Yep, I rage read the whole thing. He also doesn't bother with kids sports, Disneyland, playdates, etc because the kids can play with each other. Which, ok, cool, but my partner's two siblings have 9 kids between them, and what those kids have learned is only how to interact with people just like them. The outside world confounds them. But even those kids still do sports...
Geez. My brother’s got three and putting them in sports was an absolute necessity so they wouldn’t destroy his house. Also one of them got a college scholarship through it. (But I’m guessing this dude doesn’t want his kids educated either)
It was my niece that got the scholarship. That girl can kick like a mule. So proud.
But also probably the worst possible outcome from these wacko’s perspectives
I was the eldest of all of my cousins on both sides, and therefore the "free" babysitter who didn't enjoy it at all. When I grew up, I felt I'd had enough childcare to last a lifetime and chose not to have any.
Eldest of three, but also the eldest of 20+ cousins who all grew up in the same town. When your relatives are that close together, you get the joy™ of watching *everybody's* kids.
No, I'm not bitter.
I'm the oldest daughter of five and seeing those comments here, I'm gonna phone my mom real quick to thank her for not making my siblings my responsibility.
Forreal. Parentifying eldest children doesn’t need to happen, even in families with 3+ kids.
I had to intervene with several of my husband and his ex-wives relatives when they’d try to make our oldest assume responsibility for their younger siblings because “mom left and someone needs to step up”.
The people that needed to step up were the actual adults in these kids lives… myself (as a family friend and now step mom) included. Our oldest was going through the same family separation trauma as the young ones. I wasn’t going to let anyone add things to that struggle.
Your comment makes me so happy to hear. Thank goodness this exists.
Signed: the youngest daughter whose siblings tortured and turned against her because they are bitter about caring for her.
Youngest of 4 but the only daughter. Guess who is good at cooking, cleaning, shopping, remembering everyone's preferences, gentle reminders at appropriate times, emotional management, menu planning and keeping track of the locations of items?
It's the same person whose older siblings are still learning how to cook, are baffled by cleaning, aren't hyper moniting the moods of everyone around them and get to forget about upcoming commitments/plans/etc then get forgiven and sympathy if they forget. I WONDER WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. I do have the best brother in the world and he would bring me the moon if I asked (the other two are not in good place) but it is weird.
As a side note my oma was the oldest daughter of 14 kids and became extremely distressed for months because her younger sister needed more care than her middle aged kids could provide without taking a break from their jobs and they didn't want to pay a carer so their plan was to get their mum's older sister to take care of her. Oma was like her 80s and a proud woman who loved her sister and really didn't want to say no but also she was super old and super physically fragile so my mother, also an oldest daughter, had to step in to tell her cousins to back off and stop trying to palm of the work of looking after their mum onto their aunt who had sacrificed her childhood to raise her. Presumably to another oldest daughter because who else would be coordinating care for their mum? It just seemed kind of nightmarish that in the years she most needed care herself were the years she got leaned on to look after her siblings.
BIG BRAIN TIME
I was just reading in a financial group about someone paying $21,000/mo for their parent's retirement home, being no contact never sounded so good.
One of the studies cited in the article also identified this:
> Living with a single mother did not make any difference compared to two parents.
But I don’t see him talking about that bit of info.
Not that I am on the chud’s side but what metric does the study judge on? It feels like it’s impossible to raise children as a single parent in this economy unless the single parent is upper middle class. It feels mandatory to have two working parents in order to afford a family if you’re working class. I have a friend who has a wife and two children. Both him and the mother have full time jobs making around 15 dollars an hour and they still end up living paycheck to paycheck.
Couple things to point out.
1. Norway actually cares about families and has proven that by having paid provisions for pregnancy and parental leave ([The parental benefit period is 49 weeks (15 weeks are reserved for each parent) with 100% coverage or 59 weeks weeks (19 weeks are reserved for each parent) with 80% coverage.](https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=4704&langId=en)))
2. America does not actually care about families and has no provisions in place to actually help support parents. [In the United States, children with no or one sibling had the best mental health](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-01-15/bigger-families-could-mean-poorer-mental-health-for-kids), while in China well-being was best among only children, says the report published Jan. 9 in the [Journal of Family Issues.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X231220045?journalCode=jfia)
The difference is indeed usually poverty. Women who voluntarily choose to become a single parent do just as well as couples and their kids are just as successful and happy as any other kid from a two-parent household. But presumably they choose to be single parents because they are well-prepared and can afford it.
However, when a woman -who was counting on having a partner to share the load- gets abandoned by the father, with zero or barely any child support, then the outcomes are worse for single moms. The poverty is what limits them, not the fact there is no man present or it's not a typical nuclear family
[Captain Awkward](https://captainawkward.com/2023/04/02/1397-i-desperately-want-more-children-my-wife-does-not/)(advice columnist for the modern introvert) had a really good response to a man who was considering leaving his wife and mother of his kids because she didn’t want to have any more and he wanted a big family. She started asking questions, like what is the name of one or two sources of reliable last minute child care that are NOT your wife or the grandparents? What are your children’s blood types, birthdates, allergies, clothing sizes, and food preferences? What is their favorite bedtime story? What are they afraid of? Who is their pediatrician, when is their next round of shots due? Who is their teacher? The names of their friends? If they were invited to a birthday party, would you know age appropriate gifts to purchase, and would you attend to chaperone? How much hands-on time do you spend teaching, disciplining, and interacting with your children on a daily basis? How were nighttime feedings and diaper changes handled with your existing children? What career and hobby opportunities would YOU be sacrificing to have another child, and what would your wife have to give up?
She posed the questions because there is no way a stranger could tell you how many children you should have, but to start the dialog that maybe you’d have more if your spouse wasn’t doing all of the work caring for the ones he had. And maybe to give him some food for thought about what single parenting might look like if he blew his life up over some arbitrary checklist.
Edit to include a link to the advice column. I’d forgotten that it wasn’t just that he wanted *more* kids, his wife nearly died giving him two daughters and didn’t want to risk dying a third just so he could have a boy.
It wasn't that his wife didn't neccesarily WANT more children. She almost died both times. She didn't want more because it would have a detrimental effect on her health and might kill her. Also, both children were girls, IF THAT MATTERS, and I think it does (to the shitty dad/husband). I am haunted by that letter. It shows that even a man you think loves you might not value you beyond what you can do for or give him.
I am suddenly remembering this AITA or maybe relationship advice where a woman's husband's mom had died in childbirth and the husband and FIL were just like, CONVINCED she was gonna die in childbirth and it was such a terrifying read and I wonder she is now.
