Family size
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08bigfam.html

Large families--freak show or no? What's a large family to you?

I wonder what the averages would be for Mormon families during the same time span they discuss in the article. I'm sure it's shrunk as well.

I've thought about this lately in the context of a person who came from a big family (I give it a thumbs down). And I have been shocked more than once to reconnect with old friends (thanks again, Facebook) and discover people with 6 kids or so. I simultaneously marvel at them, envy them, and just plain think they are nuts.

It seems to me that the new number of kids to have for Mormon families is 3-5. What happened to the 5-8 of just a generation or two ago?

Of course it has shrunk for Mormons. Look at how the number of missionaries fell. Most of that was due to demographics.

1. desire for career and money
2. want to have GAP kids and fancy playdates and private schools
3. perception that one cannot adequately provide emotional and financial support for more than 2 kids
4. just never get around to it. "bad timing"
5. "boutique family"
6. start too late
7. dogs and cats are just as fulfilling

Talking to a woman in a former ward who raised 8 kids she said, "I just didn't even think about it. It was what I thought I was supposed to do." She admitted that if she was having kids now she would have fewer and would wait until after she finished school to start.

I think it is more socially acceptable to have fewer kids in our culture now so we are. We aren't being pushed as hard to multiple and replenish. We're not being told that birth control is bad. So, without that pressure and/or guilt why would we have 8 kids?

Really, I don't think this woman is probably all that different from the other moms of big families in her generation. They did it because they thought they were supposed to. I am not sure women of my generation feel as much pressure anymore.

it's actually a problem in a lot of countries. Like in Western Europe and In Japan. Where birthrates have fallen to the point that the entire system is in jeopardy. Shrinking populations = shrinking entitlements = shrinking economies.

Part of it may be a fundamental pessimism and unhappiness.

The future belongs to those people who have children. That is a FACT.

I remember a RS lesson not too long ago where a woman in her early 30s (with 4 kids at the time--now 5) gave an impassioned little speech about how "the world" values material things, but we must value family by having children. So that view is still out there, I guess.

I don't even know what to think about this topic. I think my mother had babies because she liked babies, and she had no other ambitions. She didn't know what to do with the older children so much, though.

Does my religion give me a message on family size? All I can think of is "children you are able to care for" or something to that effect. But Mike couches most of the reasons for limiting family size pejoratively. Where does that come from?

That's funny. It reminds me of a character in the Gloria Naylor's book The Women of Brewster Place. She kept having children because she loved babies, but neglected them once they were older. I can see how it could happen. Babies make me want to have more babies. When they get older they have more complex needs and meeting those needs no longer brings an immediate reward as it did when they were infants. Taking care of older kids makes me think I am done.

in many societies, wealth is measured in posterity.

Not in our society. We measure our wealth in terms of currency and possessions.

everyone here is an estate sale and monster.com job listing away from complete zero.

emminently replaceable.

except to your family, and most especially to your children.

It's not just about money, it's about time. Once upon a time in agrarian societies families with lots of children were families with lots of farm workers. Life isn't like that anymore. Children are expected to spend all day in school and then come home to do homework. Add in an extracuricular activity or two and their day is full from morning to night. Parents are away from home and at work all day. They hardly have time to spend with the 1-3 kids they may have let alone think about adding 5 or 6 more to the brood.

so you would think that richer people would have more kids because they can afford to do more activities and pay for extra help.

But no, the inverse is true.

Richer people want LESS kids, despite having MORE to offer kids.

The future belongs to those that have children.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that finances and materialism aren't the only reason people aren't cranking out a baker's dozen.

And I think that children are valued differently than they used to be. There is a tension, perhaps, in the quantity vs quality. Those who have fewer children may feel that they can add more value by investing differently in the children they have than those who cannot or do not. I'm not saying one way is right or better.

I'm not sure the future belongs to welfare moms with 8 kids.

