Large Families

[Era Might]

There has been a big spectacle over the woman who gave birth to octuplets, which gave her 14 children. Putting her story aside (because it had an unusual circumstance, that is, IVF), I want to discuss large families in general.

Some people seem to see large families as weird, financially burdening, emotionally burdening (that is, the parents cannot possibly give enough attention to each child), etc.

Why do some people have those views?

I think the view that large families are weird comes from our society's contraceptive mentality.

I think the view that large families are financially burdening often comes from our society's materialism. Certainly, not everyone can afford a large family. But I think some people could probably afford more children, if they were not so worried about providing them with a materialistic lifestyle.

As far as the view that large families are emotionally burdening, I'm not sure about this one. I suppose it's true that parents cannot give the same attention to 14 children as they would to 4 children. But does our modern society value parental attention too much? In ancient societies, I think people lived in large clans, and had a wider view of family than just "parent/child." Should this be more of our model? I know we have a different society today, because of industrialization. We cannot just go back to pre-industrialization; but can/should we recapture at least the attitude of the clan family? I think the modern model of family somewhat infantilizes children. It used to be that adulthood was in the mid-teens. Today college students are considered children. When a child has been given so much individualistic attention, I think it's hard for the child to separate from that and become a responsible adult. In a clan style family, I think the child would understand more easily that they have to establish their own life, and to do so they have to be responsible (e.g., not wasting away their college years in partying).

Any thoughts?

[dairygirl4u2c]

to reiterate some thoughts you have.
knowing large catholic famiilies personally, i would say that it does have pros and cons per attention etc. contrary to common thought, you don't get that present for your birthday from your uncle, cause there's jsut too many people to deal with. it's not closely knit, cause again too many people. there's factions that grow, some are closely knit with certain people, or some iwth none.
i would imagine smaller families does allow more attention.
too msall though, and they don't know what it's like to have a bro or a sis,which everyone should know.
on balance, the benefits outweight the cons. you still get enough attention, and the larger family provides more foundation in the fundamental unit that God creates in society, family.

i would be worried, though, if everyone started having families of 14 if our population could take it. people debate whether it can as it is, given water scarcity etc.
probably what's the case, is that it is currently strained, and everyone having that many would be immensely worse.
but, now, and in that case, society just needs to find a solution. there's always a way. unlimited energy is possible, vitamins and minerals that get the essentials, etc etc. it's just a matter of doing it.
and, if the free market doesn't do it, which it often time won't, then we need to be willing to allow government intervention, to get the free market where it should be on its own. (there's always a free market solution, it's just a metter of whether it happens or not, given the complexity, lack of info, transaction costs etc

so yeah that old arguent about population boom i think should be considered in your thoughts as well.

[missionseeker]

I would have to disagree with large families being not close because there are too many people. That's just silly.

[XIX]

I've always wished that I had more siblings and I've totally grateful for the one I have. I've never felt any kind of real desire to have more parents though.

Was that anecdotal? Yes. Does my anecdote mean that other will think the same way? Of course not. But it does fall in line with most of what I have observed. People tend to be closer to their siblings than they are with their parents.

Large families might be harder on the parents. But that's parenthood. It's the hardest thing you'll ever do but it's worth it.

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1781432' date='Feb 15 2009, 12:00 PM']knowing large catholic famiilies personally, i would say that it does have pros and cons per attention etc. contrary to common thought, you don't get that present for your birthday from your uncle, cause there's jsut too many people to deal with. it's not closely knit, cause again too many people. there's factions that grow, some are closely knit with certain people, or some iwth none.
i would imagine smaller families does allow more attention.
too msall though, and they don't know what it's like to have a bro or a sis,which everyone should know.
on balance, the benefits outweight the cons. you still get enough attention, and the larger family provides more foundation in the fundamental unit that God creates in society, family.[/quote]
Not closely knit?

Maybe it's different for each family, but my family is very closely knit. On my mother's side, I can name all of my cousins (which is quite a feat, let me tell you ) and we get together and do things as often as possible. We help each other and care for one another, even though we don't all live close to each other.