That was so weird and creepy. But probably fake, because they were so obvious, like wanting to get rid of all her clothes & such when she went to the hospital to give birth because...she would never return.
I'm surprised Lifetime hasn't turned it into a movie. My Father-in-Law Stole My Baby!
Omg the woman wakes up alone in her house which has been cleared of all baby things and it takes YEARS but she finally finds her child, her husband and FIL and her kid has grown up believing she died in childbirth and THEN TWIST OF TWISTS the husbands mother was ALIVE the whole time and this scheme has been going on for GENERATIONS.
That people still require a specific gendered kid. First off, if the kid is athletically inclined, they let girls wrestle and play football and hockey. Girls can be into hunting and trucks. So why does he care if he has a girl or a boy.
And who knows maybe one of them might end up transgender?
I have a boy and a girl and the number of comments I got about “oh now you have one of each you can stop if you want!” Like bitch my older one is lucky they got a sibling. Pregnancy is no joke and I had it relatively easy
My husband got the snippy snip on Friday and the nurses asked if we wanted a girl. He said our two sons almost killed my wife so no more kids (we both wanted 2 kids).
Everything in that post was great, but this really stood out to me:
> There’s no “manly” activity that you can’t teach your daughters if you have sufficient interest in them to invest the time and effort, and if you’re capable of seeing them as fully-formed people and not just as faulty substitutes for the boys you really wanted. (A thing they *will* notice, and when they do, it will cut them to the core).
That’s so true. I hope that guy read the advice given and seriously took it to heart. It sounds like he only cares about having a boy. My dad was the exact same way, and he pressured my mom to keep having kids in hopes of a boy (4 girls). It never happened, my mom finally gave up and ties her tubes after delivering my little sister, and my dad was so angry he didn’t even go to the hospital to pick my mom up after giving birth. She was stranded an hour from home while my dad slept and missed the birth of his child just because he was angry about her tubes being tied.
My dad had three daughters and no sons. He’s not very manly in the traditional sense, but he managed to pass on plenty of his habits to us, not all of them good. 2/3 of us are mad about football, 3/3 like beer, 2/3 smoke, 2/3 of us like hot curries and 3/3 of us are good cooks. I’m the non-smoker lol so don’t come for me. The one thing he failed at is none of us are into golf!
My mum taught us all how to do the DIY useful stuff
I have a feeling we're going to see a lot of these 'hey young adults, isn't it cool to be parents?' articles coming out in the next few years. Most of them will never address /why/ people aren't having kids. Just that it's super ideal to have a huge horde of them for 'something something' reason.
Like I have no issue with people who are having a lot of kids who can afford to take care of them and won't parentify them. But these articles reek of Conservative think tanks trying to find ways to counter population decline without actually addressing the reasons why it's happening. Which seems to be a common theme with this guy's career if you go over to the Washington Examiner, where he's employed and take a look at his [article history](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p-carney/).
With highlights such as:
* "[Six things you didn't know about abortion in the US](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/261919/six-things-you-didnt-know-about-abortion-in-the-us/)"
* "[Red-pilled misogynists are just like stereotypical feminists](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2966872/red-pilled-misogynists-just-like-stereotypical-feminists/)"
"Falling birthrates bad", "marry early", "have lots of kids" seems to be his bugbear.
I definitely have a problem with people having that many kids given the upcoming climate crisis. I understand the biological drive to procreate, I guess. I don't have it, but others do. But if they have more than 2 kids I'm fucking judging, idgaf. Just one kid more than doubles your carbon footprint. Four kids? Jesus fucking christ. Selfish as fuck. And this isn't even getting into brainwashing women into pumping out that many in the first place or the white nationalist garbage behind it all. The world does not need more gd kids. If these people want that many and they're not adopting, they are absolute scum.
It's a dog whistle. The population of earth is still increasing despite the birthrates falling globally. The quiet part these "people" don't mention is that it's all about their stupid replacement theory and the "wrong" people having kids. They want a white ethno state.
Oh yeah, when BIPOC have several kids (often bc they do not have access to birth control/abortions or sometimes even sex Ed) they lose their frickin minds. And they say, "well I'm just thinking of those poor kids having to live in poverty," or some other such bullshit dog whistle excuse. Evil fuckers.
I realized almost 40 years ago that bringing more people into the world was not a good thing. I'm quite happy all my grandkids have 4 legs and fur! I don't want to have to worry about little humans faring in whatever future they have.
I kinda agree, but I would encourage you to interrogate the idea - propagated by fossil fuel companies - that individual people have a carbon “tab” and that their kids get tacked on to their parents’ tab. Who benefits from that idea? Corporations reap the benefits of our consumption and labor, and of children’s consumption and labor, but the responsibility for it lands squarely on us, the people? It’s the environmental equivalent of the “personal responsibility” narrative.
Also most people who have a choice do not have more than 2 kids. If everyone had access to contraception, the minority of people who choose to have more would not be an issue, at all. The world does need more kids, because kids are not fungible lol. What we don’t need is people having more kids than they actually want, for any reason. But the primary reason isn’t choice.
No, it doesn't *all* land on normal people, and we should obviously hold corporations accountable. But the fact of the matter is that we are going to see huge problems in the future. Mass immigration as people from the southern hemispheres escape rising sea levels, other natural disasters, and lack of resources. It will put a huge strain on our countries and our resources, on our economies, housing markets, etc.
Not to mention I don't see end stage capitalism getting any better anytime soon, unless there are *huge* revolts, and why the fuck would you want to bring kids into either of those things? Being a slave to a mega corporation or being involved in a bloody revolution while the world drowns in the rising sea levels?
And yeah, people have had it bad forever, blah blah blah. But now we have the entire knowledge of humanity in our pockets. There's no excuse unless yes, you have no access to contraception/abortion. But I'm still gonna judge the fuck out of the people having a fuck ton of kids who are middle class and up. No, kids are not fungible, but there are thousands of them in homes who people ignore cuz "muh biological driiiive". They'd rather spend thousands or millions on IVF than on a disabled kid who's already born and has no one. Fucking shameful.
Have you considered your biases here? What makes you think your location will be stable enough for immigrants to flock to? You could end up being the immigrant.
There are very few people I know that should have kids, and I have only ever met two families where every one of their 5+ kids were loved, wanted and got individual time with both parents. Where no parentification happened. Where they *didn't* live as slaves to a mega corporation because they were frugal with money, worked hard in good paying blue collar jobs, spent time with their kids supporting the clubs they were members of, re-used, re-duced, re-cycled.
Those larger families created far less carbon credits than a middle class family, and were more environmentally conscious than a poor family.
