or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Too many kids?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Too many kids? - Page 6

post #101 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azuralea View Post
I thought that (most of the) the research on this pointed to a three or four year difference as being the biological norm because of extended breastfeeding? Just curious because I'd never hear the two-year number, just the three and four year numbers.

To keep this on topic, we will probably only have two at most, maybe, under extreme circumstances, three. That's all we feel we can handle and be the parents we want to be.

I'd always heard 3-4 years, as well, but when I started looking at it, I kept reading two years. I want to look into it further; I don't know if that's an "average" and what, exactly, it takes into account. I could see if you have Baby A, in year 1, who dies in infancy, having baby B in year 2, then not having Baby C until year 6 or something b/c of extended bfing...and that still works out to an "average" of birth every two years. I am very curious now...I would suspect that 3-4 years is certainly IDEAL.

As to cruel and unusual punishment having an only...er...i'm not planning to lock mine in a cage. She'll get plenty of socialization. In fact, if you research, onlies tend to be as well adjusted or BETTER adjusted than children with siblings.

As for later in life...my great uncle had six kids, two of which lived within 15 minutes of his home (one lived in the BASEMENT apartment). Who took care of him and his wife for 15 years when they got Alzheimers, Cancer, etc?..not his kids...my grandmother...so, I don't really see having kids as an insurance that you'll be taken care of. Despite having a child, my DH and I are taking steps to ensure that that burden DOESN'T fall on our daughter. If she wants to take care of us, that's great, but I certainly don't think she's *obligated* to do so.

Ideal family size will be different from family to family, but, I think it's very important to realize one's limitations (be they emotional, financial, physical, etc.) Having a large family would be horrible for our family. I have a good friend who wants at least three. I have a good friend who wants none. But, unless it gets to the point where the children's very basic needs are not being met, I really couldn't care less how many kids someone has.
post #102 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcmommyto3 View Post
I also have two friends who never went to college, but worked their way up. One was making $60,000/year before she quit to be home with her son, and the other is making $80,000 and neither stepped one foot on a college campus. It doesn't seem fair, but it is reality.
What's not fair about it? The fact that someone has a degree doesn't actually mean that they will necessarily have more to offer in the workplace. I've worked with people who have degrees and who are major assets to the companies they work for. I've also worked with people who have degrees and aren't assets at all - several of them have the attitude that since they worked so hard for their degree, they should now be able to coast (those ones either smarten up or don't last long) and others just aren't that good at their jobs. The same also applies to people without degrees - some of them are major assets, and some of them aren't. If someone can work their way up to being worth $80,000/year to their employer, I can't see how that's "unfair".
post #103 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy68 View Post
As far as those of you who have issues with the thread and say that you are "always" a mommy. Well the others on here have a good point. You can be mommy and also be YOU. You can't lose sight of the woman that you are. You were you long before you had children so you need to keep that or else somewhere along the road you might realize you aren't so happy even though it seemed like you were for so long. Children are a blessing, no doubt about that. But we can't lose ourselves in our quest to be the perfect parent either.
::
post #104 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatea View Post
I *DEFINITELY* need to be more than a mommy. I think many kids would not be good for my mental health.
I feel the same way.
post #105 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
I'd always heard 3-4 years, as well, but when I started looking at it, I kept reading two years. I want to look into it further; I don't know if that's an "average" and what, exactly, it takes into account. I could see if you have Baby A, in year 1, who dies in infancy, having baby B in year 2, then not having Baby C until year 6 or something b/c of extended bfing...and that still works out to an "average" of birth every two years. I am very curious now...I would suspect that 3-4 years is certainly IDEAL.

As to cruel and unusual punishment having an only...er...i'm not planning to lock mine in a cage. She'll get plenty of socialization. In fact, if you research, onlies tend to be as well adjusted or BETTER adjusted than children with siblings.

