Cost v's number of children

inkie

Stopped at 2, not because we couldn't finacially afford more - as we would always personally provide for any amount of children that are our responsibility, but didn't want to spead myself thin in terms of time and attention given to them. More children = less individual time with each of them!

across

i always wanted two little girls and when i got them my dream came true and i knew that was enough for me but then i did feel it would be nice to have a boy for hubby and i do love three as a number for children but i really think it would be stretching us financially plus we'd have to move and as i am stay at home mum(on career break) i'm not in position to move at moment so that is why i wouldnt have anymore as at the moment financially with two girls things are fine they both share clothes and toys so it is very easy, everybody has the right to live as they wish and you either want babies or you dont there is nothing wrong with either (it was lovely before children too when i could go in the bath for ages, have a lie in, go to shops without spending most of it in dirty toilets!) but i do love being a mum its right for me!!!

steve_cov

helpafriend wrote:

There is a fantastic book called WHAT OUR MOTHERS DIDN'T TELL US: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman by Danielle Crittenden. "The modern dilemma," she says, "is that the success of feminism has cut women off from those aspects of life that are distinctly female desires, such as being a wife and raising children."

American bullsh*t, by any chance?

A woman's place is in the home, in the office, in the shopping centre, at the football, at school, or anywhere else she wants it to be. Exactly the same as a man's.

"Being a wife" is only a female desire in the sense that a man can't be one, whilst raising children is something which "takes a village", in the words of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I suspect the senator is a rather better role model for women than Ms Crittenden.

It alarms me when I hear that people want big families, even though they are unable to provide for them. In past centuries, people had large families as a purely economic decision, because they would all be able to work the land as agricultural labourers. They would ultimately more than repay any short-term hardship the large family might incur. They also knew that it was likely one or more of their children would die in infancy, making it all the more important to have more children.

Today, short-term hardship is avoided by a dependency on benefits, which are funded disproportionately by those of us with few or no children. The OP ought to take some responsibility for her own circumstances, while she has the chance.

Slightly off-topic, there was a documentary on single mothers on Channel 4 last week which left me with enormous sympathy for them. Both had been abandoned by f_e_c_k_less men who didn't work, and one of the men was paying a princely £2.50 a week in maintenance for his two children.

Put purely economically, the query for the man is: child @ £1.25/week or condoms @ £2 for three? If you have more than one sh*g a week, the child is cheaper. Strange world we live in.

black-saturn

One of the problems with some of you is that you presume it is easy to find work. Some people get made redundant through no fault of their own and have to either take low paid work or go on to full benefit as there arn't that many jobs available.

abbecer

What a debate!!!

abbecer

The benefits system is there to support people not to be abused. People have a right to chose the size of their families but must act responsibly. I think it is wrong to plan another child if it can only be afforded by tax credits. Me and DH have two small boys, we waited to start a family until our finances were in a reasonable position. We do get a small amount of tax credits but certainly didn't plan our family on the basis that they would be there.

Rebecca x

krisskross

black-saturn wrote:

One of the problems with some of you is that you presume it is easy to find work. Some people get made redundant through no fault of their own and have to either take low paid work or go on to full benefit as there arn't that many jobs available.

During his working life my husband was made redundant 3 times. He has no particular skills except a willingness to do anything legal that would bring in a wage. He always found another job. There is work out there, the trick is to take whatever you can get while you look for something more suitable.

black-saturn

krisskross wrote:

During his working life my husband was made redundant 3 times. He has no particular skills except a willingness to do anything legal that would bring in a wage. He always found another job. There is work out there, the trick is to take whatever you can get while you look for something more suitable.

Your husband was one of the lucky ones.

wigginsmum

I think the benefits system is heading for crisis-point with the abuse of people like the OP, so it'll have to end up with something radical, like the Chinese system. In order to claim longterm benefits, claimants should agree to a hormonal implant to prevent any more pregnancies.

dlb

I do agree with alot of you, yes it is hard to find jobs, but it doesnt stop my husband looking for a better job whist he `cleaning loos` for a living. This month alone he has applied for 6 jobs, we dont want to be on tax credits forever.

And as said before people can not help being made redundant as my husband was, but we was prepared to take a drop in wages and did of over 25k, just so we didnt have to claim income support.

We do recieved tax credits weekly at the minute, but we still pay full council tax and rent, unlike people on income support who get that paid for them.

Yes my last child was born whilst we were on tax credits, but at that point we decided to try for another child as we had 4 boys between us ( 2 of mine from a previous relationship, one from my husband previous relationship, and my nephew who myself and my husband have adopted) and we want a child of our own. And it just so happened to be a little girl we had. We wanted to have our last child ( yes i have had the implant!) whist we were still fairly young.

I would never have had children if my husband or i wasnt working, we both work hard at home and at work, but unfourtunatly at the min our wages are rubbish.

And can i just say i cant remember who posted it, but having larger family doesnt in anyway mean less quality time with each one, all 4 of my kids and my step son have equal amounts of `me` time, but they love doing things together also.