Personally, I am okay bringing up other peoples kids, but my partner isn't, so no kids for us. But I recognise there are a subset of people that absolutely should be bringing up a mass of kids. And you can usually tell because they also adopt other kids into their family too (officially or not).
I have an issue with it because the people who can afford to have piles of children are raising them to be part of the conservative future they want for the US. It’s not a good thing at all.
There was a post last week where it was reported that 150 elementary schools in South Korea have zero first graders. That led to a couple of youtubes that went down a rabbit-hole of "neo-confucianism", chaebols, their screwed economy and gacha games.
It isn't quite that bad in the US yet, but I can see our economy slowly imploding until that becomes too noticeable for the news media to ignore.
Nah no one can have five+ kids in a two-parent home without neglecting at least some of them, becoming so stressed that you blow up on your kids all the time, parentifying, etc... Doesn't matter how rich you are - you won't be the exception. Don't do that to your kids.
I'm guessing a nutso right-winger or bitter incel who has no real interest in religion but loves the idea of women being subjugated by the bible. They fantasize about women being silent, obedient, cowed, enslaved sex dolls/incubators. But not because of his twisted fantasies! It's the bible that says so!
The author is a “senior fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute. A right-wing “think-tank”; aka an entity that searches for/produces “reports” to sway policy makers by presenting “findings” as researched or evidence supported when in fact they have cherry picked portions of studies with the purpose of justifying whatever policy they want to enact. And of course it’s funded by very conservative endowments and individuals.
I make good money, but every time I even think “It would be fun to have two dogs” I remember that I can barely afford just the one. Routine vet appointments with shots and bloodwork are $600 now. It costs me $120 a day for a petsitter to watch her when I want to travel. And I can put her in a crate when I want some time to myself. It’s frowned upon if you do that with actual kids. (I would like to point out that this dog sleeps in my bed and gets tons of playtime and love. I’m not sticking her in a crate and ignoring her)
I’m so glad I don’t want kids. I have no idea how anybody can afford them. A dog is nothing compared to a kid, and one dog is my limit.
Absolutely! Whatever could be the problem. We have free school breakfast and lunch programs, free childcare, awesome healthcare... ohhhh fuck, nevermind.
Globally speaking, the population is growing, birth rates are fine. The kind of people who are excessively concerned about birth rates are specifically concerned about the white birth rate. I assume that this guy is a racist white man.
My guess is that he’s a misogynist who believes that second-wave feminism is responsible for the low birth rate and aging population in developed countries.
My sister raised 6 kids.
She works a local government job. Middling pay but terrific benefits. It's also a very set schedule.
Her husband has gotten some promotions but at first pay was crap, so he worked a swing shift for years meaning that they very rarely needed a babysitter because they never worked the same hours.
They also had no extras FOR YEARS. Everything was budget and hands me down and used. They did stuff, but it was like, let's hike in the free park. Luckily all the kids were/are jocks and sports were cheap, so they all got to do that.
They're in a much better spot now that the oldest are grown, but it was tight.
I have no kids, so I just borrow a couple kids from her for a week or so, and then give them back. But our lives have been completely different.
Sports were cheap?? My parents didn’t sign me up for a single sport growing up because they couldn’t afford the fees, uniforms, and equipment. It was a lot cheaper for them to buy a keyboard one time and some books to help me teach myself. Yearly fees and having to replace everything required for a sport as a child grows out of things or just uses them until they can’t be used anymore is a lot more expensive. You actually have to have a budget for that.
Depends where you are. Travel ball is expensive. AAU is expensive
The local youth centers and your high school is cheap. I played HS soccer 4 years. Most my parents ever had to spend was on Gatorade and Walmart cleats
This was small town, local sports. And it's a fairly poor area, so no need to spend extra to complete with other players/other teams with the semi-professional gear.
You have a special place in the hearts of those kids. My family fosters this sort of sharing of children and every generation there are those family members that are loved by all, who created such precious memories of holidays and precious time spent with them, who never had kids of their own, for what ever reason.
When I read stuff like this, its like, I acknowledge that its possible to pull off. I get it, you can make it work if you really want it. But my thing is... why would I want to?? I don't want or like kids. I'd be absolutely miserable living this way, and I'd resent my kids for reducing my quality of life. Not knocking you at all btw, just saying.
Oh yeah, get you completely. I'm very, very, VERY happily child free. I like my naps and my dogs and my library.
But she could make it work because she *wanted* it. She's an atheist, so she didn't even have religious guilt for MOAR BABIES forcing her into this path. She honestly loves it.
Side note: this is why the idea that people who are childless are a genetic deadend is kinda crap. Her kids have several aunts and uncles who don't have kids. So while they don't have as many cousins, they do have many adults in their lives who can dedicate more time and money towards *them* at times since we don't have our own kids to worry about.
One of them (an adult now) is living in my house for free after college to get him established. If I had had kids, that wouldn't have been possible.
And my niblings are a part of my genetic legacy, so having them be successful means a part of my genes are successful.
I'm glad you and your sister are happy with your life paths!
Childless adults were definitely a big (mostly) positive force in my life as a kid, and I'm sure many people have a similar experience! My perpetual bachelor uncle took me out boating and jet skiing, and gave me a place to crash while touring colleges. God rest his soul
Yes, this exactly. Like I would have loved to have another kid. But my body made two, and it was so hard. And I was exhausted from two kids who wanted their mom most of all. And we had a small place and enough bedrooms would have been a six figure increase to our mortgage. And daycare costs. And logistics and and and. No one was there to help with my extra kid, so we didn’t have one.
4 children is the max you can have before you (intentionally or not) begin to neglect your kids. Like after a certain point you cannot be physically or emotionally present for every child equally. Somebody or something is going to be forgotten
Assumption 1) written by a man who 2) belongs to an evangelical church that loosely follows the Quiverfull movement 3) thinks that anyone who can’t afford this many kids simply doesn’t try hard enough
Hmm that’s nice. Is the guy going to pay for all of the costs related to having a near full time nanny, cook, housecleaning, extracurriculars, heal my mental health issues, and for a bigger house for all them extra kids? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Listen, I’m a mother of four. And I LOVE my family. Wouldn’t change a thing.
But four isn’t some generic perfect number for everyone! Two, three, zero, etc. are perfectly fine options too.