As for later in life...my great uncle had six kids, two of which lived within 15 minutes of his home (one lived in the BASEMENT apartment). Who took care of him and his wife for 15 years when they got Alzheimers, Cancer, etc?..not his kids...my grandmother...so, I don't really see having kids as an insurance that you'll be taken care of. Despite having a child, my DH and I are taking steps to ensure that that burden DOESN'T fall on our daughter. If she wants to take care of us, that's great, but I certainly don't think she's *obligated* to do so.

Ideal family size will be different from family to family, but, I think it's very important to realize one's limitations (be they emotional, financial, physical, etc.) Having a large family would be horrible for our family. I have a good friend who wants at least three. I have a good friend who wants none. But, unless it gets to the point where the children's very basic needs are not being met, I really couldn't care less how many kids someone has.
Kathee, Thank YOU!
why are ppl so judgemental about other's choices anyway
I chose to have an only because I'm so happy with our dd, I do not want to put any more on our plate or go ahead and ruin a good thing by doing that. Our lives are easy, simple, and loads of fun. And Yeah, she gets to play with more kids than I ever did coming from a large family.
post #106 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azuralea View Post
Or maybe many wealthier families deeply value education and don't feel it is responsible to have children if they can't give them a top-notch education through college?
.
Well, I would hesitate to say that wealthier families value education more than lower net worth families. (That point was clearly brought out on the classism thread, that lower net worth families also value education, etc.) But I would say that wealthier families are more likely to do whatever they will to ensure that college degree is obtained, they see the value of a college education, and do I think it is connected in their minds with creating earnings potential, as well as giving children the experience of college. Basically giving any kids the best start in life they can.

I'm not knocking wealthy families or lower net worth families, and I want to be completely neutral about that!
post #107 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
What's not fair about it? The fact that someone has a degree doesn't actually mean that they will necessarily have more to offer in the workplace. I've worked with people who have degrees and who are major assets to the companies they work for. I've also worked with people who have degrees and aren't assets at all - several of them have the attitude that since they worked so hard for their degree, they should now be able to coast (those ones either smarten up or don't last long) and others just aren't that good at their jobs. The same also applies to people without degrees - some of them are major assets, and some of them aren't. If someone can work their way up to being worth $80,000/year to their employer, I can't see how that's "unfair".
I tried (but poorly expressed), that college isn't always necessary to get a great paying job. That parents drill it into the kids heads that college is your ticket to a better life, when the person doesn't have the motivation or the skill to make it really work for them, but would have been better off doing something different (directly into work, into a trade school). College becomes something they were almost pressured into, then they get into debt because of it, and then they become disillusioned because that's not what they thought they were getting themselves into.

I know someone this happened to, so it's not a theoretical scenario. And I'm so glad I didn't marry him, because he carried a $10,000 debt 10 years after the fact after he dropped out of 1 year of college. He had no degree and only debt to show for what he attempted to do.

But at any rate, I didn't say it I thought it WAS unfair, I said it doesn't "seem" fair. There's a subtle difference. The implication was to the average person looking outside in, it may not seem fair. But to another, such as yourself, it could be fair because you can look deeper into the situation. I didn't delve into that aspect of things because (at least for me) it wasn't a relevant point. I can see that is an important point to you (which is why it's not sitting right with you). And the person who is now making $80,000 technically got let go from his last job (over personal differences) and walked into the next making $80,000 - so he technically didn't work his way up in the same company (though it helped tremendously that one of the people hiring was someone he worked with 5 years prior to the job he applied for with a different company). Not saying he wasn't worth it, because he's a great guy and has very marketable skills and a very congenial personality.

