heart and I wouldn't trade them for anything. My mother's life was really crazy for a while, but she started a career later in life and is thrilled to be piling up grandkids.
posted by : Chiara on 7/24/2008 at 4:13 PM Flag For Abuse
-
As number four of five children I find the "selfish" comments etc highly offensive. Having my own large femily may not be right for me, but I'm very, very glad my parents thought it was right for them.
posted by : BS on 7/24/2008 at 5:10 PM Flag For Abuse
-
My knee-jerk response to this: eeew. It just seems grotesque. I'm not going to justify my response, many commenters here have made intelligent responses, and the author's environmental rationale is passable. I'm just noting that my instinct is to find the litter of children thing repulsive.
Not saying I'm "right" or the author is wrong, just sharing my reaction. I guess I'd be one of the "don't you know what causes that?" people, but I wouldn't say it out loud.
I guess the main question I have is, doesn't the author want to also do OTHER things with her life besides raise children? I'm a parent, I love my two kids, but I also have a husband, a career, friends, a home, and I feel spread thin enough already. I guess if you have no life besides being a mom, this is a good plan. But what will you do when they all move out and don't need you to mother them any more, then you're left with emptiness -- or the option of squeezing out more children to fill the void. Perhaps you can keep doing this until your uterus gives out.
I'm pro choice, but it's certainly not a choice I would make.
posted by : controlled breeder on 7/24/2008 at 6:19 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I guess I'm not surprised by the judgmental tone many posters have taken ("controlled breeder"'s just the latest in a long string, I'd say).
I have never understood that the way that many people justify their own choices is by running down the choices that other people make. Breast or bottle? Daycare and career, or SAHM? 1 kid or 6? What difference does it make to you what other people choose to do?
BTW, has anyone read Jacquelyn Mitchard's syndicated column (much of which is about her very large family--they have 7 kids)?
As long as your choice doesn't have negative dangerous consequences for others, go ahead and do what you want--if you want lots of kids, have them, and have fun.
Just FYI: I have one 4 y.o. girl and another one (the last one) on the way. I wanted to stop at one, but my husband really wanted two, and I wavered...so now we're having two, and I'll admit that I'm happy.
posted by : katydidmama on 7/24/2008 at 6:30 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I think the key is choice and responsibility. If you want a billion kids, have a billion kids, but keep your opinion on the matter (pro OR con) to yourself - I couldn't care less how often you have sex and/or what becomes of it.
The responsibility comes into play when you start converting your older children into babysitters and caretakers. My SIL has done that, and it drives me nuts. If you want 10 kids, have 10 kids but be prepared to raise them yourself, not have them raise each other FOR you. If resources are scarce, then stop having kids. Your children should not have to suffer for your "choice" - they didn't get a say in the matter.
I have and only want one child. I had a sibling and it's the worst and most destructive relationship I've ever been in and if I could be rid of it, I would. My son doesn't need a playmate, he needs a full life. I can give that to him, my husband/his father can give that to him, and the people we CHOOSE to be in his life can give that to him. And he'll be just fine, thanks.
posted by : Me on 7/24/2008 at 6:37 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I wound up childless, not entirely by choice, but at 44 that seems to be the way it is -- thank the dear forces of the universe that my best friend was determined to have a big family and has enough kids to share. The last two were twins, and if you're an extra set of arms that needs a baby fix, find a friend with infant twins -- not only do all those kids get an extra grownup to love them, but a stray grownup gets a pile of kids to hang out with -- I was the oldest of 3, the oldest girl in a pack of 10 cousins, and while it's clearly not for everyone, there are people who thrive in a big noisy house full of activity. I like to tease my friend that since I never had any, demographically she got mine -- and having seen that last pregnancy, I thank her all the time for going through that! Big families ripple out into the community in sometimes-unexpected ways ...
posted by : xtralovingarms on 7/24/2008 at 7:15 PM Flag For Abuse
-
As a parent of one ... and I'm not planning to have another ... I get just as many rude comments that I am producing a selfish child who won't ever be able to function in society, and that he will be so lonely. I am so sick of the comments ... but it's almost fun to let people go on and on, and then say "well, thanks. my husband is an only child - i'll let him know what you think of him" :)
I think that if you buck the two-kid trend, no matter what direction, you get a lot of these comments.