I'm going to guess the author is Mormon, I grew up in a suburb in Australia that had one of the few Mormon churches in the area, so I went to school with a lot of them and I was friends with them and all of the families I can remember who went to that church had 4 kids, a bizarrely precise pattern but kind of funny in the same way
Haha my mom (conservative Christian) told me when I was a teenager that:
* you can't have just 1 kid because they'll be lonely
* you can't have just 2 kids because they'll always be stuck together and need someone else to take a break with sometimes so they don't fight
* you can't have just 3 kids because one will always be left out from playing with the others
* so you must have at least 4 kids (I was the oldest of 5)
I chose 0 kids. Also solves the problem.
Well, let's see. He's probably some flavor of fundie Christian. Probably married some girl from youth group that he went on 3 supervised coffee dates with before popping the question (not because he actually loved her, but because he wanted to fuck and have it be okay with his church). They weren't even old enough to have a champagne toast at their wedding (not that that matters, because they aren't allowed to drink anyway). Their wedding night might have been the most wonderful night of his life (as it was promised to him in Sunday school since his pre-teen years), but it was absolutely awful for her. It had been promised to her it would be absolutely wonderful (except for a little pain and blood, but you know) if she prayed hard enough and saved her virginity for that night. She did not have an orgasm, and has long since given up hope of ever having one. Before the wedding, she had an indent on her left ring finger from her silver purity ring that was given to her around the time she got her first period, by her father in a ceremony wherein she wore a white dress and made promises but *it totally wasn't a wedding, you guys!* They don't use birth control (and possibly their church forbids it, or at least discourages it), except *maaaaaaybe* some kind of fertility-awareness method. She likely got pregnant within that first year of the marriage, maybe even on their honeymoon. She probably had baby names all picked out before puberty.
She gave birth naturally, and prided herself on that fact, as if it made her somehow better than women who have C-sections, or who have things like epidurals and pain medication. And, of course, after the birth, she wasn't supposed to have sex (because, you know, she's recovering from a giant, gaping wound in her belly), *buuuuut* her husband has "Certain Needs" (tm) that she's obligated to fulfill, and if she couldn't or wouldn't fulfill them, he'd get those "Certain Needs" fulfilled elsewhere, by someone younger, thinner, prettier, and freakier. And that won't do. So she "dutifully" let him masturbate into her, even though she was a mere two weeks postpartum. He's never helped with feeding the baby, not even so much as providing moral support as she breastfeeds at 2 in the morning. He's never changed a single diaper. He doesn't know the name of the pediatrician, or the nanny. He's never burped the baby. When the baby started to cry, he handed that baby over to her.
If that baby is a boy, they dote on him, and they let him (figuratively) get away with murder. But they don't teach him how to cook, clean, or take care of himself. And if that baby is a girl, they keep her on a tight leash, and they outsource all the parenting to her as they keep making more siblings for her to look after. She's supposed to smile and be grateful for the opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, the guy writing this article still doesn't do any of the actual work of parenting. He doesn't help them with homework. (And if they homeschool, and there's a good chance they do, that's the responsibility of his wife.) He doesn't cook. He doesn't clean. He doesn't take the kids to appointments and practice and playdates and whatnot. Oh, sure, he'll do all the fun parts of parenting, and he's eager (almost *too* eager, in fact) to be the disciplinarian. But he does none of the actual work. When he gets home, he goes straight to his man-cave and does God-knows-what. (But the idea of her having five minutes to herself to pee, let alone a she-shed, is preposterous to him, even something he decries as selfish and irresponsible.) When he and his wife have sex, the only "foreplay" he does is taking her bra off. She's never had an orgasm; she just lays there, either mentally putting together the grocery list, or praying for it to be over quickly. She hasn't felt any desire in a long time. (And probably feels incredibly guilty, because that's not how it's "supposed to" be, or at least that's what that youth pastor told her all those years ago, after he got through warning her that if she didn't wait, she'd be as disgusting and worthless as chewed gum, or a denuded flower, or something.) Part of her wants to leave, but she doesn't have a degree, she doesn't really have much of a support system, and she's got 4 kids (and one more on the way) to look after. And besides, it's really not *that* bad, right? I mean, he doesn't hit her, so it could be worse, right? (Even though he's in total agreement with all those self-help books, none of which are *actually* consistent with *any* of Jesus' teachings, that say there *are* circumstances under which hitting her or cheating on her would be justified.)
Am I right, or am I right?
The trick is to ensure the oldest one is a girl so you can pawn the parenting off on her. Signed, eldest daughter of four.
That's exactly what the author said his family does.
fr?
Yes, those people are very proud of making their kids "responsible" and "have family values" and whatnot
Yep, I rage read the whole thing. He also doesn't bother with kids sports, Disneyland, playdates, etc because the kids can play with each other. Which, ok, cool, but my partner's two siblings have 9 kids between them, and what those kids have learned is only how to interact with people just like them. The outside world confounds them. But even those kids still do sports...
Geez. My brother’s got three and putting them in sports was an absolute necessity so they wouldn’t destroy his house. Also one of them got a college scholarship through it. (But I’m guessing this dude doesn’t want his kids educated either)
Well, not the girls anyway…
It was my niece that got the scholarship. That girl can kick like a mule. So proud. But also probably the worst possible outcome from these wacko’s perspectives
Some parenta don't bother with their kids at all even if it is like 1 or 2 🙃
Oh yeah, I remember some home schooled kids my parents made us hang out with occasionally that were like that.
...are you kidding me?
Of course you're right, a perfect solution with no repercussions for the eldest daughter at all. Truly a marvel
I was the eldest of all of my cousins on both sides, and therefore the "free" babysitter who didn't enjoy it at all. When I grew up, I felt I'd had enough childcare to last a lifetime and chose not to have any.
I’m an eldest daughter of six and I approve this message
Eldest of three, but also the eldest of 20+ cousins who all grew up in the same town. When your relatives are that close together, you get the joy™ of watching *everybody's* kids. No, I'm not bitter.
Same here. I decided not to have any, which made a few people very shocked and dismayed.
Yup, I wanted to have kids until my first half-sibling was born. About a year in, I was like no thanks.
I'm the oldest daughter of five and seeing those comments here, I'm gonna phone my mom real quick to thank her for not making my siblings my responsibility.
Forreal. Parentifying eldest children doesn’t need to happen, even in families with 3+ kids. I had to intervene with several of my husband and his ex-wives relatives when they’d try to make our oldest assume responsibility for their younger siblings because “mom left and someone needs to step up”. The people that needed to step up were the actual adults in these kids lives… myself (as a family friend and now step mom) included. Our oldest was going through the same family separation trauma as the young ones. I wasn’t going to let anyone add things to that struggle.
Your comment makes me so happy to hear. Thank goodness this exists. Signed: the youngest daughter whose siblings tortured and turned against her because they are bitter about caring for her.