But what I am saying is that there are people who have the opinion you think - that they worked hard in school and therefore "should" get a good job and then slack off afterward. Because that's what parents drill into their kids heads to get them motivated to go to college in the first place. No one questions the value of a college degree which is why everyone worries about how to pay for college, but it can happen that young people are pressured into going to college with the understanding that a degree should equal a good paying job. But you and I both know it doesn't (for the reasons you stated among others - some of which are that some people are highly skilled but terrible interviewers or they are up against equally good candidates). There are those that don't even get out of the starting gate into a good job, and those that lose jobs due to economic losses and can't get back into a good job. This second scenario happened to my dh, where he has a college degree (mechanical engineering), got laid off from his company (they were making bad choices in management that po'd their customers), and dh was low man on the totem pole so they let him go. He tried for 5 years to get back into what he was doing and couldn't until this year. Up until this year, he was doing assembly line work, busted his hiney when the other guys slacked off (he literally carried his shift), and even though he sent out dozens of resumes, only a few interviews came of it (even with the help of some headhunters) and of those most weren't engineering design work (what his degree is in), but more production line work (what he ended up doing to "get by"). Even so, I wasn't even thinking of my dh's scenario when I made the comment about fairness, because now he's finally back into engineering design work and he's so happy about it.

Life has a way of not working out the way you were told it should. For example, I had a colleague of mine who had a PH.D. fall up on bad times and ended up starting all over at a "trainee" level in one of the jobs I had. So she and I had the same amount of pay, even though she had years of experience and education on me. That's how it can legitimately be not fair. She was an extremely bright woman, but ended up having to start over after some serious misunderstandings at the university where she taught and ended up applying for a job that mostly fresh out of college graduates applied for. She was working her way back up, but her life got cut short after her cancer came out of remission.

That's all I was talking about....
post #108 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingmommyhood View Post
I personally don't believe that it's my duty to have less kids to reduce our carbon footprint. All of you who are saying that... I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.
I heard a news report of a woman in the UK who had two abortions and then was sterilized as she wanted because she and her partner believe its enviornmentally irresponsible to have children.

That's not how I think at all, but some are choosing that path.
post #109 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonnenwende View Post

You can recycle all you want and conserve all you want, but it doesn't negate the impact made by having so many kids period, particularly when they are adults. You cannot compare it to having just one because it is not comparable. A family of three could in theory waste just as much though not many do. However, it would be easy enough for them just to downsize and make a more reasonable impact and then use far less resources than a family of 10 people have to. It is just math.


EXACTLY. People don't seem to get this.
post #110 of 219
[QUOTE=KBecks;10107670]I heard a news report of a woman in the UK who had two abortions and then was sterilized as she wanted because she and her partner believe its enviornmentally irresponsible to have children.

That's not how I think at all, but some are choosing that path.[/

You have to have some children born because if no one did, people would eventually die out. And somewhere I read that we are among the first generation where the children are in poorer health than the parents (environmental toxins, genetically mutated foods, etc), so I really think we are going to have the average life span shortened again. But cancers and viruses that are deadly and the body not being able to fend them off are going to do that.
post #111 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmcmommyto3 View Post
That's all I was talking about....
Oh, okay - I misunderstood you. The degree issue is one that frequently rubs me the wrong way, and I then filter other people's comments through that.

I'm sorry about your friend.
post #112 of 219
Quote:
I don't really get how you can get up on your high horse about "only" having one or two kids. If you're that concerned about it you should have 0 kids. Otherwise I see it as very hypocritical.
Two or fewer refers to replacement rate. In other words, you aren't making the problem worse. I've got two kids, but did not birth them.

I absolutely think it is my responsibility to provide my children with a college education. I wouldn't have adopted them if I wasn't prepared to do that. Some people do manage to make a good living without a college education, but statistically, people with college degrees earn substantially more money than those without. I want to help my kids to be successful, and I believe that the number one way I can do that is by sending them to college. I also believe that getting started in life is difficult enough without being underneath a pile of debt.
post #113 of 219
I used a carbon footprint calculator and according to it my family of 7 (soon to be, hopefully, 8!) uses far less resources than a typical family of 3. I drive, at most, 20 miles a week, usually closer to 10. And there's no guarantee that my 6 children will have fewer or more children cumulatively than someone else's 1 or 2. My mother had 2 children and now has 9, almost 10 grandchildren.

