Tim Carney in the Post: The Ideal Number of Kids is Four (at a minimum)

[Anonymous]

I am 100 percent certain she's happy, because I somehow miraculously still parent despite having 5 kids. She's an A+ student with a blossoming social life and extracurriculars and even went on a solo trip with just DH and myself for her birthday. Often in the evenings with sit alone with just her and chat about life. Because again, it's a myth you can't find time to parent despite having many kids. Right now she's laughing in the front yard playing with 2 of her 4 siblings.

But I am not surprised, again, that the people with 1 or 2 kids think they know better than those of us with big families.

I grew up as one of six siblings and my DH and I have four kids, and I think you are being way too smug. Your oldest sounds like a classic oldest child, striving to succeed (she knows you love those A+ grades, because you tell other people about them) and looking for parental/adult validation (by being such a big help). I was that kid and don’t resent my parents one bit, because they didn’t let me take on a parental role. Be honest that you are definitely putting your pre-tween in a parental position on Saturday mornings - if you were up taking care of the baby, tge pre-tween would not be asking to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the second oldest of 5. My older sibling has 3 kids, I have 4, the third sibling has 4 and the two youngest aren’t married yet. Seems like the people who are thinking large families are bad had bad parents, which can occur in any size family. Was I responsible for helping watch my siblings? Sure. Was it overwhelming? No. It was expected that we helped out in our family. I will say, when my parents wanted to do fun things they would pay us for babysitting (think- if my mom needed to take a younger sibling to the doctors office, I was expected to babysit other kids. If my parents were doing date night I would get paid to babysit)

My folks weren’t rich either. My mom stayed home and my dad was in education. We didn’t take lavish vacations. We were able to do all the basic activities though (sports, music) though I guess not insane levels of travel sports. It never occurred to me to think me being able to play more travel sports and maybe getting to go to a third tier university to play sports should have been prioritized over my siblings existence.

My own (4) kids are 6 to newborn and while we do have financial resources we obviously will need to ration time. That means our kids will not be able to do all sorts of activities. If they show talent or inclination in a specific area we will obviously try to develop that but within reason. My kids are highly unlikely to be professional athletes based on the genetics they received so it’s weird to prioritize the insanely intense parenting culture in the DC to them having siblings.

Will they be required to help out around the house? Of course. Will they have responsibilities to each other? Again, of course. I enjoyed and was proud growing up with a family identity that we were the “X’s” and this is how we did things.

I don’t think the fact that you all have lots of kids proves that you had a happy childhood. How religious are you?

Well, there’s a constant refrain that older kids don’t have lots of kids cause being an older child in a big family is miserable. At least in my family the older children have had decent sized families.

But can I ‘prove’ my other siblings had happy childhoods? No. I know I did. I’ve never heard much grumbling from my siblings so I assume they did as well, or at least non-miserable childhoods.

Again, I think this is much more about the parents rather than the number of kids. I get that there are parents of two who don’t have the capability to have more than two. I don’t know why they project that on others. And I’m sure some who have more than 2 share that incompetence and their children are miserable. It’s just not my experience having grown up in a big family.

Sure, of course it’s about the parents. There are no doubt some parents out there with the personality, resources, and energy to be good parents to 4-5 kids.

The problem with Carney is that he is an orthodox Catholic and he thinks women should be COMPELLED to have as many kids as their bodies can handle. He doesn’t believe that women should make a choice based on their own assessment of their skills and resources and strength of their marriage. He thinks they HAVE to do it. And he doesn’t stop at 4. If a woman gets married at 21 she’s gonna be getting up to 6 at least, maybe 9 or 10.

This is why, despite my wounds of being in a large family, I don’t blame my mom. She was pressured into it by her religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you do it right, one is enough.

I'm not against big families but I do think it's easier to mitigate the negative aspects of having 1 or 2 than to mitigate the negative things about having 4 or more. Like a family with an only child can do things to address stuff like entitlement or loneliness.

I think having a very large family is a bit like roulette. If it hits and everything works out, the bounty is plentiful. But a lot can go wrong. I grew up in a big family where a lot went wrong. I chose to have a small family and am thoughtful about things that might be harder with fewer kids.

Also, all of these arguments assume that a family is an island unto itself. That's not true. How do you compare an only child who lives 20 minutes away from a gaggle of cousins they see all the time, with a child who has 4 siblings but no extended family to speak of or whose extended family are all very far away? Or kids in a family where the parents are social and get together with friends and neighbors (and their kids) frequently versus a family that is insular and rarely spends time with other families? A lot of the arguments about large or small families hinge on this idea that kids are spending all their time with just their immediate family. That's actually not how a lot of families operate.