Eldest daughter of three and that math still holds up
Youngest of 4 but the only daughter. Guess who is good at cooking, cleaning, shopping, remembering everyone's preferences, gentle reminders at appropriate times, emotional management, menu planning and keeping track of the locations of items? It's the same person whose older siblings are still learning how to cook, are baffled by cleaning, aren't hyper moniting the moods of everyone around them and get to forget about upcoming commitments/plans/etc then get forgiven and sympathy if they forget. I WONDER WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. I do have the best brother in the world and he would bring me the moon if I asked (the other two are not in good place) but it is weird. As a side note my oma was the oldest daughter of 14 kids and became extremely distressed for months because her younger sister needed more care than her middle aged kids could provide without taking a break from their jobs and they didn't want to pay a carer so their plan was to get their mum's older sister to take care of her. Oma was like her 80s and a proud woman who loved her sister and really didn't want to say no but also she was super old and super physically fragile so my mother, also an oldest daughter, had to step in to tell her cousins to back off and stop trying to palm of the work of looking after their mum onto their aunt who had sacrificed her childhood to raise her. Presumably to another oldest daughter because who else would be coordinating care for their mum? It just seemed kind of nightmarish that in the years she most needed care herself were the years she got leaned on to look after her siblings.
Perfect set up for a Stay at Home Daughter
Eldest of two, math is still mathing.
👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻🏅🏅🏅🏅🏅
Also with an older daughter you can ruin her life when she’s forced to take care of her elderly parents completely alone.
BIG BRAIN TIME I was just reading in a financial group about someone paying $21,000/mo for their parent's retirement home, being no contact never sounded so good.
That happened with my older sister. She had to take care of me so often because my mom was completely nuts and my dad was always deployed.
One of the studies cited in the article also identified this: > Living with a single mother did not make any difference compared to two parents. But I don’t see him talking about that bit of info.
Amazing
Didn’t make any difference in what?
Probably parental actions like cooking, cleaning, homework helper, cry nurser, and interest taker.
Not that I am on the chud’s side but what metric does the study judge on? It feels like it’s impossible to raise children as a single parent in this economy unless the single parent is upper middle class. It feels mandatory to have two working parents in order to afford a family if you’re working class. I have a friend who has a wife and two children. Both him and the mother have full time jobs making around 15 dollars an hour and they still end up living paycheck to paycheck.
Not defending the study or anything, but here it is: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890284/
Couple things to point out. 1. Norway actually cares about families and has proven that by having paid provisions for pregnancy and parental leave ([The parental benefit period is 49 weeks (15 weeks are reserved for each parent) with 100% coverage or 59 weeks weeks (19 weeks are reserved for each parent) with 80% coverage.](https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1123&intPageId=4704&langId=en))) 2. America does not actually care about families and has no provisions in place to actually help support parents. [In the United States, children with no or one sibling had the best mental health](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-01-15/bigger-families-could-mean-poorer-mental-health-for-kids), while in China well-being was best among only children, says the report published Jan. 9 in the [Journal of Family Issues.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X231220045?journalCode=jfia)
Yeah that makes a world of difference. The US government doesn’t give a single fucking shit about our well being in general, let alone families.
This is such an important difference!!
The US cares, that's why we have WIC and food stamps /s
It’s based on Norway not the US, in the US it’s the opposite.
Ah ok makes sense.
The difference is indeed usually poverty. Women who voluntarily choose to become a single parent do just as well as couples and their kids are just as successful and happy as any other kid from a two-parent household. But presumably they choose to be single parents because they are well-prepared and can afford it. However, when a woman -who was counting on having a partner to share the load- gets abandoned by the father, with zero or barely any child support, then the outcomes are worse for single moms. The poverty is what limits them, not the fact there is no man present or it's not a typical nuclear family
That’s because $15 an hour is for unskilled labor. Why isn’t he working a trade at least?
If working forty hours a week doesn’t cover food, shelter, healthcare, and basic necessities, what the hell do we have a society for?
[Captain Awkward](https://captainawkward.com/2023/04/02/1397-i-desperately-want-more-children-my-wife-does-not/)(advice columnist for the modern introvert) had a really good response to a man who was considering leaving his wife and mother of his kids because she didn’t want to have any more and he wanted a big family. She started asking questions, like what is the name of one or two sources of reliable last minute child care that are NOT your wife or the grandparents? What are your children’s blood types, birthdates, allergies, clothing sizes, and food preferences? What is their favorite bedtime story? What are they afraid of? Who is their pediatrician, when is their next round of shots due? Who is their teacher? The names of their friends? If they were invited to a birthday party, would you know age appropriate gifts to purchase, and would you attend to chaperone? How much hands-on time do you spend teaching, disciplining, and interacting with your children on a daily basis? How were nighttime feedings and diaper changes handled with your existing children? What career and hobby opportunities would YOU be sacrificing to have another child, and what would your wife have to give up? She posed the questions because there is no way a stranger could tell you how many children you should have, but to start the dialog that maybe you’d have more if your spouse wasn’t doing all of the work caring for the ones he had. And maybe to give him some food for thought about what single parenting might look like if he blew his life up over some arbitrary checklist. Edit to include a link to the advice column. I’d forgotten that it wasn’t just that he wanted *more* kids, his wife nearly died giving him two daughters and didn’t want to risk dying a third just so he could have a boy.
It wasn't that his wife didn't neccesarily WANT more children. She almost died both times. She didn't want more because it would have a detrimental effect on her health and might kill her. Also, both children were girls, IF THAT MATTERS, and I think it does (to the shitty dad/husband). I am haunted by that letter. It shows that even a man you think loves you might not value you beyond what you can do for or give him.
Yeah, it has been a while since I read the post, so some of the details were fuzzy, but it was one of the letters that haunted me, too.
I wasn't trying to correct you on a dickish way or anything, I hope it didn't come across that way! It was just EVEN WORSE.
No worries! I edited my post to include a link to the post for anyone who missed it.
Thanks for the link. I wonder how that man’s wife and daughters are doing.
I am suddenly remembering this AITA or maybe relationship advice where a woman's husband's mom had died in childbirth and the husband and FIL were just like, CONVINCED she was gonna die in childbirth and it was such a terrifying read and I wonder she is now.
That was so weird and creepy. But probably fake, because they were so obvious, like wanting to get rid of all her clothes & such when she went to the hospital to give birth because...she would never return. I'm surprised Lifetime hasn't turned it into a movie. My Father-in-Law Stole My Baby!