For large families, I'm the second oldest of nine (to be ten in July/August) and it isn't always easy, especially since one of my sisters (age seven) has special needs. But we make sacrifices and it all works out. We may not get as much attention individually as a smaller family would, but compared to some of the people at my school, my parents are around a lot, and we get a lot of attention as a whole. And if I need to talk to my mom or dad without all the midgets and distractions, they make time for me.
Also, being in a large family has taught me a lot of important information, such as WHY not to have sex before marriage (not only is it wrong, but taking care of screaming babies at three in the morning smells of elderberries), how to cook, clean, and to be patient (which I must admit I'm still working on, but that's part of being human). Overall, I'm pretty sure that being a part of my family is probably the best thing God could have done for me as he was planning my existence.

Edited February 15, 2009 by rose wrought of iron

[CatherineM]

I had a long discussion recently about this re: large houses. I have 5 older brothers, and we lived in a 900 sq ft house with 1 bathroom. I went to school with a family that had 11 kids, and their place wasn't much bigger than ours. They converted their garage into a bedroom. When I see shows on HGTV where people are looking at 5 bedroom -5 1/2 bath houses, for just a couple with a dog, it blows my mind.

If you want to talk about being emotionally engaging, when you have a houseful of people, and one bathroom, you have to talk to each other. If we went in to take a shower without asking if someone needed to use the restroom, big trouble followed. We had to learn how to share, space, food, toys, and even our parents time. I also received some parenting from my older brothers. In large families, the older kids learn to parent kind of like driving with a learner's permit. They drive, but mom or dad are there to catch them when they do something wrong. The youngest in the family (such as me) often learn parenting by taking care of their nieces and nephews.

If nothing else, having a large family teaches kids at a young age that the world doesn't revolve around them. Only kids where the parents tell them every second of the day that they are perfect and can do no wrong, turn out really screwed up when they go out into the real world, and find out they aren't the center of the universe.

As to the woman with 14 kids, no husband, no job, that's just silly. It is a good lesson why IVF isn't such a great idea.

[dairygirl4u2c]

they were much closer when they were younger. as kids, definitely close, as young adults too. middle age and older, not as much. it might just be a matter of age of the family.

i'd imagine many who i'd characterize as not closely knit, might characterize themselves as closely knit. there are many cousins who bond, and like i said factions. not in a rivalry or whatever sort of way, it's just the way it works out. when everyone gets together, they coalese into their groups. sorta the way it is natureally, eventually families have to branch off.
and a big thing is they don't get together often. it also seems understood that you don't get to know everyone so well cause again there are just so many pepole, and so many lives.
think holidays when people get together, and it's sorta formal but not, steretotype.
these are not isolated families, in the catholic place i grew up, what i describe above is standard.

whatever you call it, when you consider the alternative, smaller families i could see getting together more often etc. it's more manageable.

Edited February 15, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1781703' date='Feb 15 2009, 04:52 PM']whatever you call it, when you consider the alternative, smaller families i could see getting together more often etc. it's more manageable.[/quote]
Well, obviously, when you have 42kids at a single spot and only about 18-20 adults, things can get a bit hectic, but it still works. you have to practice virtues such as patience and understanding (mostly patience!) but it is possible and a lot of fun. Although I will conced that some people couldn't handle that much constant chaos.

[Era Might]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1781703' date='Feb 15 2009, 04:52 PM']whatever you call it, when you consider the alternative, smaller families i could see getting together more often etc. it's more manageable.[/quote]
I think closeness is unrelated to family size. It just depends on the family.

Actually, I think closeness would be easier in a large family, because then the closeness of the family would not depend on just a few people. There would always be things happening (weddings, births, etc.) that can bring the family together. In a smaller family, there are not as many people and occasions to bring everyone together.

But what I was getting at in my original post was not so much general family closeness, but rather, attention from parent to child. I guess what I am asking, is how much attention do children need from their parents? I think some people today see large families as abnormal, but historically, I think small families are probably the abnormal ones. How did the parent-child relationship function in societies with large families? And can we still learn from that older family model, even though we live in a very different society?

