I have three kids and would like at least one, maybe two more. Often I feel like a weirdo among my friends for having this opinion, so it was interesting to read THIS ARTICLE about the new "mini trend" of how "three is the new two."
My little brother Robert and his wife Nicole, both lawyers, are pregnant with their fourth baby, due in July. They also have Jones (5), Anna (3) and Helen (2).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.
About Me
Blogs I Like to Read
- Amy's Very Cool Homeschooling Family
- Ann Douglas
- Blogging Baby
- David Rhoden
- Domestic Psychology
- First Impressionist
- Jonathan Hickman
- Lemuria Books
- Mamas Ink
- Marrit Ingman
- Martini Made
- Meagan Francis
- Mo's Journal
- Remembering Ward
- Suburban Turmoil
- The Vol Abroad
- This Woman's Work
- Women's Health News
- Zygote Daddy
Good Stuff on Being a Parent/Family Life
Books I"ve written/contributed to
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(1052)
-
▼
May
(84)
- sadness
- more jon & elliot
- baby names
- quote o' the day
- tony randall and larry king must've missed the memo
- what will the pro-life movement response be....
- more on shiloh
- happy birthday nicole
- heat pumps
- shiloh jolie-pitt
- i want to write about your house
- big(ger) families
- hottfest 2006
- henry is a high school student
- three monkeys
- jon & elliot wrestle
- elliot, eleanor and mclean listen to street perfor...
- uncle monkey
- Tim McGraw - who knew?
- may 26, 1990
- labor inductions
- janet jackson's belly...color me skeptical
- teeth
- mamasink
- kag's adoption guidelines
- school's out
- hottfest 2006!!
- ch-ch-ch-changes
- Al Gore's comeback
- still tired
- 40%
- it's a girl!
- ayun's state of the union
- current listening
- hillbilly gothic
- the room where testicles go to die
- mccreepy
- britney and baby, redux
- woe
- don't you hate it when...
- Knoxville rock icons, and my pals, Tim & Susan Lee...
- jane, shoe fashionista
- various
- still sick
- britney & baby
- sick
- "formula 4 success"
- just a nibble
- best...line...ever
- happy mother's day
- uuuhhhhhh....
- my bro and sistah in law
- mac, jedi knight
- the new homemaker
- neal pollack, deriva-dad
- mothers genderflection
- what i wish i'd known about marriage
- virginity pledges don't work
- If your husband leaves you for Tori Spelling...
- state of the world's mothers
- seriously disturbed. seriously funny.
- R&N
- tattoos on lower back can cause probs during child...
- helen
- peonies in bell buckle
- why i shop at the food co-op
- bonnaroooooo!
- target as bad as wal-mart?
- jane can cook
- best article on risks of bottle-feeding i've seen ...
- under the covers
- unschooling
- pimpfants?
- look! it's ben folds' ass!
- J. tries to study at horse show
- more gardening
- how did san francisco become so gay?
- vintage children's books
- lockjaw
- yeah, i took the post down
- vestival!
- another poem by elliot - second grade
- built to spill
- home
-
▼
May
(84)
23 comments:
I think I'll stay in Somerville with my one child and decidedly non-designer jeans. What is with the constant references to designer jeans in articles about motherhood, anyway?
Having a large family because your family does not feel complete with the number you have now is one thing. But having more kids because you're a "SAHM, and in the groove already" as one women in that article put it, or as a "status symbol", or because you feel "pressured to keep up with larger families", as also mentioned seems faulty logic to me.
being one of those "largish" families I loved the quote,"The only time she's ever questioned having six kids was when a 24-hour stomach bug once sailed through her whole family. "There were no towels left in the house," she says. "It felt like the lowest rung of hell."
We have survived that hell once a couple of winters ago so this got a chuckle from me.
I guess ours is truly odd because my husband and I both work fulltime outside of the home. We enjoy our chaotic circus life. There was no other motive than to accept the children we were fortunate enough to have (we lost twins in 1990). We felt that our family wasn't quite complete until that 4th baby was born and even when we thought it was, we realized 5 years post vasectomy that it wasn't. Adopting our son completed the circle.