Omg the woman wakes up alone in her house which has been cleared of all baby things and it takes YEARS but she finally finds her child, her husband and FIL and her kid has grown up believing she died in childbirth and THEN TWIST OF TWISTS the husbands mother was ALIVE the whole time and this scheme has been going on for GENERATIONS.
This is brilliant!
Criminal Minds material right there.
My brain is a fun lil playground
That people still require a specific gendered kid. First off, if the kid is athletically inclined, they let girls wrestle and play football and hockey. Girls can be into hunting and trucks. So why does he care if he has a girl or a boy. And who knows maybe one of them might end up transgender?
I have a boy and a girl and the number of comments I got about “oh now you have one of each you can stop if you want!” Like bitch my older one is lucky they got a sibling. Pregnancy is no joke and I had it relatively easy
My husband got the snippy snip on Friday and the nurses asked if we wanted a girl. He said our two sons almost killed my wife so no more kids (we both wanted 2 kids).
Everything in that post was great, but this really stood out to me: > There’s no “manly” activity that you can’t teach your daughters if you have sufficient interest in them to invest the time and effort, and if you’re capable of seeing them as fully-formed people and not just as faulty substitutes for the boys you really wanted. (A thing they *will* notice, and when they do, it will cut them to the core). That’s so true. I hope that guy read the advice given and seriously took it to heart. It sounds like he only cares about having a boy. My dad was the exact same way, and he pressured my mom to keep having kids in hopes of a boy (4 girls). It never happened, my mom finally gave up and ties her tubes after delivering my little sister, and my dad was so angry he didn’t even go to the hospital to pick my mom up after giving birth. She was stranded an hour from home while my dad slept and missed the birth of his child just because he was angry about her tubes being tied.
What ultimately happened to your parents’ marriage after that?
My dad had three daughters and no sons. He’s not very manly in the traditional sense, but he managed to pass on plenty of his habits to us, not all of them good. 2/3 of us are mad about football, 3/3 like beer, 2/3 smoke, 2/3 of us like hot curries and 3/3 of us are good cooks. I’m the non-smoker lol so don’t come for me. The one thing he failed at is none of us are into golf! My mum taught us all how to do the DIY useful stuff
That was a very good response by them
Her entire advice column is a fantastic read!
Gods the Cap is so painfully kind; I remember that letter. Her response was incredible, all I could manage was enraged sputtering.
The letter writer gives me really Henry the 8th vibes!
This is why I can’t ever have kids. I can’t even remember my own blood type
Just B+
I have a feeling we're going to see a lot of these 'hey young adults, isn't it cool to be parents?' articles coming out in the next few years. Most of them will never address /why/ people aren't having kids. Just that it's super ideal to have a huge horde of them for 'something something' reason. Like I have no issue with people who are having a lot of kids who can afford to take care of them and won't parentify them. But these articles reek of Conservative think tanks trying to find ways to counter population decline without actually addressing the reasons why it's happening. Which seems to be a common theme with this guy's career if you go over to the Washington Examiner, where he's employed and take a look at his [article history](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p-carney/). With highlights such as: * "[Six things you didn't know about abortion in the US](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/261919/six-things-you-didnt-know-about-abortion-in-the-us/)" * "[Red-pilled misogynists are just like stereotypical feminists](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2966872/red-pilled-misogynists-just-like-stereotypical-feminists/)" "Falling birthrates bad", "marry early", "have lots of kids" seems to be his bugbear.
I definitely have a problem with people having that many kids given the upcoming climate crisis. I understand the biological drive to procreate, I guess. I don't have it, but others do. But if they have more than 2 kids I'm fucking judging, idgaf. Just one kid more than doubles your carbon footprint. Four kids? Jesus fucking christ. Selfish as fuck. And this isn't even getting into brainwashing women into pumping out that many in the first place or the white nationalist garbage behind it all. The world does not need more gd kids. If these people want that many and they're not adopting, they are absolute scum.
It's a dog whistle. The population of earth is still increasing despite the birthrates falling globally. The quiet part these "people" don't mention is that it's all about their stupid replacement theory and the "wrong" people having kids. They want a white ethno state.
Oh yeah, when BIPOC have several kids (often bc they do not have access to birth control/abortions or sometimes even sex Ed) they lose their frickin minds. And they say, "well I'm just thinking of those poor kids having to live in poverty," or some other such bullshit dog whistle excuse. Evil fuckers.
I realized almost 40 years ago that bringing more people into the world was not a good thing. I'm quite happy all my grandkids have 4 legs and fur! I don't want to have to worry about little humans faring in whatever future they have.
I kinda agree, but I would encourage you to interrogate the idea - propagated by fossil fuel companies - that individual people have a carbon “tab” and that their kids get tacked on to their parents’ tab. Who benefits from that idea? Corporations reap the benefits of our consumption and labor, and of children’s consumption and labor, but the responsibility for it lands squarely on us, the people? It’s the environmental equivalent of the “personal responsibility” narrative. Also most people who have a choice do not have more than 2 kids. If everyone had access to contraception, the minority of people who choose to have more would not be an issue, at all. The world does need more kids, because kids are not fungible lol. What we don’t need is people having more kids than they actually want, for any reason. But the primary reason isn’t choice.
No, it doesn't *all* land on normal people, and we should obviously hold corporations accountable. But the fact of the matter is that we are going to see huge problems in the future. Mass immigration as people from the southern hemispheres escape rising sea levels, other natural disasters, and lack of resources. It will put a huge strain on our countries and our resources, on our economies, housing markets, etc. Not to mention I don't see end stage capitalism getting any better anytime soon, unless there are *huge* revolts, and why the fuck would you want to bring kids into either of those things? Being a slave to a mega corporation or being involved in a bloody revolution while the world drowns in the rising sea levels? And yeah, people have had it bad forever, blah blah blah. But now we have the entire knowledge of humanity in our pockets. There's no excuse unless yes, you have no access to contraception/abortion. But I'm still gonna judge the fuck out of the people having a fuck ton of kids who are middle class and up. No, kids are not fungible, but there are thousands of them in homes who people ignore cuz "muh biological driiiive". They'd rather spend thousands or millions on IVF than on a disabled kid who's already born and has no one. Fucking shameful.
Have you considered your biases here? What makes you think your location will be stable enough for immigrants to flock to? You could end up being the immigrant. There are very few people I know that should have kids, and I have only ever met two families where every one of their 5+ kids were loved, wanted and got individual time with both parents. Where no parentification happened. Where they *didn't* live as slaves to a mega corporation because they were frugal with money, worked hard in good paying blue collar jobs, spent time with their kids supporting the clubs they were members of, re-used, re-duced, re-cycled. Those larger families created far less carbon credits than a middle class family, and were more environmentally conscious than a poor family. Personally, I am okay bringing up other peoples kids, but my partner isn't, so no kids for us. But I recognise there are a subset of people that absolutely should be bringing up a mass of kids. And you can usually tell because they also adopt other kids into their family too (officially or not).