Enjoy your housefull of children! I'll enjoy my family of 3 ... no matter how many more comments I get.
posted by : jr on 7/25/2008 at 8:51 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Zzzzzzzzzzz
posted by : yawn on 7/25/2008 at 11:33 AM Flag For Abuse
-
I am the eldest of 5... and I have to say that I believe my parents had lots of kids because they truly felt they had a lot to teach children, that they were good at raising kids, that this was their calling.
My experience was that I did not get enough supervision or attention. My parents didn't have the resources to provide for all of us - and I don't mean "boo hoo, no fancy, trendy clothes" but "not enough food sometimes" and "the electricity will be turned off". As the first born, I would often forego getting what I needed (like a seat with a seatbelt in the family car, or a winter coat with a working zipper) so the little ones could get their needs met.
While I enjoyed the relative lack of supervision in my teen years, I hope my own daughter isn't using her babysitting money to buy home pregnancy tests like I did at age 15. And I didn't enjoy having to parent my youngest siblings when my mother had to go back to work to help support the family.
I love my sibs, and the youngest two are some of my closest friends. But I strongly feel I was shortchanged and that my parents didn't know what they were doing.
If you have the time and resources, great. If you can handle paying enough attention to all of your kids, great. If you have the finances to support them even if jobs are lost, great. But... my parents were convinced they were doing a great job and had all the details figured out. I plan on having 2 - and REALLY hope I don't have twins next time around!
posted by : KD on 7/25/2008 at 1:12 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I haven't read your book on attachment parenting so unlike others I'm only going to comment on this story, which I enjoyed.
While I think the Duggars with their 17 'J' children is a little insane, I see nothing wrong with wanting 6 kids. I couldn't deal with the impact it would have on our lifestyle purely because it would mean we had a lot less money, but if you want it, go for it.
And yes, if you're like Jon and Kate and use PAPER PLATES to feed your children because you're too lazy to do dishes, then you are environmentally irresponsible. (That was, until Sarah Snow came and 'greened' the house, thank god). However, if you're taking steps to both educate your kids about the environment AND to balance out your large family's footstep, I see no harm. In fact, you could even argue you are producing more environmental ambassadors than the small family.
posted by : Yvette W1 on 7/25/2008 at 1:30 PM Flag For Abuse
-
As much as we debate about it, there is a simple equation: more people equals more environmental disaster. Even if we lived in a jungle in the most primal way, each person does breathe, eat, drink and so on. So we are having an impact on the environment.
And I find it very very doubtful that a large family can be as "green" as to off-set the waste created by the extra number of people. In fact, a mom with many kids would be going so crazy trying to juggle her life that any good choices will fall on the sidelines.
Imagine this: a gallon of milk spills in the kitchen. Which mom would use 20 paper towel sheets and which one would pick a towel that she would need to wash later -- the one who has one kid screaming, or the one who has six kids screaming?
I agree adoption is not for everyone, but more than 1-2 natural kids should be for no one. And for those who argue that there kids will contribute to the world -- well, open your eyes and look around. There is a 80% chance that the kids will grow up to be quite a weight on earth.
posted by : QuiteAmazed on 7/25/2008 at 7:16 PM Flag For Abuse
-
it is not crazy to want six kids, but it is irresponsible from an environmental standpoint to have six kids. The same way it's not crazy to think veal or foie gras tastes good, but it is ethically repugnant to actually eat it, or that it's not crazy to enjoy smoking, but it is a deadly choice to smoke. Make whatever choices you want, but don't try and justify them; some choices are objectively bad. Having 6 children is one of them. Read the book "maybe one" By Bill McKibben for more information.
posted by : jenny Cox on 7/25/2008 at 8:12 PM Flag For Abuse
-
QuiteAmazed,
I don't think a persons choice to use paper towels is dependant upon her number of children. Personally, I think it is *much* easier to clean up a large spill with an old towel than 20 paper towels, so that is the choice I make. I have only two children, but I can't imagine I'd decide any differently with six.