It is indeed hard work and a wild ride, but I was never afraid of work and I have always loved the thrill rides at the amusement park.The way I see it, our family is blessed in spite of the hard work and doing without sometimes and those who cluck their tongues at our family life have no clue.
More than 2 seems selfish. Aren't there too many people in the world as it is? Whatever happened to using fewer of the world's resources?
3 best things you can do for the environment:
1. don't eat meat
2. drive less
3. have fewer kids
All that recycling don't mean a thing if you aren't doing the 3 listed above.
To start with, I have 6 kids, which I guess makes me triply selfish.
Or maybe I just looked at US birthrates and realized that we are reproducing at a rate barely above self sustaining. Maybe I learned that the only reason US population is increasing is the combined effects of immigration and longer life expectancies. Maybe I also realized that the birth rates in India and China mean that my contribution to global population, or Anonymous's refusal to contribute is ultimately meaningless. In fact, maybe I knew enough math to realize that global population growth is driven by China, India, and third world nations, not the US.
Or maybe my decision to have a large family came from a desire to improve the gene pool by outbreeding ignorant and obnoxious folks who think it seems selfish to have a large family.
Katie,
Maybe you need a career change to satisfy your baby lust. Working with babies is magical!
Are you feeling this way because you have to share the kids 40% of the time?
Rich, don't we all live on the same planet?
I hate to agree with anonymous (and am just hoping that it's not the same nasty anonymous who's said over-the-top stuff on this blog) but I do have to agree with the philosophy. I was struck yesterday, when talking about buying a house with a friend, that maybe housing prices won't go back down to their non-inflated prices. Maybe we're just stuck with overpriced houses because we're getting to a point where too many people live here, and only the people who can afford those overpriced homes can buy. Another friend brought it home for me--he told me that there are twice the number of people now as when he was growing up in the 50s. That's big! Currently there are only 4 acres per person living on this earth, and each of us who live in the US use up about 25 acres worth of stuff, according to the book Radical Simplicity, which my husband is reading. Meaning that it takes 25 acres to produce the food, clothing, living space, trash we throw away, all the stuff we use.
I can certainly sympathize with your babylust, Katie. We'd originally wanted lots and lots of kids. But after my second was born, we looked at each other and said "we *could* stop at two...." and then my husband proceeded to work on me, telling me all about overpopulation and it's effects. That's probably the thing with the biggest impact on the planet, because when we have kids, they go on to have more kids, and they go on to have more kids and on down the line. We can try to live lightly in other areas, but those kids may not! So, I try to content myself with other people's babies, and look forward to grandkids. They only stay little for a short time anyway....
Elizabeth, I have babylust sometimes too. (But for a variety of reasons, one is likely it for us.)
I just wanted to clarify that I'm not opposed to larger families. I just found much of the reasons for wanting more in the linked article, to be pretty shallow.
Also, I have a few friends in the Boston 'burbs who have/plan to have larger families, and the linked Boston.com article does not describe anything remotely resembling their lives or their reasons for wanting more children.
consider this: I recently heard of a family with nine children. they married young and the woman started breeding in her teens. the father and oldest daughter (most likely second in command mom) were killed in a car accident. so here is this woman who has done nothing but pop out babies for the past fourteen years or so, no job skills, no husband and eight kids.
personally I think this is sick and wrong. its everything I hated on the east coast. the competitive mothering shit is so much greater there. then of course there is Andrea Yates.
of course what this is appears to be is women who are high achievers, where everything is about more more more and once they have kids it cant just be ordinary..they have to do MORE.
like I said above, these chickies better be thinking about what happens if hubbys fat pay check does and there they are trying to support a jumbo sized family. in the family I mentioned above the community stepped in and helped but what if they didnt? those kids would all be farmed out to foster care faster than you could blink. how sad. how irresponsible.
Wow. This is a fascinating exchange of ideas here in the comments section. I hope it continues and Katie doesn't delete it like she's done to controversial posts before (for personal reasons, and I respect that.)