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1781733' date='Feb 15 2009, 05:14 PM']But what I was getting at in my original post was not so much general family closeness, but rather, attention from parent to child. I guess what I am asking, is how much attention do children need from their parents? I think some people today see large families as abnormal, but historically, I think small families are probably the abnormal ones. How did the parent-child relationship function in societies with large families? And can we still learn from that older family model, even though we live in a very different society?[/quote]
This might be wrong, but here goes...

I think that, on average, children in large families get less individual attention from their parents but more collective time - does that make sense? Because the time spent with the individual child is more meaningful (it is obviously more difficult for the parent to make time for that), it is okay for there to be less of it as long as the child understands how much the parents care for him/her. This is the parents' responsibility; to make sure that there is never a doubt in that child's mind that it is loved (while always being a good parent, that is, and not spoiling the kid; it's a fine line).

I guess that my reasoning is based on how most of the smaller families I know decided to 'forgo" having children to support their lifestyle, and the one or two children they have are lost in the shuffle of whatever else their parents have going on...

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1781432' date='Feb 15 2009, 12:00 PM']to reiterate some thoughts you have.
knowing large catholic famiilies personally, i would say that it does have pros and cons per attention etc. contrary to common thought, you don't get that present for your birthday from your uncle, cause there's jsut too many people to deal with. it's not closely knit, cause again too many people. there's factions that grow, some are closely knit with certain people, or some iwth none.[/quote]

So you don't get a present from every uncle or aunt on your birthday.......what's the problem with that? It seems that falls into the materialistic idea of society that everyone needs everything.

Toys eventually break and don't give you attention. Siblings write you letters from home and are estactic to see you when you get home and overwhelm you with attention. Yes it's a bit annoying.......but I would not trade it for all the toys in the world.

[quote]it's not closely knit,[/quote]

I disagree. I know of way more families with two kids where the kids are not close and don't necessarily care for their parents than I do of large families that share the same characteristics. While I know this is not an exact situation for everyone, that has been my perception. You can't say large families are not close.........you haven't met mine!!!!


[quote]there's factions that grow, some are closely knit with certain people, or some iwth none.[/quote]

You gonna claim that factions don't happen in small families and that small families get along a lot better than small families? I find it refreshign to have several siblings as if I am not getting along with one or two, there are a couple others I can hang out with. In a two kid family, if the kids don't get along.....there are no other kids to bounce off of within the family and they must seek friends outside the family.



[quote]i would imagine smaller families does allow more attention.
too msall though, and they don't know what it's like to have a bro or a sis,which everyone should know.
on balance, the benefits outweight the cons. you still get enough attention, and the larger family provides more foundation in the fundamental unit that God creates in society, family.

i would be worried, though, if everyone started having families of 14 if our population could take it. people debate whether it can as it is, given water scarcity etc.[/quote]

First off, that wouldn't happen as not everyone can have kids. For whatever medical reason, there are many who cannot have kids....a lot more than you think. Also, I find it hard to believe that God would call everyone to have 14 kids. Some are called to have 8..........some 4...........I know God doesn't give us a number when we are married....we aee to be open to life that God allows.......and some people are called the religious life. Also, if you read the Catholic Catechism, it does allow for parents to space out kids if they really cannot provide for the kid. Now, I better show what I'm trying to say ....


-----------------------------------------------
[i]2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation.[b] For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood[/b]. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155 [/i]
----------------------------------------------------------

[quote]so yeah that old arguent about population boom i think should be considered in your thoughts as well.[/quote]

Basically your opening the debate to overpopulation and aiming to justify how many kids you have. Although many countries are beginning or will soon be seeing a negative population curve if they are not careful.....France, China has a lot of guys...US gets immigriants which is really keeping our numbers up.


[quote name='missionseeker' post='1781434' date='Feb 15 2009, 12:12 PM']I would have to disagree with large families being not close because there are too many people. That's just silly.[/quote]

Je suis d'accord.

----------------
Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/aerosmith/track/dream+on"]Aerosmith - Dream On[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1781758' date='Feb 15 2009, 05:31 PM']So you don't get a present from every uncle or aunt on your birthday.......what's the problem with that? It seems that falls into the materialistic idea of society that everyone needs everything.