Furthermore, it is dishonest to pretend that 6 well educated, well cared for children will be only damaging to the world. We do no good if we save the planet for our future generations, only to destroy our society in the process. There is a balance.
posted by : amom on 7/25/2008 at 11:12 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I find it interesting how quickly our environmental problems have influenced cultural opinions on big families. I grew up as an only child, and my mother told me that people would comment that *that* choice was selfish, I suppose because the opinion was that adults' purpose in life was to get married and procreate -- For the greater glory of god? To work the family farm? I'm not sure why -- and that the only reason a couple would choose to have one child only would be to have more money and time left over for their own pleasure. How times have changed.
posted by : violetbeauregarde on 7/26/2008 at 12:00 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Here's how the environmental equation could work:
Good parents should have as many kids as they can reasonably be good parents too, and some people - we know them when we see them - shouldn't have any. It would be nice if the good parents also had a chance to adopt or foster the kids of those who had no business being parents in the first place and have had their children taken away.
If only life could really work that way.
This subject has been debated for years. The best comment I every heard about it was from a Catholic social justice worker who was raising a heap of children, in India, if I remember right.
She asked why no one ever told an author to "just settle down and enjoy the two books they had already written."
That comment has stuck with me for years. Not that we are the total authors of our children's lives, but that in a way, each human being, in a family large or small, can be shaped by their parents' love, creativity and passion and can be cherished as an ever-changing work of creation.
posted by : catmom on 7/26/2008 at 1:16 AM Flag For Abuse
-
I have always wanted to have a bunch of kids, and I now have two. I always felt conflicted about the idea of having more than three, though, for the reasons discussed above. After reading all these comments, however, I feel better about the idea. I think several good points have been made, including among them the fact that the right collection of people can have a powerfully positive impact on the world. I also agree that there is a selfish element to it ... if I end up with more than three I will be inclined to plead guilty to a measure of selfishness, but I do believe that that can be offset in various ways, including by doing all possible to make one's children net positive influences on the world.
posted by : chattydaddy on 7/26/2008 at 6:13 PM Flag For Abuse
-
This environmental uproar is amusing. A trendy bandwagon to ride upon, indeed. The amount of impact a family has upon our world has much more to do with how they live and not how many people are in the family. We've all probably known large families with slim ecological footprints.. and families of three with massive ones. It's lifestyle that determines most of it. If anything, a larger family has a better opportunity to learn to conserve wisely in the long run.
Those who claim "environmental responsibility" as a reason not to have more children need to think again. Even with over 6 billion people on this planet, we do have enough resources to support every single one of them well. And probably a few billion more. The reason that so many people are living in crowded, impoverished, and dangerous conditions isn't due solely to overpopulation. Most of the problem stems from major mismanagement (and hoarding) of resources and not a lack of them. Example: We have plenty of farmland in the US, but a vast majority of it is used to grow inedible corn (corn #2) or soy to feed cattle or create sweeteners and additives. Why are we using our farmland this way instead of generating actual food that people can eat inexpensively? Greed and mismanagement of resources.
Overpopulation is not even close to a pressing issue in Western countries. All over Europe underpopulation is starting to scare the hell out of anyone paying attention. Read the recent NY Times article on Europe's underpopulation issues for a clearer view of what's happening out there; some areas of Europe are literally paying families to produce more offspring.
If you have the resources to support children, and live in a country that has the resources to support a growing population, by all means continue breeding. If you're poor, or live somewhere where more children are a burden upon everyone, then don't. Think globally, act locally still makes sense. Your five American children, taught to properly conserve, are simply not going to have the impact that one spoiled child in Dubai will. Nor will they have the economic or negative social impact that two crack babies might. *Who* the people are having the children is still more important than the number of them, and probably will continue to be even as our world population increases.
We're hoping for four biological, with fostering or adoptions when our youngest is nearing high school.
posted by : honeyhaze on 7/26/2008 at 11:15 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Oh come on. Your children, all of them, will be purchasing cars, houses, clothes, food, all of which is going to be shipped around the world to get to them. So you teach them to recycle. Wow. A North American baby consumes somewhere around 20 TIMES as much stuff as one from, say, Africa. So unless you can argue the disconnect between consumption/economic growth and environmental degradation (I dare you) don't bother with the thesis that your kids are all going to be fabulous harbingers of world peace, environmental stewardship and, oh hell, universal healthcare while we're at it.