This is an interesting point. My husband grew up one of four but they were very insulated and had no family around. He enjoyed his childhood but he’s the sort of guy not to complain about anything. They also had no major health issues / special needs.

On the flip side, I was one of two but we had tons of extended family. I grew up in a large immigrant community and we had so many people at our holiday events and it exposed me to all different types of people/ experiences.

I will say the biggest difference as I get older is that extended family doesn’t show up for you the same way sibling will (or feel the need too) but to counter that I feel like my husbands parents are tapped out trying to balance the needs of all their adult children (has this been discussed yet?). I know people talk about the teen years being hard but not there is also an expectation that you show up for your adult kids too. For example, my in laws will have to balance moving one of their kids out of their apartment, trying to launch their youngest and balancing multiple grandkids and helping out. It does create some bad blood if one kid gets more than the other. So something else to consider.

I think this is a fair point. I am one of the posters from a family with four children, and as adults, two are extremely demanding of my parents time and attention. It has always been the case that the “launched” adult children (my sibling and I) are sort of left alone because our other two siblings require a lot of attention. BUT I don’t see that is a lot different from families with two kids…if one is total chaos, the other will likely receive less attention and resources as a result.

There are lots of two kid families like this. My sibling was on her second marriage at 36 and has struggled to maintain relationships (friends and family as well as romantic) and steady employment, the latter despite graduating cum laude from a SLAC and receiving a desirable professional degree. My husband is one of four and his siblings all had struggles in their 20s despite being high achievers but more or less figured things out and are thriving more than my sister is in their 30s. This is probably due in part to the fact that my husband’s parents’ are very wealthy and have unlimited resources and my parents do not. But this is the problem with doing these types of comparisons. Family size is only one factor that might influence a child’s ability to achieve and life course.

The quality of parenting when children are young matters a great deal as does mental health and substance use when it comes to a positive life course. Neurotic and overbearing parents who emphasize achievement over a blend of self-acceptance/personal fulfillment and a good work ethic are going to be more damaging to most kids than someone who takes a more balanced approach to parenting.

I also am struggling to understand how asking an older to child to take some responsibility for a younger sibling, whether it to be driving a younger sibling to a practice or helping them with homework, is going to negatively influence their life course to the extent suggested in the comments I’ve read. My older sister went to boarding school and received her license late because of that. I would occasionally drive her places and pick things up for her when she was home from college and I was in high school and it didn’t scar me for life. I also babysat younger cousins (sometimes for free) and this allowed me to then get paying babysitting jobs outside my extended family. My husband also drove his siblings places (he had two younger siblings) and babysat one of them occasionally and he’s never said anything negative about it.

try being a 9 year old girl holding your screaming baby brother while you set the table. try having summer camp cancelled because you need to be available to babysit at 12.

I think it is healthy for kids to help their siblings and to have responsibility. Obviously what your parents did was cruel and goes far beyond that and my and my husband’s experiences helping our siblings. My point generally was that this can happen in families with 2+ children or in a single child family where the child is parented and takes care of their parents or other relatives.

Parentified*
Parentifing a child is more about a parents mental health and resources than it is about the number of children in a home.

No it’s not. If there are 6 kids at home, say 12, 9, 6, 3, 2 and newborn, nobody is taking care of 6 and 3. The older kids will or nobody will. 2 will BARELY get more attention from mom but only because 2 year olds demand it. But it does happen that even 2 year olds get ingnored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

DP but consider the vast range of outcomes between "mother loses it and kills her children" and a large, happy family, and ask how many of those outcomes are actually good.

My mom was a SAHM to four kids and she did not lose it and kill us all, but none of us were happy, including her. In fact she spent years where she spent the bulk of her day in bed because she was so depressed.

Or my aunt and uncle who had 5 kids and abused all of them -- three wound up teenage parents. Three out of five! Sure, they weren't drowned in a bathtub, but...

You just glide over a lot of negative outcomes for kids when you blithely say "oh sure there are outliers but surely a competent SAHP can raise 5-8 kids no problem." Those examples are rare. Everyone else has problems to varying degrees. Raising kids, any number, is not easy. More kids is harder. Most people are NOT cut out for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Carney believes *his wife* was religiously obgligated not to use birth control get pregnant as often as possible, starting on their wedding night. Carney’s entire take on this is based on a fundamentalist belief that controlling fertility is sinful. Everything he says relates to that. Nothing he says relates to women choosing the type of family that works for them. He is against that. Literally against condoms and all forms of birth control. Do you get it now?