I was at a party a month ago. There was a very attractive woman there with a fairly young girl. I assumed (as anyone would) that it was a mother and daughter. Nope. They were sisters. Two of ten kids. And not blended-family kind of ten kids, actual mom-and-dad-got-pregnant-every-other-year-for-twenty-years kind of ten kids. It was interesting talking to them. They were unusually intelligent and informed, they both played several instruments and a couple of sports, and the girl conducted herself as more of an adult than a child.

I would never in a million years want to have a large family, but there are some that love it and do it well.

sure it does. In a hundred years, her genetic and cultural influence will be extraordinarily more than yours.

You have two kids. One is gay and other has 2 kids. Those 2 kids have 2 kids. So now you have 2 great-grandchildren. One has 1 kid, the other has 2 kids. Now you have 3 great-great grandchildren. And so on.

Well the lady with 8 kids. Each of them averages 4 kids. And each of those grandchildren averages 3 children. 96 great-grandchildren. Compared to your 2. If each of those g-grandchildren averages 2 kids, then she has 192 great-great grandchildren. You have 3.

But my, YOUR great-great grandchildren will be SO talented. They will be pure delights. But sadly, they died in a car wreck. Your line ended. The end.

Interesting that you see a legacy as linked solely to genetics. When my mom died, people talked a lot about her legacy, which was limited to her children, of course. I get that, but I still thought it was a little sad. I like to think most people have more in them than that.

ANd now that Mormons have 4 kids instead of 8 or 12, I guess the future for us looks grim as well. . .

outside of your family and close friends, what is your legacy?

I don't kid myself that my work is all that important to many people. And people have open access to my work product, unlike a lot of people.

What's so damn important about most of our jobs anyway? You think a corporate lawyer making a ton of money in the bay area isn't instantly replaceable, for example? Hell, if we all wrote a novel, it would be a question mark whether our own children would even read it. Much less care.

Or perhaps, for some, their legacy will be the nice vacations and travel they experienced. And the resultant flickr photos, and the trinkets that are carted to the local goodwill/DI/fleamarket when you die.

What makes you think that your legacy will be/is more than your mother's? If she served others more than you end up serving others, then I would venture her legacy will be greater.

I see our legacy to be our relations.

What did we do for those around us? What did we do for our children, our parents, our siblings and our friends?

Most of us will do little of any significance for our communities and very few of us will contribute broadly in our professional lives, except how we act as people in terms of relationships.

If you run a 11.5 sec 100 meter dash, who cares. But if you are gracious to your competitors and forced everybody to their limits, you will have an impact.

So it's not a question of genetics, but how we treated each person around us in whatever realm we traverse. How did your interaction with all persons improve or detract from that person's life experience? And did you neglect those to whom you have duties and obligations?

I never said anything about a legacy being a job. I agree that it passes in terms of who you are and probably is made greater in terms of how much service you give those around you. Which probably has little to do with how many children you bear.

If that's true, then, would you be more likely to be able to serve more with fewer children?

No.

For the same reason that the following maxim holds true: "If you want something to get done, assign it to a busy person."

A family with 10+ kids in my ward, every fast Sunday, volunteers at a soup kitchen for the homeless. In fact, here we see in terms of raw numbers, there service is greater.

Not to mention the service that is directed towards the children themselves, by the parents.

If you took your line of thinking to its conclusion, the people best able to serve humanity would be the ones that have NO children. And I reject that on its face, because if everyone did this, humanity would end. A great service to humanity is rearing good, decent human beings who multiply your values and work.

There is a great value in this approach.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, b/c this is crazy talk.

Too bad I can't find the clip of the family tree in the movie idiocracy. This would illustrate your point perfectly

No, not for the sake of arguing, but I am interested in the topic, so I continue to ask questions. I genuinely don't see how your life is better used by having more children. Perhaps it could be for some.

If most Mormons believe this (do you? I still don't even know as no one has responded to that portion of the inquiry)--why have sizes of families among Mormons shrunk?

i don't believe more is always better but neither is less always best.

duh. because they don't believe.