Be honest. Big noisy households are fun. It's okay to want fun. Your kids will contribute something to this world, but don't try to justify their carbon footprint with statements about how your kids are/will be better people than their contemporaries. This may seem anathema to those of you in helicopters, but most people turn out pretty average. And a lot of average people buying a lot of stuff is generally bad if you're a wetland/mountain lion and/or sequoia. Be awesome parents. Set a great example. But do keep a bit of perspective - you're not saving the world by procreating.
posted by : Chris on 7/26/2008 at 11:33 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Well said, Honey Haze. It is well documented that most first world countries are seeing a steady decline in population. Those who argue the impact of an 'ecological footprint' as reason for parents with the financial means and desire to have larger families to not do so are missing a whole huge big picture here. A better balance of resources, birth control, etc in the world is what will ultimately help our environment and our people -- not for some ignorant soul to sit on their high horse and pat themselves on the back for just having one child, or none.
On the subject of people sticking their nose into other people's business - as this is a large part of what we are talking about here - I simply say it sucks, but what can you do? From the time I first got pregnant with my daughter - a plethora of unsolicited advice has come my way. From what I ate to the shape and size of my belly - everyone had an opinion and seemed to think they needed to share it, including perfect strangers. Now that my daughter is 8 months old, I have had more comments remarking on and questioning everything I do or that is going on with her than I ever thought possible! Usually I shrug it off, sometimes I hear something interesting, occasionally someone pushes a little too far and really annoys me. But - what can you do? For the most part, people sharing their unsolicited opinions when it comes to our children just seems a part of the human psyche. Sigh.
Have your big families or small families as you see fit - just love them, appreciate them, do the best you can. And ignore the people who tell you otherwise, life is too short to worry about them!
posted by : jellibells on 7/27/2008 at 2:47 AM Flag For Abuse
-
How very bizzare that people have deemed this to be a subject of debate.
posted by : EG on 7/27/2008 at 10:36 AM Flag For Abuse
-
EG, I completely agree with you. Very bizzare, indeed.
posted by : ADJM on 7/28/2008 at 11:00 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Interesting article,
I am actually a Christian woman who feels the opposite pressure. The pressure to procreate to endless avail. I have one child and I keep getting the question "when are you going to have another?". When people ask me how many I want ultimately and I answer with 2, sometimes other Christians look down on me (I guess I don't conform to the idea of having a QuiverFull). I get the criticism sometimes that I am not giving God full dominion of my womb or that I am not submitting to his will. I also get the criticism that I don't view children as a blessing because I don't really want a big family. My child is every bit of a blessing. In fact I think children are so much of a blessing that I don't think I should be having them if I know I cannot care for them (either emotionally or physically).
I think the pressure and criticism is bad either way. It's none of anyone's business how many children you choose to have. People shouldn't be dictating your life and trying to persuade you into having (or not having) another child if it's against your will. Some women feel capable of handling one child, others 2, others 6+ and some others don't feel the call to parent at all. And it's really no one's business in any case.
posted by : MW on 7/29/2008 at 8:08 AM Flag For Abuse
-
It's easy to say "it's no one else's business how many children I have," much as it's easy to say that it's no one else's business if I take the rest of the food on the group buffet, or drive a convoy of Hummers down the road. Yes, it's true that no one else should dictate to each of us what car we drive, what table manners we have, or how many children we have. But it doesn't mean it isn't natural for people to take note of these things and have opinions about them.
I understand that people don't like to judged -- I don't like to be judged -- but this libertarian notion that I can do whatever the heck I want on my own property belies the fact that everyone's actions do effect the greater whole, particularly in the longterm. Societal judgment exists for a reason -- to modify behavior in a way that is beneficial to the whole. Sometimes society is wrong, of course, but I don't think it's reasonable to say "other people shouldn't have opinions because i don't like to be judged." You should have enough confidence in the decisions you make in life to endure the fact that sometimes others will disapprove.
I will have four children if it's possible for my wife and I, but I will do so having fully thought these issues through, having weighed with some seriousness the criticisms of those who oppose big families.
A couple hundred years ago Thomas Malthus posed what is now called the Malthusian Dilemma, which is, simply put, that if the number of people on the earth continue to expand exponentially, at some point we will not be able to feed them. He was wrong about how many people the earth can sustain -- the earth can probably comfortably sustain many times the number of people on it today (particularly with necessary changes to energy production and consumption, pollution, etc.) -- but he was not wrong about the basic idea that our global population can't double every 50 years, or whatever it is, without creating a serious problem at some point.