A couple of my children have already told me that they have no plans on procreating. It's very likely that my children will produce fewer grandchildren than my mother's 2 did. You just can't predict.
post #114 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
Oh, okay - I misunderstood you. The degree issue is one that frequently rubs me the wrong way, and I then filter other people's comments through that.

I'm sorry about your friend.
No, it's okay. And thank you.

Life is never what you expect but what you make of it, right?
post #115 of 219
With regards to the environmental impact of having children, I think it all comes down to lifestyle choices. I surmise that having ten breastfed, cloth-diapered (depending upon how ecologically laundered), low viehicular using children does less damage to the earth than the opposite.

If you have ten children but rarely use fossile fuels, and raise you own food, you do less damage than a one child family who does typical mainstream things.

I recently read one mothers account of going through eighty disposable diapers per week with her 3 month old. Multiply this by three years. That's a lot of plastic in the landfills.

Of course, most large families I know do use sposies.
post #116 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by maplesugar View Post
With regards to the environmental impact of having children, I think it all comes down to lifestyle choices. I surmise that having ten breastfed, cloth-diapered (depending upon how ecologically laundered), low viehicular using children does less damage to the earth than the opposite.

If you have ten children but rarely use fossile fuels, and raise you own food, you do less damage than a one child family who does typical mainstream things.

I recently read one mothers account of going through eighty disposable diapers per week with her 3 month old. Multiply this by three years. That's a lot of plastic in the landfills.

Of course, most large families I know do use sposies.
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.
post #117 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.
Agreed.

I guess I can see it both ways. I just think so much pollution is caused during the childhood years. People generally look for the ease of "modern" products when they start to have children.

We should all work to reduce our carbon emmissions, big family or small.

I came from a big family myself and probably would have enjoyed it had my mom and step dad not been malfunctional.

I like having my siblings around now that we are all adults.
post #118 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post
But someday all 10 of those children grow up. They're not going to live in the one low-impact home forever. They're each going to need their own house, for their own family and their own ten kids.

And 40 years down the road, the 2-child family has their household, 2 child households, and 4 grandchild households - 7 households total. The 10-child family family has 111 households. Even if the 7 households drive SUVs and use disposables, the 111 households in their Priuses, washign their cloth diapers are still going to have a bigger carbon footprint. They'd have to reduce their footprints to 1/10th of the smaller family's footprint for all things to be equal.
This is so obvious, yet clearly many people are in total denial about it.
post #119 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBecks View Post
But I would say that wealthier families are more likely to do whatever they will to ensure that college degree is obtained, they see the value of a college education, and do I think it is connected in their minds with creating earnings potential, as well as giving children the experience of college. Basically giving any kids the best start in life they can.
I don't think that wealthier parents look to education for earning potential more than poorer parents, and I definitely still disagree with your earlier statement regarding status and earning. If anything, in my experience wealthier parents are more likely to encourage their kids to study esoteric subjects for the sake of learning only, because they can afford to subsidize that kind of intellectual exploration on the part of their children.

In the college I attended, the wealthiest kids majored in the humanities, because they didn't have to worry about getting a job after college. The sciences and engineering schools were filled with poorer kids.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KBecks View Post
I'm not knocking wealthy families or lower net worth families, and I want to be completely neutral about that!
I think, though, that stating that wealthier families do something for their children for status and money reasons alone, though, does come out quite negative, whether you mean that or not.
post #120 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
This is so obvious, yet clearly many people are in total denial about it.
But you're also assuming that each child will move out, start his/ her own household and have a large family. What about those who continue to live at home, to care for aging parents? (a fairly traditional responsibility in a large family) What about those who do get married but don't have 10 children? What about those who leave home but share a household, maybe with another sibling, as my husband's uncles have done? Our culture really promotes independence, but that wasn't always true. It used to be that at least one child was expected to stay at home to care for the parents and the farm, and children didn't generally leave until they were married, so the total number of households was far less than what you're suggesting. To play devil's advocate, perhaps these 10 children are being raised with these values regarding their families.

So I don't know that it's *so* obvious.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Too many kids?