Personally, I think that only a select few should be having and raising children in this world. There are too many bad/selfish/competitive/unfocused/immature/greedy/uncaring people out there who are parents.
My husband and I are childfree by choice and while I respect the job of being a parent(because few do it so well)I can't help but to be disappointed and disgusted with folks who mindlessly make the choice to have a child or more children than they already have. If a large family suits someone, that's their right (I don't happen to agree with them because of some of the environmental and overpopulation issues mentioned already, but that's an individual's or couple's right.) But when people start having children to "keep up with the Jonses" or because they see children as a status symbol or because they're trying for a boy/girl after a succession of other kids,etc., I think that's wholly irresponsible and selfish. There are consequences to be dealt with here, and to take one of the most important (if not THE MOST important) life decisions so casually is wrong in my opinion.
With my opinion noted, I'll step off my soap box and continue to read other people's comments.
Thank you.
I have five kids because I love kids, because being a mother is the ultimate creative act, and because I believe there is nothing better that my husband and I can do in our lives than raising good people who can go on to make a difference in the world.
I think that people who are so gung-ho on limiting family size as a way of presevering the earth forget that children are a natural resource too. And if I can raise my five kids to be unselfish, not to be mindless consumers, to recycle, to "tread lightly" on the earth, to give back, to love their fellow man . . . isn't that better than being a conspicuous consumer with two kids, three cars, and a 5000+ square foot McMansion?
i just think that people should also be thinking about what will happen to these kids if something happens to them. most of the women who breed like rabbits start quite young and dont develop job skills because their career track IS motherhood.
as for the yuppies in the boston suburbs..yeah..its competitive mothering at its worst. these are women who from day one have been told to "be the best". they just apply to motherhood the same logic they did to their careers..there is always another rung to achieve..always another baby to have. I have read some of these full quiver boards and its positively sickening these people who have five, six, seven kids whining that they cant get pregnant again when there are women out there who are struggling to have ONE. I also think some of these women its less about the kids and the fact that they jsut feel totally needed by an infant and when the infant grows up and becomes a separate person then bam...they gotta feed that addiction. and I have heard some of htem refer to it as an addiction. they are joking but its closer to the truth than they realize. I think a lot of htem are trying to complete something in themselves by always having an infant. the only time in their lives some of htese people have felt important is when they are pregnant or nursing. so they have to keep it going.
Just a question -- and I don't mean this to be provocative or sarcastic or anything.
What's wrong with not having any kids at all? Why don't more people consider this option?
Thoughts?
I think plenty of them do consider this option. just do a web search. but a lot of people do have kids for totally selfish reasons (to support me in old age, to carry on the family name, so they can have someone to love etc etc etc)
I don't think there's anything at all wrong with choosing not to have any kids at all. I admire people who know this is what is right for them and stick with it.
But I see nothing wrong with wanting to have many children. And I don't think wanting a large, loving family to help one another in old age or sickness, etc is "selfish."
My grandparents are getting older and needing a lot of help now. Thankfully, their three adult children, seven adult grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren are all very close and happy to work together to be there for them at this time of their lives.
I just read an interesting piece in the summer issue of Bitch magazine about being childfree by choice.
I have no problem with that lifestyle choice. Its certainly valid, and honestly where I live, its probably viewed as much more normal among my peers than having kids.
I have encountered a few people who seem to truly dislike children, and several others who do little to hide their disdain for mothers. That pov is not cool and frankly pisses me off.
But knowing yourself well enough to realize that you do not want children of your own? Fine by me!
It makes me laugh to think that any American thinks they can teach their kids to 'tread lightly' on the earth. Even as babies, our kids use WAY more resources than people in other parts of the world.
And you can't control what they do when they leave your house. Your little eco-friendly kid (again, I scoff at the concept for Americans) may marry some mini-mansion, jet ski, 2 SUV, plastic-loving mate who turns them away from your teachings.
