Large Families

I've been meaning to write this post (or a similar one) for awhile now.  Each time I try to reasonably explain my points, I find myself getting fairly emotional about the topic.

As many of my readers already know, I'm the oldest of six.  And from what I've read, my experience is not all that unique.  I fit the stereotype of an oldest daughter of six...and there is a reason there is a stereotype!

From my experience, I think it's safe to say that I disagree with the practice of large families.  I will define a large family as six children or more.

If a person has a choice, I think choosing to limit family size is a good idea. 

Here are my two reasons why:
1 - The older children end up raising the younger children
I struggle with this, because I understand the notion of a family sacrificing together, trying to make the most of it.  I don't think children should be handed everything they want, I don't think children should be fully shielded from the world.

But in general, it is simply unfair to have too many children that you (or your spouse) can take care of, where you will depend on an older child to do a portion of the day to day parenting.    In other words, the excuse of  - we can care for this many children because the older children help out!

It's not fair to the older children.  They have a right to be children.  They didn't choose to be parents at the age of eight or ten or twelve.  They don't need to be changing diapers or helping with homework.

There are other, better ways to teach children how to be other-focused. So children can focus on themselves and becoming successful people - not focused on making sure their siblings are cared for.

There are advantages that I've had from being the oldest child who filled the void.

But I don't think this "the older children will take care of the younger ones" should be used as a defense of your choice to have more children than you can physically, emotionally or financially support.  It is irresponsible and doesn't always lead to a good outcome. 

2 - A disproportionate number of women are negatively impacted by this choice.
This was pointed out in this slate article, and I agree. It's easy, as someone who is not raising children day to day - to idealize large families.  But if you're not participating in the day to day, I don't know that you really know what it's like.  I was the oldest daughter, and I have a good idea what parenting a large family is like.  But I don't really *know*. 

In traditional male/female families, I think women are negatively impacted by large families.

Some women have boundless energy.  Some families are able to support a large number of children and have enough financial, physical and emotional resources to be good parents.

But there are just as many women who are stretched too thin by having too many children.  They are not able to focus on all their children's physical and emotional needs, much less their own.  They may not be able to support themselves and their children if they lose a spouse or are divorced.  Raising six or more kids is a lot of work, and the idea that "it will pay off" is not always true.  What does that mean anyway?

Pregnancy is hard enough - much less all the diapers, homework, economical, healthy meals, etc.  In the traditional family, the father usually has to work so hard to support the large number of children - they are typically exhausted themselves.

It's not up to me, of course, and I have no control over this choice or other choices that people make.  I'm just a blogger on the internet, spouting my personal opinion.

But I have some knowledge about this particular subject, and I don't think it's selfish of people to decide to not have children or to have smaller families.  My own personal theory is that there can be stronger family bonds if the parents are able to be present, and not hopelessly overworked all the time.

Limiting a woman's fertility has been one of the best gains for women in the last century - and I wholeheartedly agree.

Parents have a responsibility to themselves, to all their children and to the planet to be mindful of their fertility choices.  To ignore those responsibilities is short sighted at best, and neglectful at worst.

In Reckless Hands

One of the things I love about npr - I hear about great books to look into. And I appreciate listening to great discussions about those books. I heard about this book some time ago - I think on the Diane Riem show.

As Americans, we'd like to think that the right to have children was a part of the constitution. But it's not. Reading about forced sterilization of mental health patients, children of single parents and inmates was incredibly disturbing. The book describes a prison in Oklahoma, in the early 30s that was considering sterilization of all "habitual criminals". One person (one of the people the original case was built around) had one strike for stealing chickens.

The theory (I highly recommend reading the book yourself to better understand) was that criminal behavior and so-called feeble-mindedness could be passed on through genetics. By sterilizing criminals, we could supposedly protect our pure classes/races and wipe out criminal behavior (this was a serious argument at the time). As Nourse points out, it was moving towards a caste system here in the U.S. - something that the founders of the U.S. explicitly were fighting against.

As an aside - many people might criticize our current justice system, some for good reason. But I believe over time, thankfully, human rights have prevailed, and excesses have been stopped. I have faith that this will continue - whether or not administrations are Republican, Democrat or other. We have many things that divide us - but we have more in common than the mainstream media would lead one to believe.

I wrote about government sponsored birth control before here. That was the most interesting part of the book for me. It turns out that at one point, during the 1970s, over 100,000 women had been sterilized by fraud or coercion (p. 158) - that their welfare benefits would be cut off or that their children would not be delivered (Relf vs. Weinberger). Over half of these women were of color.

I believe that these topics absolutely need to be part of the national conversation on fertility. We need to understand where we've been - and where such policies and laws have been abused.

How can we support women and families that want to limit their families - but also prevent forced or coerced sterilization? And prevent policies that quietly support racist ideals?

One simple solution (to my mind) is to make sure that these kinds of decisions are made separately - removed from one another. The person who decides welfare benefits would be different from the person that approves voluntary birth control. We can also look to other countries, some of whom might not have these issues.