In many ways, Mormons are marching towards just being a non-peculiar people with non-peculiar beliefs.

We no longer are distinct. Do you believe in the three hour track?

We no longer have prophets in the truest sense, just administrative gatekeepers. Visions and miracles have ceased.

Where are JS's visions, those that proclaim to have touched the hands of Christ, or those who wrestle with the great questions?

We have become Borg, IBM and our distinctions are no more, lest you wear a white shirt.

you may be right, or not. But if you are, it doesn't mean that it will always be so.

For some men, the future is not written yet.

Ambivalence?

From where will the power come to be invested again? When will visions return?

The passion of Mormonism is sleeping, hopefully not dead.

If a person has the opportunity, and has the choice whether to have children or not, in 99.999999999999999% of cases that person's life will be better used by rearing children than doing something else. There are very few people who will serve people better absent children. Mother Teresa? Perhaps. But it was her nunnery, and not her service, that precluded her from having children.

As Waters said, the great mass of professional humanity is fungible. A farmer, lawyer, doctor, is a farmer, lawyer, doctor. I'd make an exception for artists defined broadly, although having children arguably makes artists better by expanding the range of experience to express in their chosen art form. But a lawyer sitting at her desk wondering if she can serve humanity more by not having kids? Ridiculous. A legacy of a compassionate, honest citizens is rich indeed. And the whole premise of your argument is wrong: except for the very, very few (Mother Teresa), child-rearing and service outside the family are not mutually exclusive. There's a season for all things. But if you have to choose, don't miss the Spring.

the premise of my argument is wrong? I'm not even making an argument. As I said, I'm asking questions. If you think life is better for having children, great, but how many does one have? Is one child enough? Or must a person have as many as possible? I understand this answer might be different for different circumstances, but I imagine the criteria would be similar.

I'm asking a broader question here, which is how and why does one choose to limit family size? In both the larger social context and in the Mormon cultural context.

I'm not particulary sure why you're sniping at me here, a mere lawyer sitting at her desk. . .

just keeping ever so slightly above average in child-bearing, I would guess--but tracking the trends just the same.

Sorry for the sniping. But you asked whether a person could serve humanity more by not having children, and I found the question entirely facetious, unless you're Mother Teresa, and in the photos I've seen, Mother T didn't have red hair.

Family size is a difficult question. We just had our third, and it has hit us like a freight train, and we're splayed on the tracks trying to pick ourselves up and gather our belongings. the number of children we want has decreased with each new arrival. It makes us feel like selfish, bad people. But what is best for the family? Maybe for us, it's fewer children. But does that mean we just can't hack it and b/c we're selfish and can't hack it (or don't like messes or want more date nights or can't take any heartache when children suffer or want them out of the house sooner or can't take the man poop anymore from a three-year old who refuses to be potty trained) does that make us lesser beings?

Our neighbor across the street feels no such angst. She just had her second, and while she stays home for 12 weeks of maternity leave, she continues to send her two-year old to all-day (8 am to 6 pm) daycare. There are reasons to do this, but we couldn't. Maybe if we let go of the angst we'd be able to handle having more kids.

This is not something I would do, but I know working women who have made this same decision. Their reasoning has something to do with saving their spot in a good daycare and the belief that keeping a routine with the older child will help the child adjust to life with the new one. Also, getting additional alone time with the new baby probably plays in, as well as it gives the mom additional time to rest and recover from the delivery.

Those would definitely be some reasons to do that.

But there many more reasons not to.

25% of all facebook updates are moms complaining about taking care of their children. Or exulting about time away from them.

Lots of people complain about their work and revel in their time away from work.

25% of facebook updates are moms revealing how amazing their kids are and how they have the happiest families in the world.

They're lying and I fear for them.

I've never seen any such facebook updates. Perhaps you have a different group of friends.

Yes, he must not have the twenty-something supermodel friend list that you have.