People have had large families forever, but modern medicine has improved dramatically, fewer people die early and most people live longer, so the effects of large families over time are becoming more dramatic. If I have 6 kids the issue is not simply the effect of my 6 kids on the planet -- it's the effect of my 6 kids each having 6 kids, and their 6 kids each having 6 kids, which puts 36 x 6 or 216 more people on the planet, which means in three generations my wife and I could have increased our impact on the planet by 100 times.
Despite all this I am still comfortable having a family of four because I believe that humans are, fundamentally, the most interesting and valuable product of this planet (a controversial concept, I acknowledge) and I think more humans, up to a point, is a beautiful thing. There are environmentalists (and I consider myself an environmentalist) who may imagine this planet without humans as a beautiful thing. I am not among them. I think that is a very sad picture indeed. I don't think you have to be "species-centric" to conclude that the complexity and beauty of human culture is one of the most breathtaking elements of what this planet has produced.
For most of human history most people have been largely focused on simply surviving -- we have not spent a lot of time thinking about how our behavior affects everyone else. This is still true today -- most people simply don't give a damn. Religious beliefs generally justify whatever it is that people want to do -- pay less taxes, drive gas guzzlers, start wars, etc. I believe that we should live with a conscience, think things through, and appreciate the good fortune we have to be born in this country at this moment in history. And I look forward to watching my children enjoy this good fortune as well, and I hope they do so thoughtfully.
posted by : chattydaddy on 7/29/2008 at 10:41 AM Flag For Abuse
-
I am the second of five, and while I know that some siblings don't get along, I cannot imagine not having a crew of people around who love and accept me. What I wanted to comment on, however, is the notion that it is environmentally irresponsible to have many children...
How is it worse to have 7 (as my family did) people living in one house, sharing consumption of heating and lighting resources than to have only 3 people doing so in a house of approximately the same size? Hand-me-downs are very common in larger families; I don't understand how that is worse for the environment, either. The choices a family makes about their purchases, waste products, and activities is what will make a significant difference to the environment. There is no blanket rule, here.
posted by : AuntieB on 7/29/2008 at 10:56 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward...
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Ask God what he thinks of the size of your family and the plans He has for each one. Including yourself. He is the one who created it. Leaning on man's understanding leads to death; emotional, spiritual, mental and physical. They are nothing more than man's ideas. God's truth is a much better foundation to make your decisions from. A solid rock...not sinking sand.
It's not a matter of if you can afford them or even if you can do it. You can't afford even one and you can't care for them either (ability)...without God. You could die in the next hour, or have a stroke that leaves you helpless, or lose the job (that the Lord provided for you) whether you have one or ten children. And, it is the same with ability. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. You can do nothing without Him.
Life is a gift. Each person is a gift and the circumstances and people He chooses to help guide each individual is providential. Look up, give thanks, for if you don't you will become bitter (which is rottenness to the bones), dishonoring to those God gave to you as a gift to help you discover your life purpose and calling. Time is short. Don't waste it on man's ideas...but seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness...Repent of all those ideas that exhalt themselves against the Lord Jesus Christ. He's coming back...are you ready?
All of our thoughts(including man's ideas), words, and actions we will give an account for on the day of judgement. God says that children are a reward. You are a gift and He has one for you:
For the wages of sin is death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If thou will confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in His heath that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
May you be blessed and clothed in His salvation and truth
Fanny
posted by : Servant of the Most High on 7/29/2008 at 6:59 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Postscript: a friend who knows about these things tells me that experts expect the world population to peak in 2050 and decline thereafter. This is because of the growing proportion of the population that live in urban areas, and the tendency of people in urban areas to have fewer children (thus the population decline crisis in Europe). So it may not, in fact, be accurate to assume that the globe is headed towards a population crisis (the food shortage crisis we have now in the third world is more a product of efficiency than population).
posted by : chattydaddy on 7/30/2008 at 8:39 AM Flag For Abuse
-
There has been several comments on the environment. But what's everyone's take on "if they can care for them"? What does that mean to care for our children? I have five, and I think I know what it means for me and mine. I have the ability and the resources to be available to my children. What do others think about "how well can you care for the children?"
What does it mean to care for one's children?
The larger families I have witnessed don't have time for the recitals, plays, practices or games. I think caring for your children means attending and being present at most these functions.
