Big families are better

by Roger Sinasohn (Subscribe to Roger Sinasohn's posts) Sep 11th 2008 11:02AM

Categories: Pregnancy & Birth, Extreme Childhood

I grew up in a larger-than-average family, by today's standards, and I have to say I've always felt that big families were better for the kids than smaller ones, even as I worry about the effects of over-population. Cassandra Jardine, a British mother of five, with the help of Sky News presenter Colin Brazier, makes the argument that not only are big broods better for the kids, they're better for the planet as well.

When Brazier heard that it costs £180,000 to raise a child, he knew that that didn't hold true for every child. I know we've bought less (well, slightly less) clothing for each of our three kids. The same is true of toys, books, and other gear. Brazier goes on to claim that, on a per capita basis, large families are actually better for the environment than small families or individuals. Certainly, it's easy to see that cooking a meal for six or seven does not use anywhere near as many resources as cooking individual meals for the same number of people.

Jardine and Brazier offer quite a few additional reasons why children from large families are better off, including:

They are better and making and keeping friends because they have to learn to share and get along at home
They learn to be part of a team and to resolve disputes
They are more likely to learn to cook, wash their laundry, and do other household chores
Because playtime is less closely supervised, they take more risks
Saving money is something they that becomes second nature to them.

Of course, there are downsides too:

While the cost of feeding five kids is not five times as much as one, it is still significantly more
My family made do with a two bedroom house, but generally more kids means more house
Eating out, going to Disneyland, and almost anything else becomes prohibitively expensive
Not only do larger families need larger, more expensive vehicles, they spend more on gas too
Swim lessons for one kid aren't cheap; multiply that by five and you start thinking about selling a kidney

While my experiences don't support all of Brazier's claims, I still believe that growing up in a large batch of kids is preferable and better in the long run. Rather than have a huge family of my own, however, I am glad to be part of a group of like-minded parents so that my kids get to feel like they have a dozen siblings without having to sacrifice too much.

Source

Comments (27)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Jamie 9-11-2008 @ 11:47AM

Well, to me this seems more than a bit simplified. I can refute many items on the list very easily. It just further proves the theory that you can justify whatever your current situation is. But, it does show this author grew up in a little house on the prarie because we don't need brothers and sisters to have friends. We can commute very easily to a play group and so forth. I have a group of 8 women and 24 children that play with my kids at least twice a week. My two children learn to share and play well with others without having a big family. Also, while I am spending time with my friends, I am not being a helicopter parent. The only social thing I feel my children are missing out on is being a parent. I don't believe my oldest should be responsible for raising the youngest. Really, I am OK with that. And as for the cooking aspect, watch Emeril. I watched him make a base sauce that he used with three dishes simply by making one simple change each time. Cook up his simple sauce and then you have 3 easy weekday meals. Cooking for fewer people can just mean you can eat on one meal that much longer. Everyone, no matter the number of children, can be resourceful. We just need to be willing to make changes in our lifestyle. How hard can that be? By having children you have already made the biggest lifestyle change right?

Mommymelody 9-11-2008 @ 12:26PM

I agree 100%...big families make the mom's job easier in the long run.

Mommymelody 9-11-2008 @ 12:36PM

I agree 100%...big families rock. I have seven, and I feel completely blessed. My children were each born at least two years apart due to my ecological breastfeeding. As a result of this spacing, I have a child in each stage of development. I put plenty of time into my first two, who are 5 years apart. Consequently, when my younger children began to arrive 2 years apart, I had lots of help. I work overtime at home to make sure my children don't have to do any primary caregiving; nevertheless, it is natural for siblings to interact and play with each other. They learn so much better from those closest to them in age. As peer educators, my children thrive in a large family. I also believe that having a baby in the household does wonders for teaching the male children sensitivity and empathy, qualities that are so essential for humans. I am too blessed to be stressed with my tribe at home. I wouldn't have it any other way!!!

ame s 9-11-2008 @ 12:52PM

I am blessed with 2 healthy daughters. I've considered having another (THEY don't want another sibling) but am hesitant to "tempt fate."
A friend of mine was bound and determined to have 8 children. She has 7 healthy children. Her 8th has Down's and many medical problems, including a heart defect. Her doctor doubts this child will live to be 20 years old. I'll stay with 2.