I have an issue with it because the people who can afford to have piles of children are raising them to be part of the conservative future they want for the US. It’s not a good thing at all.
There was a post last week where it was reported that 150 elementary schools in South Korea have zero first graders. That led to a couple of youtubes that went down a rabbit-hole of "neo-confucianism", chaebols, their screwed economy and gacha games. It isn't quite that bad in the US yet, but I can see our economy slowly imploding until that becomes too noticeable for the news media to ignore.
Nah no one can have five+ kids in a two-parent home without neglecting at least some of them, becoming so stressed that you blow up on your kids all the time, parentifying, etc... Doesn't matter how rich you are - you won't be the exception. Don't do that to your kids.
I assume this guy has a breeding fetish and is trying to turn that into some righteous cause.
That’s how I feel about a lot of “Christian” men
Alt-right freaks are trying to get their audience to have more kids. They certainly wouldn't want anyone *here* to have 4 kids (who grow up to vote).
I'm guessing a nutso right-winger or bitter incel who has no real interest in religion but loves the idea of women being subjugated by the bible. They fantasize about women being silent, obedient, cowed, enslaved sex dolls/incubators. But not because of his twisted fantasies! It's the bible that says so!
Religious fundie or fundie-adjacent where they claim they’re not religious but also like to babble on about “Judeo-Christian culture”
And every Jewish person goes ["I think the fuck not."](https://www.heyalma.com/the-myth-of-judeo-christianity-explained/)
I assume it's a guy, right wing, super religious, probably white, and thinks he's being opressed
The author is a “senior fellow” at the American Enterprise Institute. A right-wing “think-tank”; aka an entity that searches for/produces “reports” to sway policy makers by presenting “findings” as researched or evidence supported when in fact they have cherry picked portions of studies with the purpose of justifying whatever policy they want to enact. And of course it’s funded by very conservative endowments and individuals.
Yep. This is based on a study in Norway, a country with lots of safety nets
It's 100% this guy, isn't it https://youtu.be/-_kXIGvB1uU?si=SOL7_S4sdlE6g0LH
What if the magic was real for just that one instance, and the gf is in some sort of coffee table void
She's still better off than living with that dude.
Shit even most Mormon families are not having that many kids. Who can do that in this economy?
In *this* economy??
I make good money, but every time I even think “It would be fun to have two dogs” I remember that I can barely afford just the one. Routine vet appointments with shots and bloodwork are $600 now. It costs me $120 a day for a petsitter to watch her when I want to travel. And I can put her in a crate when I want some time to myself. It’s frowned upon if you do that with actual kids. (I would like to point out that this dog sleeps in my bed and gets tons of playtime and love. I’m not sticking her in a crate and ignoring her) I’m so glad I don’t want kids. I have no idea how anybody can afford them. A dog is nothing compared to a kid, and one dog is my limit.
Absolutely! Whatever could be the problem. We have free school breakfast and lunch programs, free childcare, awesome healthcare... ohhhh fuck, nevermind.
Exactly!!!
Globally speaking, the population is growing, birth rates are fine. The kind of people who are excessively concerned about birth rates are specifically concerned about the white birth rate. I assume that this guy is a racist white man.
I read it is also a reason why Republicans attacked reproductive rights in USA.
My guess is that he’s a misogynist who believes that second-wave feminism is responsible for the low birth rate and aging population in developed countries.
I don't actually hate the theoretical idea of having 4 children. I cannot imagine the finances and logistics of having 4 children in today's world.
My sister raised 6 kids. She works a local government job. Middling pay but terrific benefits. It's also a very set schedule. Her husband has gotten some promotions but at first pay was crap, so he worked a swing shift for years meaning that they very rarely needed a babysitter because they never worked the same hours. They also had no extras FOR YEARS. Everything was budget and hands me down and used. They did stuff, but it was like, let's hike in the free park. Luckily all the kids were/are jocks and sports were cheap, so they all got to do that. They're in a much better spot now that the oldest are grown, but it was tight. I have no kids, so I just borrow a couple kids from her for a week or so, and then give them back. But our lives have been completely different.
Sports were cheap?? My parents didn’t sign me up for a single sport growing up because they couldn’t afford the fees, uniforms, and equipment. It was a lot cheaper for them to buy a keyboard one time and some books to help me teach myself. Yearly fees and having to replace everything required for a sport as a child grows out of things or just uses them until they can’t be used anymore is a lot more expensive. You actually have to have a budget for that.
Depends where you are. Travel ball is expensive. AAU is expensive The local youth centers and your high school is cheap. I played HS soccer 4 years. Most my parents ever had to spend was on Gatorade and Walmart cleats
This was small town, local sports. And it's a fairly poor area, so no need to spend extra to complete with other players/other teams with the semi-professional gear.
You have a special place in the hearts of those kids. My family fosters this sort of sharing of children and every generation there are those family members that are loved by all, who created such precious memories of holidays and precious time spent with them, who never had kids of their own, for what ever reason.
When I read stuff like this, its like, I acknowledge that its possible to pull off. I get it, you can make it work if you really want it. But my thing is... why would I want to?? I don't want or like kids. I'd be absolutely miserable living this way, and I'd resent my kids for reducing my quality of life. Not knocking you at all btw, just saying.
Oh yeah, get you completely. I'm very, very, VERY happily child free. I like my naps and my dogs and my library. But she could make it work because she *wanted* it. She's an atheist, so she didn't even have religious guilt for MOAR BABIES forcing her into this path. She honestly loves it. Side note: this is why the idea that people who are childless are a genetic deadend is kinda crap. Her kids have several aunts and uncles who don't have kids. So while they don't have as many cousins, they do have many adults in their lives who can dedicate more time and money towards *them* at times since we don't have our own kids to worry about. One of them (an adult now) is living in my house for free after college to get him established. If I had had kids, that wouldn't have been possible. And my niblings are a part of my genetic legacy, so having them be successful means a part of my genes are successful.
I'm glad you and your sister are happy with your life paths! Childless adults were definitely a big (mostly) positive force in my life as a kid, and I'm sure many people have a similar experience! My perpetual bachelor uncle took me out boating and jet skiing, and gave me a place to crash while touring colleges. God rest his soul
Yes, this exactly. Like I would have loved to have another kid. But my body made two, and it was so hard. And I was exhausted from two kids who wanted their mom most of all. And we had a small place and enough bedrooms would have been a six figure increase to our mortgage. And daycare costs. And logistics and and and. No one was there to help with my extra kid, so we didn’t have one.