Most larger, middle-class families I have seen don't have the time or patience to cook healthy meals for their families. When both parents work full time, and there is little down time. It turns out to be frozen dinner night much too often. And the kids miss out by not learning how important it is to take care of their bodies by eating better foods.
Some larger families I know often stay at home quite a bit. They have the sidewalks and the access to get out and go, but don't. They talk about walking, biking, hiking with their children. They don't actually do those things. They may do those things once a year and then talk about actively doing them on a regular basis but the simple fact is, it's not true -on the larger families I have witnessed.
IMO people should have more children if they can be actively present in their children's lives most of the time. Be the love and support they need. That is the easy part. The more difficult part is being with them and actually leading the way and showing them on a daily basis how to become spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, intellectually, environmentally fit as a humanbeing. Being the constant example of what we want our children to be. Our jobs as parents are to secure these skills in our children to order to live the best life possible. If we are not securing these skills/values on a regular basis for our children then we are no longer "taking care" of them as human beings.
When we start dropping on the values we want to instill in our children like church, physical fitness, long talks, family time, health, it's time to stop having more children and start paying more attention to the ones you have.
posted by : sweetmama on 7/30/2008 at 12:07 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I don't have any stake in the debate raging here, just want to offer a thought about a different kind of impact that big families can have.
My family (2 kids) is very close with another family (6 kids). I love getting together with them, and we frequently have them over in part (like one or two of the kids at a time, or just the parents). We also like meeting them for outings like hiking, camping, fairs.
But it is totally overwhelming to have them all over at the same time. The kids are all great and as well-behaved as any other child, but they are a LOT. Invite the one family over, and suddenly, with 8 kids running around, it's like you're hosting a preschooler's birthday party. Even if everything goes smoothly, the house is trashed when they leave.
Sometimes I feel bad that I don't have them over more often, and it can be awkward when we're planning a party and have to decide whether or not to skew the guest list so dramatically. But hosting is harder when it's a big family, even one that I dearly love.
posted by : hand on 7/31/2008 at 10:55 AM Flag For Abuse
-
All I have to say is thank you for this article. I have always wanted at least 7 children. I only have one and she is a miracle child for sure. When I was told I couldn't have any more, my heart sank. I actually cried over the fact that my house would never be full of screaming laughing children. I worried that my daughter would feel left out because she doesn't know what it means to have a sisterly bond with a sibling. I think about these things all the time. I just never thought I would hear that someone else feels the same way. I grew up with 2 sisters and one brother. I have 5 step-sisters and 2 step-brothers. Many cousins and all our friends were always around. I wanted the same thing for my daughter. I'm glad you are having more babies. More power to ya!
posted by : ShelBell11978 on 7/31/2008 at 3:52 PM Flag For Abuse
-
To controlled Breeder: I'm expecting my third child in the winter. I have a PhD and am a tenured professor writing a book. I have many amazing friends and a wonderful, supportive husband of 14 years. So, yes, I will have a "large" family--but also a happy one with a cool, happy mom in the middle of it all!
posted by : hell cat 1970 on 8/1/2008 at 3:56 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Wow, many responses! Seems to me that everyone has a different take! I am the youngest of 5 children, making us a happy, and a FULL house of 7! My dad did have to work a lot, and yes, our family was very close. We still are close. BUT- all of my 4 brothers and I agree- it would have been nicer to spend more quality time with our parents, especially our hard working dad who needed to work to support all of our eating mouths! This is why I chose a happy medium...I have two children, one 3 years old and one is almost 2 years old and #3 is due in January! Nowadays, it is just too hard to raise big families, and I see many of them suffer. But some families make close to $100,000 a year, so they can afford it! Its just not fair to see children in old/torn clothes, they get bullied and made fun of in school...its sad. I also agree with a response above about having a life, your OWN life, Mommy time! If your life revolves around washing dishes, laundry, cleaning, and taking care of your children 24/7, where are the date nights for you and your hubby? Where is time out for you & your girlfriends? If you can manage all of this, and keep sane...props to you...sure, GO FOR IT! But having children is not just a game...what's needed is a game plan before you start popping out babies...1 or 7! ;)
posted by : mommyof2soon2be3 on 8/4/2008 at 4:06 AM Flag For Abuse
-
P.S. I think this author is Criticizing people who choose to have zero or one child, so is that not just as bad as the people who have zero-1 children who criticize moms who choose to have many? I am totally pro big families...so I don't appreciate this author giving moms of big families a bad rep!
posted by : mommyof2soon2be3 on 8/4/2008 at 4:11 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Love the last line, "embrace chaos for the sake of love"! That is the story of my life with my 6 children, 10 and under.
posted by : momof6 on 8/5/2008 at 5:12 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Great article!