SKL 9-11-2008 @ 1:28PM

Ah, where have I heard this argument before? Oh yeah, I wrote it!

Not to repeat what the article said, but to add to it. When you have that many kids, there are many things you simply don't do. You don't go to Disneyland and such as often, if at all. But that's OK, because Disnelyand is all about fake stuff, and big families have plenty of real stuff to stimulate, entertain, and teach them. As for lessons - the younger kids can learn from the older ones, or teach themselves. We all learned to play piano because the oldest took lessons and the rest of us watched him and borrowed his books. We all taught ourselves how to swim (except for the youngest - she talked my dad into lessons). So I don't agree that big families necessarily spend that much more. The best things in life are free - big families tend to be better at finding such things.

A play group can never do for kids what siblings can do. At play group, you have to be polite for a while and then you get to go home and it's all about you again. When you have siblings, you learn that almost everything you do affects and is affected by those around you. You learn a lot more patience, consideration, and compassion. You learn that behind each person's game face, there are insecurities and fears as well as hopes and dreams. You also learn how to lean on others when times get tough.

A note on kids "parenting" their younger siblings. I'd say, don't knock it until you've tried it. I was the "other mother" for my younger brother and sister, and not only did I enjoy it, I have always recognized that it was an extremely worthwhile experience. Honestly, I wouldn't trade it for all the Disney in the world.

Caitlin 9-11-2008 @ 3:31PM

Parenting younger siblings doesn't always work out for the older sibling. My mom went back to college when I was in high school and I hated being put in that position. In fact, it's one of the reasons I never want to have more than one child and came very close to choosing to never become a mother at all. I feel like I've already raised two kids.

It forced me to grow up way too fast. I couldn't go out with my friends because there was no one to watch my siblings after school. It was very lonely and isolating for me. I was basically handed grocery money each week, and expected to keep the household running on top of my school work and making sure my siblings got theirs done. My parents were free with their criticism during times when I couldn't balance high school, running the household, and making sure my siblings were passing school, but uninterested in lifting some of that weight from my shoulders.

I wouldn't have traded the experience for Disney, but I would have traded it for a family that remembered I was something more than a live in babysitter who wasn't allowed to decline. I think parents who allow an older sibling to be an "other parent" have to be very careful to remember that sibling wasn't the one who brought the younger kids into the world and shouldn't spend more time parenting than they do. I think if I had not been expected to start juggling what many grown women find stressful when I was 12, I might have had moments where I enjoyed being the other parent. I had friends who played the other parent and loved it, but they also got time to just be teenagers too.

Lisa 9-11-2008 @ 8:35PM

I find you blanket statements a bit frustrating.

"When you have siblings, you learn that almost everything you do affects and is affected by those around you. You learn a lot more patience, consideration, and compassion. You learn that behind each person's game face, there are insecurities and fears as well as hopes and dreams. You also learn how to lean on others when times get tough."

Do you believe that this is only true if you have sibilings? I was an only child until I was 14. I learned all these things from my family and friends. I really believe that this depends on the family. There are plently of kids from large families that don't learn these things.

"The logic that 6 kids = 2x3 in terms of resources is just wrong."

The logic isn't wrong, it just isn't true for your family. For many the resource usage is far greater and for many it is far less. For me the resources availble to my family are large but I do not believe in taking them just because we can afford to.

Jamie 9-11-2008 @ 9:46PM

There is documentation on what play groups can do for children. My DH did not want more than one child and I thought if I could prove to him that our first born should have a sibling that I would have a leg to stand on. I only found documentation that said a group of friends would be just as beneficial. I do have another child anyway. I grew up with three siblings and I wanted one for my first born. It has worked out really well for us. My family is complete. I also believe they get a lot out of play group. I have been in my play group for 3 years and can tell you that it is wonderful and my son is connected to his friends. Play group is our extended family. If you do not know about play groups, do not make assumptions. I was basing my comments on articles I had read on the internet. I am sorry I was not more clear on that subject.

pattye 9-11-2008 @ 2:08PM

What I'm wondering is how you can manage to put more than 2 kids through college? I mean, do you send the oldest one off and the younger kids get to just read the books that he brings back?