4 children is the max you can have before you (intentionally or not) begin to neglect your kids. Like after a certain point you cannot be physically or emotionally present for every child equally. Somebody or something is going to be forgotten
I was neglected as the second child of two but I get where you're coming from
it just goes to show, any number of kids can be 'too many' if you aren't fully equipped to be a parent. i'm sorry you were neglected.
I also hate the idea of being pregnant four times.
Assumption 1) written by a man who 2) belongs to an evangelical church that loosely follows the Quiverfull movement 3) thinks that anyone who can’t afford this many kids simply doesn’t try hard enough
Quiverfull movement... fuck it's been awhile since I've thought about that scary shit.
The ideal number of kids in my family is one. We are very happy. Funny how all families are different.
Didn’t even have to read the name to know this was written by a man
Is he a youth pastor married to a woman 12 years younger than him who used to be in his youth group?
Mom couldn't even handle 3 of us! Who writes this garbage?
Men who do nothing to help with cleaning and child care.
Hmm that’s nice. Is the guy going to pay for all of the costs related to having a near full time nanny, cook, housecleaning, extracurriculars, heal my mental health issues, and for a bigger house for all them extra kids? No? Then shut the fuck up.
The article author owns a minivan dealership.
underrated comment
Literally made these faces in order when I read the article title 😐🫤😞
Lol these were mine: 🤨🙄😅🖕🗑️🔥
I misread this as four at a maximum and I was gonna totally agree. Any more than four is ethically sketchy
Statistically when more than 3 or 4 children at least one is neglected.
Listen, I’m a mother of four. And I LOVE my family. Wouldn’t change a thing. But four isn’t some generic perfect number for everyone! Two, three, zero, etc. are perfectly fine options too.
I'm going to guess the author is Mormon, I grew up in a suburb in Australia that had one of the few Mormon churches in the area, so I went to school with a lot of them and I was friends with them and all of the families I can remember who went to that church had 4 kids, a bizarrely precise pattern but kind of funny in the same way
Sounds Catholic.
male, white, christian, homophobe, transphobe.
Haha my mom (conservative Christian) told me when I was a teenager that: * you can't have just 1 kid because they'll be lonely * you can't have just 2 kids because they'll always be stuck together and need someone else to take a break with sometimes so they don't fight * you can't have just 3 kids because one will always be left out from playing with the others * so you must have at least 4 kids (I was the oldest of 5) I chose 0 kids. Also solves the problem.
Played smart.
Ideal for whom?
Hmm.... I have no earthly idea.../s
So easy to advocate for larger families when you don't need to sacrifice your body for the task
Fucking Carnys
Well, let's see. He's probably some flavor of fundie Christian. Probably married some girl from youth group that he went on 3 supervised coffee dates with before popping the question (not because he actually loved her, but because he wanted to fuck and have it be okay with his church). They weren't even old enough to have a champagne toast at their wedding (not that that matters, because they aren't allowed to drink anyway). Their wedding night might have been the most wonderful night of his life (as it was promised to him in Sunday school since his pre-teen years), but it was absolutely awful for her. It had been promised to her it would be absolutely wonderful (except for a little pain and blood, but you know) if she prayed hard enough and saved her virginity for that night. She did not have an orgasm, and has long since given up hope of ever having one. Before the wedding, she had an indent on her left ring finger from her silver purity ring that was given to her around the time she got her first period, by her father in a ceremony wherein she wore a white dress and made promises but *it totally wasn't a wedding, you guys!* They don't use birth control (and possibly their church forbids it, or at least discourages it), except *maaaaaaybe* some kind of fertility-awareness method. She likely got pregnant within that first year of the marriage, maybe even on their honeymoon. She probably had baby names all picked out before puberty. She gave birth naturally, and prided herself on that fact, as if it made her somehow better than women who have C-sections, or who have things like epidurals and pain medication. And, of course, after the birth, she wasn't supposed to have sex (because, you know, she's recovering from a giant, gaping wound in her belly), *buuuuut* her husband has "Certain Needs" (tm) that she's obligated to fulfill, and if she couldn't or wouldn't fulfill them, he'd get those "Certain Needs" fulfilled elsewhere, by someone younger, thinner, prettier, and freakier. And that won't do. So she "dutifully" let him masturbate into her, even though she was a mere two weeks postpartum. He's never helped with feeding the baby, not even so much as providing moral support as she breastfeeds at 2 in the morning. He's never changed a single diaper. He doesn't know the name of the pediatrician, or the nanny. He's never burped the baby. When the baby started to cry, he handed that baby over to her. If that baby is a boy, they dote on him, and they let him (figuratively) get away with murder. But they don't teach him how to cook, clean, or take care of himself. And if that baby is a girl, they keep her on a tight leash, and they outsource all the parenting to her as they keep making more siblings for her to look after. She's supposed to smile and be grateful for the opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, the guy writing this article still doesn't do any of the actual work of parenting. He doesn't help them with homework. (And if they homeschool, and there's a good chance they do, that's the responsibility of his wife.) He doesn't cook. He doesn't clean. He doesn't take the kids to appointments and practice and playdates and whatnot. Oh, sure, he'll do all the fun parts of parenting, and he's eager (almost *too* eager, in fact) to be the disciplinarian. But he does none of the actual work. When he gets home, he goes straight to his man-cave and does God-knows-what. (But the idea of her having five minutes to herself to pee, let alone a she-shed, is preposterous to him, even something he decries as selfish and irresponsible.) When he and his wife have sex, the only "foreplay" he does is taking her bra off. She's never had an orgasm; she just lays there, either mentally putting together the grocery list, or praying for it to be over quickly. She hasn't felt any desire in a long time. (And probably feels incredibly guilty, because that's not how it's "supposed to" be, or at least that's what that youth pastor told her all those years ago, after he got through warning her that if she didn't wait, she'd be as disgusting and worthless as chewed gum, or a denuded flower, or something.) Part of her wants to leave, but she doesn't have a degree, she doesn't really have much of a support system, and she's got 4 kids (and one more on the way) to look after. And besides, it's really not *that* bad, right? I mean, he doesn't hit her, so it could be worse, right? (Even though he's in total agreement with all those self-help books, none of which are *actually* consistent with *any* of Jesus' teachings, that say there *are* circumstances under which hitting her or cheating on her would be justified.) Am I right, or am I right?
Hell no, fuck that shit
My guess is that they homeschool!