I'm the eldest of 9 and have had to deal with "do your parents know what causes that?" all my life. Most people assume that I must be from a blended family (no offense to those families that are).
My husband and I have three boys and of course the primary question we get is, "are you going to try for a girl?" Sometimes we just say yes and change the subject. Other times we say, "Actually, we hope to have a bunch more kids!"
posted by : Carole on 8/7/2008 at 1:01 PM Flag For Abuse
-
To Sweetmama and others alike;
As a mom to 6 of my own children and 2 stepchildren I would like to let you know, we do not stay home and keep the kids under lock and key. We have had zoo membership for 19 years running. Take the kids on Nature walks, do arts and crafts and have walls of kids work everywhere. We even pile the kids into the minivan every year and head to the ocean for a family vacation where 4 generations spend a week together. We eat dinner at the table as a family as I did with my parents when I was a child. I have home schooled when needed, been an advocate to our son who is chronically ill, and helped other parents fight for their child's rights. I am a SAHM who is never home. I never miss a baseball game of my sons. I kept the book for his team, fed the players and was mom to 21 highschooler's for 3 seasons in a row. My Father stepped in to help with batting coaches for our HS baseball team. Earlier this year I took 12 days to stay with my 87 yr old Grandmother at the hospital to help her through a very hard time. My teenagers stepped up and took on added responsibility in my absence. Family is everything to us. We live 4 blocks from my Parents and Grandmother. My children are being raised in the same house I was raised in. My husband is a 3rd generation Shriner and my FIL dedicates his time as a Shriner Clown and just returned from rebuilding homes for flood victims in Iowa. He even brought us home sweetcorn!
Yes we have 2 large vehicles, one is flex fuel. Yes my husband works out of the house. Yes I work from home as we own our own company which I run. Yes I do tons of running to therapy appointments, and getting 6 kids to 6 schools is tiresome. But the blessings I receive daily are enormous to the amount of work I put into my family. Have you ever seen 6 kids line up in a row to get flu shots? Or bathtime back to back? There is no way a family this large can be lazy and still function, or not in my world.
People ask us how we do it, and honestly, YOU JUST DO. You make it work because your happy. Not all the time, no family in any situation ever is. But we have been blessed with the life we have, been able to help others when needed and still provide a good life to our children and set the base for them to provide for their children. My teenagers hold jobs, do chores and have plenty of free time. My 4yr old twins clean their own rooms and help set the table for meals. Our kids know hard work and rewards that come from it.
I know many smaller families who think we are old fashioned, some who do not even have a dining room to have dinner at. Parents who are never home, and kids who end up at our house as a safe haven from negligent parents. I would never say a single child household would not hold the blessings I have. I would never tell a family that has one child to have more. That is not my place, nor do I have the right to say anything about anyone's choices in the number of children they should have. I guess I ask that you not class all "larger" families together. There are some who choose not to stop having children and are just bad parents from the beginning. But there are many of us who put a lot of work into our households, make them work with nature, and teach our children to walk in the footsteps that past generations have left for us.
posted by : Mom2SixPlus2 on 8/18/2008 at 8:03 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Yeah well my hubby and I got negative comments while we were in the military from our peers for getting married after we both came back from our second tour of Iraq at the ages of 22. Because of those negative people, we strived to prove them wrong by staying together despite of our bouts of post traumatic stress. Now we are more in love with eachother after getting help and are expecting our first child any day now. And you know what, we plan on at LEAST having three more. You know when people criticize other people, it just makes a person want to be themselves even more and take their criticisms through one ear and out the other. So I say to all you negative people out there, thank you for all your stupid jokes and comments. You just prove to people how ignorant the world really is and why no one will ever listen or care about what you have to say. Oh and by the way, those same people who criticized us are now down and out, broke, divorced, and abused.
posted by : cleoc on 9/19/2008 at 7:02 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I think that blaming new babies for spoiling environment in the future is total nonsense. if somebody thinks that environment is more important than human life, they should go kill themselves to make this planet cleaner.