No, I can't believe, in this day and age, when the world is already over populated, couples think they should have a choice of two or more kids. Those that have more than 2 are infringing on others and taking more resources etc. than rightfully they should. It should be limited to 2 kids and NO MORE!!!

I only had two and between those two there were swim lessons, karate lessons, horseback riding lessons (and a horse), violin lessons, piano lessons, ski lessons, vacations out of state, plus now college for one and soon for the other, all things I feel that enrich a kid's life and I was glad to be able to provide and each kid deserves, but cannot figure out how I would have done it with 4, 5, or 6 kids!

kasie 9-11-2008 @ 4:12PM

Granted, our oldest is only six, but we have taught our five and six year olds to swim, they both ski, and have skied since they were three. They will learn to play music when they are ready - we have a Steinway in the middle of our living room, and music all around. We go to plays, we went to a children's musical theater production when the baby (the fifth) was 4 weeks old. Just because we have 5 kids under the age of six, does not mean that our kids are deprived of enriching experiences. Our older two kids also go with their dad, an environmental biologist, when he is doing fieldwork studies. They more than understand the environmental impact of things, and probably know more about wind energy than most adults you know. Everyone does things differently. Just because there are several children in a family by no means implies that those children are deprived of mind-broadening experiences and will be a burden on the planet. I look forward to the people my five kids are growing up to be.

SKL 9-11-2008 @ 3:50PM

About population, if everyone had two kids or less, there wouldn't be enough people to care for the old and sick in our country. Because some would have 0-1 and the average would be much less than 2.

As far as college, my parents had six kids and we all have college. Some of us have grad school. We paid for it ourselves. We had to learn some responsibility that maybe your kids don't have, but I think that's a good thing.

By the way, in our family we have siblings who are proficient in piano, guitar, violin, trumpet, French horn, singing, drama, karate, swimming, horseback riding, and more. We also spent a lot of quality time camping, hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, etc. with our mom and dad. We learned to discover and use community resources such as the public library. Our minds were never idle. Our experiences were sufficiently rich to enable us to score well on tests that provided still more opportunities (e.g., gifted classes) at no extra cost. So no, I really don't think anyone can convince me that having siblings disadvantaged us.

pattye 9-11-2008 @ 5:32PM

What if everyone in this country had upwards of 5, 6, 7 children? Maybe you don't think it affects anything in this world and is only a personal decision because you still live a comfortable life and what the heck, as long as you can amply provide for those kids, why not? But isn't that part of the reason poorer nations resent us so, because we in affluent US consume so much more of the world's resources than Third World nations.

And really, where is the quality of life in a world with many billions of people? Morally, do we as a species, have the right to expand our population and urban way of life at the expense of other species, vast ecosystems and habitats, almost to the point of the disappearance of the wild? Who could argue that we are not drastically affecting the world, when glaciers, and ice, such as the
Ayles ice shelf, about the size of Manhatten, recently broke off in
Canada? Just one incident lately of this occurring.

Maybe, the choice of having a half dozen kids is a personal choice, it's just not a very well-thought out one in this day and age!

Well, I have to go tend to my rather small family and I wonder how you moms with all your kids, have so much time to converse on this website and still provide quality time for your children.

SKL 9-11-2008 @ 6:54PM

Well Patty, first of all, if we sound a bit enthusiastic about large family sizes it's because most of the articles on this site regarding family size imply that larger families are horrible. They are always focused on how much time the parent spends with each child, and completely ignore the benefits of sibling relationships and more independence / responsibility. So naturally we have some pent-up defensiveness about it.

And there's no reason to worry that just because of this article, everyone under age 40 is going to run out and have three more kids. People choose what works for them, and in the US today, it is 2 or less as often as not. Without any pressure from anyone, it turns out that the US has an ideal birth rate.