Yes, it is natural to want YOUR genes to continue and not someone else's. Yes, it is natural to have kids. But we need to WAKE UP and realize this planet can't support 9 billion people, (projected pop. in 2050) and we can't always do what comes 'natural' anymore because of the way we live now. Most people used to die before they themselves reached reproductive age, women were less fertile because of malnutrition and that doesn't happen anymore. We need to set some limits.
Replacement used to be the watchword. 2 parents have 2 kids. That allows you to 'replace' yourselves in the gene pool. Why would anyone be so arrogant as to think they have the right to have more than that?
RIGHT ON, PERSON WHO POSTED ABOVE!!! WOO HOO!!! FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS THE TRUTH!
people forget that the reason people used to have tons of kids was because if you had ten kids you were damn lucky to see two or three reach adulthood to reproduce themselves. that and it was free farm labor.
\a lot of these really noble sounding reasons for having a ton of kids turn out to be selfish in the end
I meant reasons in this day and age. most of the people I know that grew up in real big families felt invisible and if they were the older kids they basically were extra parents.
Wow. I don’t understand all the vitriol here. My mother was the third of 7 children (4th of 8 if you count the baby that died) and she has lots of great stories to tell about her childhood with all those siblings. And I absolutely adored visiting my grandparents’ house at the holidays. I loved having all those cousins. It was crazy and loud and wonderful. I think that’s why I always thought it would be great to have a big family. I love children and love being around them. Kids teach you many many lessons. They make you strive to be a better person. There are selfish reasons to not have kids as well as selfish reasons to want to have them. Both are ok. There is no one right answer for everyone. You know, there are plenty of people without children who live quite extravagantly (and feel entitled to do so since they have no children.)Using more of the earth’s resources than one should is certainly not limited to those who have children. And it seems to me that having a large family is excellent training in using less. With more children most people have less disposable income-toys, clothes, and furniture is recycled. Often less food goes to waste because there are no leftovers and there are more people to eat what is there. Kids learn to make their own fun, not buy it. Ultra rich families having lots of kids are the exception, not the rule. As for the lessons parents teach being rejected, often kids who reject what their parents taught them go back to it later. I did (becoming a mother made me suddenly aware of why good nutrition is important, and suddenly everything that goes on-people’s impact on the earth-is very relevant). Who will take care of you when you are unable to? Elderly care is very expensive. My grandmother was lucky that one child was able to move back in with her and expenses were contributed to by the other 6 children. Some also help to take care of their elderly Aunt and Uncle who had no children. Humans were designed to want children-this is not a sick or arrogant desire. Why not focus on providing birth control (and education about its use and why it’s necessary) in the countries where out of control breeding really is a problem? From a slate article today: “Europe and Japan face a shortage of children that endangers pensioners and undermines economic dynamism. Even China is facing a labor shortage, thanks to its one-child policy.” Generally speaking, women today are waiting longer to have children and they are having less. Humans are wonderfully diverse-it’s fine for some to want no children or others to want many. Focus on problems like environmental pollution and overconsumption would seem to be more productive than trying to convince people who truly love and want many children to quell their dream.
this all sounds well and good. however I have not met many of these "big happy families". what I HAVE seen is mothers who keep on having babies who kid themselves they are providing wonderful learning opportunities for their oldest to be extra parents. I have talked to some of these people as adults and they felt only valued for what they did, invisible and robbed of a childhood. people used to have tons of kids for the agricultural workload and to insure that some would reach it to adulthood. period. I am sick and tired of huge families being glamorized and romaticized like it was such a wonderful thing because it wasnt, at least not as often as big family advocates would like you to think it was. if people love kids so much then why not sign up to be a big brother or big sister or mentor kids who have no role models? one thing I noticed about the big families I was around at a certain cultish stage in my life is they never had time for anyone but themselves. there was no reaching out to anyone else in any time intensive way (dropping off a load of groceries doesnt count..I mean investing in others lives in any time intensive way). as for the taking care of in the old age thing: that is in my opinion, a supremely selfish reason to reproduce. it leads to huge expectations. besides, I know plenty of families with four or five kids where only one of them is willing to step up to the plate when the parents need help.
What a great site, how do you build such a cool site, its excellent.
»
Post a Comment