Littles: Are Large Families Back in Vogue?

As someone who has a distinct interest in parenting a large family someday, I adore following along with different bloggers and articles about the trends in family size across America. Within the past few years it has started to seem like big families might be on the rise once again. Today I'd like to take a glance at the current national discussion on family size.

If I'm going to blame anyone for my interest in fielding a mini sports team of children, it's the Weasleys. There were definitely times I was lonely as a kid (like every other child ever, obviously, this is not a tale of woe), and I remember being convinced that if I was like the Pevensies or the Weasleys with a nice batch of siblings running around, we'd be able to make our own fun. Despite some very legitimate arguments that Molly and Arthur may have had more kids than they could afford, I love people who point out that there was a time when Molly Weasley had raised like 70% of the Order of the Phoenix herself. Talk about contributing to a war effort!

And want to talk about uncertain times to be expanding the family? The Pevensies had those kids between two World Wars and they spanned a pretty significant age gap between the older and younger sets. Note, this also informed my goal for two boys and two girls. 

Despite a lack of a religious childhood, I'm always interested in Mormon and Catholic family experiences. These days it often seems like the major defining characteristic of all large families is a strong religious faith. In the past, Baby Boomers didn't need to be religious to have a pack of 3-5 kids without anyone taking a second glance. I'm not planning to go Duggar any time soon, but I like taking a look at the ways that the perception of larger families has changed in just a few generations.

Camp Patton: Grace is Catholic, and is my mom hero!

One big claim is that third and fourth children are becoming popular within a small, very wealthy subset of American culture in which they are seen as status symbols. From a Forbes article about the trend:

 "Hinze says there is evidence that affluent families are beginning to have more children. According to the Council on Contemporary Families, there’s been a significant increase in three- and four-children families among the “super rich,” or the top-earning 2% of households, which translates to an annual household income of about $400,000 or more." 

The Danish Royal family certainly qualifies as top 2%

Here we have Business Insider specifically using that "status symbol" language to describe large families. There is also a really interesting theory that there's a certain type of woman, specifically a Type A, hard driving and details oriented, who tends to take on the project of a larger family. From an article in the NY Post: 

"That theory was actually borne out in another parenting study, released in the Journal of Personality in 2009, which determined that people with a Type-A personality were likely to have more kids than their easier-going peers. This correlation is visible not only on the streets of NYC, but in some of our most visible female politicians; Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi and Michele Bachmann all have large families, with five children each."

Disregarding a religious conviction to go forth and multiply, I just don't really see how there's that much of a mental difference in wanting to have a large, overflowing, chaotic family between a woman who's scrimping at Costco and one who is juggling a dozen summer camp applications. I don't buy into this idea of kids as luxury items. I think in general, people are terrified of the economy and terrified of these estimates that each kid will bankrupt you by their 18th birthday, so it make sense that having more money seems to give you more freedom to pursue the family size that you desire. But that's about reacting to the financial climate around you, not viewing actual little human souls as status symbols. 

There's a scene in the Mary Poppins books when Mrs. Banks has Annabel, their fifth, and Mr. Banks runs some calculations to see if they can keep her. In the book, it's heartwarming and charming, but it's a strange thought to consider that in households across America it's a legitimate debate that a second, third, or fourth child could irrevocably decrease a family's overall financial health and knock them out of the middle class. 

Poor John, Barbara and Annabel didn't make the movie!

Looking past the financial implications, in an era when the world seems to be geared towards 2 child families, it makes sense to me that you need certain reservoirs of patience and the ability to engage in complex organizational maneuvers to take care of more family members. In that sense, that Type A personality trait component does seem valid. If you feel like you're all set with 2 kids and there are easy birth control options available to you, then you self-screen yourself out of having a larger family. 

We have a philosophy in our marriage that we like to call Team Smith. It varies a bit depending on the scenario, but at heart it's basically the idea that he and I are a full unit/team/family/tribe and we're always going to be on the same side, prioritize our team over the rest of the world, and focus on our family first. That doesn't necessarily make me the world's best global citizen, but when I imagine our family, it's much easier to imagine increasing it beyond the average when I think of them all as bees in the family bee hive. Buzzing around, contributing in all their unique ways, and being fundamentally essential to the overall team identity. 

So, the big elephant in the ozone... overpopulation and global warming and the end times, oh my! This might not be a popular opinion, but I've always had greater concern about the quality of people on Earth than the quantity. I'd rather see someone raising a family of 5 with good values, who contribute to society by serving the greater good and embrace the community than a bunch of families raising one little monster child and feeling smug about it. Worrying about the big family's fuel inefficient minivan isn't really my biggest concern. Note, I certainly don't think that every only child is a brat by any means as I know a million great ones who grew into incredible adults. I just don't think their parents are guaranteed to be doing any better of a job raising people of quality than anyone else. 

If it's good enough for Dan Radcliffe, it's good enough for me!