Toys eventually break and don't give you attention. Siblings write you letters from home and are estactic to see you when you get home and overwhelm you with attention. Yes it's a bit annoying.......but I would not trade it for all the toys in the world.[/quote]

Thank you. Our society places far too much value on the material. I know it's cliche, but [i]you will always have family[/i]. Cars and friendships can breakdown, but blood really is thicker than water. And in a big family, you have more shoulders to cry on and more people who will support you when you need it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not trying to be argumentative. i'm just telling my observations.
obviously it varies per the large and small families. nothing is uniform.
i think there might be a lot of perceptual differences here too- some would see the same families i see and say they are close knit through and through. if this is the case, then it's not like my observation means anything, it's just my perception.

the families i'm talking about, are where a husband and wife have fifty brothers and sisters, including in laws.
this family as an example, though, was very closee growing up.
the grandmother in one of them, can't remember all the names of the great grand kids, there's just way too many.
it's almost an impossibility to be able to keep up with them all. if those fifty have large families too, which many of them do. the bonds would be superficial, even if they were there.
families branch off, they have to. they have to have their own christmas eventually, etc. they do do the split christmases, at 'mom' 'grandma' and 'greatgrandma' (times two for the other spouses side), but it cannot be very thorough.
growing up, those familes were close. to this day, they are not bad, much better than most.
is there anyone who can tell me, they are in or know of families that are full grown, with greatgrandparents, and large sub familes, who have six christmasses per year (or per christmass day?)?

i'd imagine growing up, it's not that bad of a problem, compared them to smaller families.
i'd imagine most of the lack of attention in smaller families might just be because they have less family values.
it's not really rocket science to know that it's harder to give more time to everyone when there's a new baby born every year or every other year. but there can never really be a point where it's impossible unless you're in gennus record territory with the numbers.
there's a differenc, too, though, with say six kids and 14. the families i'm thinking of have 14, on average. that's a lot of kids and it'd obviously get less attention with more kids.
but on balance nothing game changingly detribmental that you shouldn't have that many.
the more the better for most intents and purposes.

the 'middle child' syndrome i see as getting worse with the larger familes, that i see, though, if you want something to consider from the counter perspective.

Edited February 15, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[rose wrought of iron]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1781788' date='Feb 15 2009, 06:20 PM']i'm not trying to be argumentative. i'm just telling my observations.[/quote]
I know, sorry if it seemed otherwise.
[quote]obviously it varies per the large and small families. nothing is uniform.
i think there might be a lot of perceptual differences here too- some would see the same families i see and say they are close knit through and through. if this is the case, then it's not too meaningful.

the families i'm talking about, are where a husband and wife have fifty brothers and sisters, including in laws.
it's almost an impossibility to be able to keep up with them all. if those fifty have large families too, which many of them do. the bonds would be superficial, even if they were there. this family as an example, though, was very closee growing up.
the grandmother in one of them, can't remember all the names of the great grand kids, there's just way too many.

i'd imagine growing up, it's not that bad of a problem comparing them to smaller families.
i'd imagine most of the lack of attention in smaller families might just be because they have less family values.
it's not really rocket science to know that it's harder to give more time to everyone when there's a new baby born every year or every other year.
there's a differenc, too, though, with say six kids and 14. the families i'm thinking of have 14, on average. that's a lot of kids.[/quote]
I don't know any with fifty including inlaws; just ten (with inlaws it's about 20).

And I see what you're getting at, but my family's pretty freakin' huge, and their bonds don't at all seem superficial; my mom keeps in touch with a lot of her cousins and we see most of her brothers and sisters (and their kids) at most major holidays and baptisms and First Communions and stuff. It may be hard to imagine, but we're really close. I'm not exactly sure how we do it, but there it is...

[Deeds]

I was an only child until I was nearly 9. I remember very clearly being around 6 or 7 and thinking that I would never have a sister or brother and feeling very sad. My parents planned to have such a large gap because they thought it would be good to give me lots of attention for those years, but it was no substitute for having siblings around. I have one brother now and we're very privileged materially, but I've always felt drawn to the idea of having a large family myself.

[url="http://www.conversiondiary.com/search/label/Family%20Size?max-results=200"]This blog[/url] contains some very interesting posts about openness to life and societal expectations of family size.