I only have 1 child so far, but i am planning to have more, so my question is, how did you manage it from the medical point of view? don't you think "never again" after each birth?
posted by : DaintySplendor on 9/23/2008 at 12:23 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Unfortunately, this issue IS everyone's business, because we all must live in this world together, and we are all suffering the effects of overpopulation, which are only going to get worse. For some reason, people are able to understand the negative effects that arise from an overpopulation of deer in the wild (environmental damage from overgrazing, starvation, etc), but are somehow unable to understand that the same effects will inevitably follow human overpopulation as well.
I firmly believe that every woman has the exclusive right to manage her own reproduction. This right is accompanied by a moral responsibility to consider the effects of her actions upon the rest of the world. It is selfish to ignore those consequences.
posted by : Proud mom on 10/9/2008 at 7:02 PM Flag For Abuse
-
for the people making comments about who should and shouldn't have children, ie the poor shouldn't have children or shouldn't have "too many":
be careful. you are on a slippery slope towards agreeing with eugenics and coerced sterilizations and even stuff like aryanism-- where only a choice group "should" be allowed to have children.
posted by : phillymom on 12/30/2008 at 3:00 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I read this article and had to laugh. Dear Ms. Author, you are an idiot. You try to talk to poetically about something you know nothing about. You say, "And a large family — where people simply have to share, make do with less, and live with hand-me-downs — offers a perfect laboratory for imparting this mindset." What??? Would you send your child into a war zone on purpose so that they understand the meaning of suffering? Would you have your child contract polio on purpose so that they would understand illness?? So you want to subject another human being to poverty in order to teach lessons about conservation???
Ms. Author, I am the youngest of six children. My parents were happily married (my father has passed away), my siblings and I share wonderful relationships as adults, my parents had plenty of money to raise us - there is no tragedy in my upbringing. But I would never, ever, recommend anyone having a large family on purpose. Do the math - there are only two parents and six children. There was plenty of love, but just not enough parents. When an older sibling had to make my dinner or put me to bed or assist in some other way to take care of me, which I always felt was done lovingly and never with resentment,it was still just an older sibling, not my parent, whom I really would have preferred. (And so sad about those missed opportunities for the older sibling to be spending time developing their own interests and talents) Time with your parents is the precious commodity, not lessons about sacrifice or sharing, or any of these other romantic notions you have about large families. And with a large family, the parents simply cannot spend sufficient time with each of their children.
And another thing, playing with the Barbie doll or bike or other toy that is now ten years old and has seen better days by the time you lay your hands on it is not cool in any way. It sucks.
And one more thing I had to laugh about - you haven't even gotten to the hardest part yet of large families. You say your oldest is a teen. Wait until you have three kids in college at the same time. You have no idea how much harder it is going to get.
posted by : anon10 on 1/6/2009 at 3:25 AM Flag For Abuse
-
I think it's a bit ridiculous that the author felt the need to justify her choice to have a large family in environmental terms. I didin't really see how that was relevant. But after reading some of the judgemental posts by the self-righteous environmental types, I now see why. Sad...
posted by : Amanda B on 1/17/2009 at 4:27 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Dainty Splendor said:
"I think that blaming new babies for spoiling environment in the future is total nonsense. if somebody thinks that environment is more important than human life, they should go kill themselves to make this planet cleaner."
EXACTLY.
And to all of you demanding that people stop reproducing for the sake of the environment? Start with yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. You don't get to decide who never gets born...thank God.
posted by : tweaked on 5/29/2009 at 3:57 PM Flag For Abuse
-
i think it's weird and almost perverse how people assume large families come into being because a mother doesn't feel "complete". I felt complete as a professional musician, felt complete married to the man of my dreams, felt complete after having given birth to my firstborn (a son!) - and now that i've had seven children, i am still very very contented with life and the way it's gone for me. I don't have more children because something's wrong. I have children a/ because of my understanding of the Bible and b/out of love for the children i have. It honestly is true, the more the merrier! We had two children taking a course today and the other five were completely at loose ends until they came back home. I am giving my children something wonderful that they will be grateful for for the rest of their lives. And i'm surrounding myself with interesting, beautiful, talented, intelligent little people who one day will amaze me as they spin out to their own adult lives... I love every step of the journey!
posted by : mamazee73 on 8/18/2009 at 10:55 PM Flag For Abuse