Personally I have only 2 kids, both adopted, because I got a late start at parenting. Although they won't enjoy all the benefits of having a large family, at least I'm really happy that they have each other. I see tremendous benefits from this each and every day.

l robbins 10-17-2008 @ 9:23AM

Then move to China where they limit your number of children. America is a free country and we need to be thankful for our right to chose. You shouldn't be able to tell others how many children they can have.

pattye 10-17-2008 @ 10:35AM

Move to China? What are you about 3? What amazes me about people with large families is not only the amount of resources they consume, much more than their fair share, but the fact that they obviously think their gene pool is so superior to everyone else's that the rest of us want and need so much of it aound...Not...

kasie nielsen 9-11-2008 @ 2:16PM

I never went to Disneyland when I was little, and I never felt like I was missing anything. On the other hand, I felt like I had a picture-perfect childhood, full of climbing trees, making forts, getting dirty, getting dressed up, putting on theatrical or musical performances for our parents. I learned about imagination. I learned about playing alone, and about being part of a team. I was 8 years old when my youngest sibling was born, and I 100% loved "parenting" him. We were close then, and are best friends to this day.
I have five kids of my own now, the oldest being six. (no twins) We work as a team. We play as a team. We make family rules and resolve conflicts as a team. Everything we do, affects everyone else in our family, and I hope that my kids learn that same lesson on a global scale. A playgroup is a date. You use your manners, you practice things you have been taught, for a couple of hours, once or twice a week. There is no substitute for the responsibility but also the incredible bond, of having to live with and work with the same people all day, every day.

The only thing I would disagree with is the idea that a large family is easier for the mom. That might be the case if you are the Duggers, or if your children are spaced out, but having had my fifth baby when my oldest was still five (and therefore still very needy) has been beyond difficult for me. There is a great deal of physical work, true, but also a great deal of responsibility to make sure that each child is getting the parental attention he or she deserves at this young age.

As for the overpopulation issue, I don't buy this at all. Our family is extremely environmentally conscious, my husband is a wetlands scientist who does environmental work, and so I think that a whole lot of our family on this planet will probably do more good for the world than if we had stopped at one or two kids!

Hug those kiddies, everyone!

Becca 9-11-2008 @ 5:00PM

I think that each family needs to decide for themselves as to how many children they should have.

I've seen large families that were a huge mess, and large families that were fantastic, I've seen single child families that were horrible and spoiled and those where the child learned all the things you all seem to think a child can learn from a large family.

No one "size" is right for all families. Why must we keep on judging and condemning other families for their choices?

BTW I have 3 sons, two are grown and one is five and a half now. I would have loved to be able to afford to have many more children, but we just never made enough money to be able to support any more.

Laura 9-11-2008 @ 5:10PM

As with any parenting issue, what works for one family may be wrong for another. I think the most important thing is for each couple to honestly and thoughtfully discuss the issue so that they have the size family that they are both willing and capable of providing for finanically, emotionally, etc.

I also agree that parents should not force older children to act as live in babysitters for younger siblings. Regardless the size of the family, children should be taught that all family members need to work together, but that does not mean that older children should have to scarifice their own childhoods to raise younger siblings or take care of the household. In those situations, it is not "team work" for the benefit of the family but rather one member of the family being scarificed for the benefit of the others.

Becca 9-11-2008 @ 5:15PM

Each family needs to decide for themselves how many children is right for them.

I've known large families just like the ones you are all talking about, supportive and loving. I've also known large families that were a horrible mess. The same goes for smaller families. Some of them are good some are bad.

Let's stop condeming the choices that others have made for themselves and their families, shall we?

BTW, I come from a family with 3 kids, and have 3 of my own. My older 2 are grown and in their 20's. My youngest is 5 1/2. I would have loved to have had many children in between them, but we couldn't afford to support any more children so we stopped.

SKL 9-11-2008 @ 7:08PM

And speaking of resources, I'd be willing to bet that all six of us put together didn't use as many resources as your two kids. We had to economize and that meant not having a lot of things our more "entitled" classmates had. It meant conserving, wearing recycled clothes and shoes, sharing toys, eating leftovers, and only participating in activities that we could walk or bike to. The logic that 6 kids = 2x3 in terms of resources is just wrong.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.