The Sunday Globe Magazine notices a hip, new trend among the wealthy, liberal, white suburbanites: Having more than two kids, or as the article puts its, “three is the new two.” Mind you, they can’t get away from the slightly disapproving tone. After all, they sniff, children of larger families are decidedly more blue-collar. As if what’s most important in life is what schools you go to and what jobs you have, rather than the love of a big family. What child of a big family would trade in their brothers and sisters for more material goods? What only child wouldn’t trade it all for a brother or sister to bond with?
After three decades of declining birthrates, oversize families should be gone by now. For reasons of finance or ecology or lifestyle or just plain fatigue, smaller families represent a more prudent path for most people. That path would logically be favored by the many parents today who begin obsessing about their children’s college prospects while videotaping their first halting steps across their hardwood floor. After all, researchers have found that children from larger families generally don’t go as far academically as those from smaller ones.
But prudence can be overrated. National birth statistics show a small but steady uptick in the number of American women having three children in recent years, leading parents and pediatricians alike to talk about how “three is the new two.”
Of course, you might be tempted to say that the statistics could be coming from all those poor immigrant families that haven’t learned the ways of their more prosperous native-born neighbors. Au contraire.
Update: One of the women interviewed for the article comments on this blog… Check out the update after jump.
More surprising, in many affluent towns teeming with families managed by highly educated stay-at-home moms, three is far from the end point. Around Wellesley these days, four feels like the new three.
Still you can’t get away from the blue-state, “you have how many kids?” attitude with anecdotes about women in the old days having plenty of kids in case some of them dropped dead (how lovely) and, of course, the backward old Catholic Church’s oppression of our sexuality to force us to have kids: “The Catholic Church’s prohibition on any birth control that didn’t involve counting and calendars got backing from Beacon Hill. In fact, it wasn’t until 1966 that the Legislature amended the state’s 19th century ban on contraceptive devices.” You can almost hear the superior tone.
And then the message is that these suburban big families can afford to have plenty of kids, which is just laughable considering that my paternal grandparents had eight kids on a Gloucester fisherman’s tiny salary in a tiny apartment in Boston’s West End. You don’t live in Wellesley unless you make a good six-figure income, and I mean a good one. “Afford” is very interesting concept.
Even so, the trend is merely a blip on the screen and is in no danger of reversing the precipitous decline in birth rates. (The US would be as bad off as Europe with below-replacement rates if not for a steady influx of immigrants.) And the anti-family attitudes are very real. Isabella was not three days old before nurses and doctors started discussing birth control options. She’s our first child, people! We’re hoping to have plenty more.
Or there’s the experience of Pansy, one of the Two Sleepy Mommies, who’s expecting her sixth child.
had my first OB/GYN appointment. I got to hear the baby heartbeat, which is always nice. But I got lots of questions about my birth control choices. With number 6, I am so paranoid this time around that this is so psychotic. Just nuts. 5 kids was “Oh, well wow, what a nice, big family. I couldn’t do it, but your family is cute.” Six kids is “That is just irresponsible and extreme. Next you will be a Branch Davidian.” Again, this could be partly my paranoia, but I think partly. It was tirture writing down my medical history with how many pregnancies I had. They made it seem like the list just kept going, and going, like the Energizer Bunny.I think when you are pro-birth control, the biggest goal is stopping conception. I think when you are Catholic, the first goal is to be open to life, and if the need is to postpone children with NFP, the first goal is still the same: being open to life. I know I am preaching to the choir hear, but I wish other people understood that. For me personally in these day to day encounters, I don’t care if they convert to my philosophy, just that they could respect it for others.
I hear similar tales from other mothers of large families, especially when they are all fairly young. Nearly all of them have heard everything from mutters of discomfort to outright disgust that someone would “breed” so readily. I once had a co-worker complain that people with large families made all the family employee benefits more expensive for the people who only had one or two kids.
We have a long way to go to reverse the trend, but to those wealthy suburbanites who are so open to life (maybe they happen to be conservative Christians although it’s never mentioned) good for them. Yet there’s still too many people—at least in this Blue State—with the same attitude as the author of the article who says of himself and his wife about their three kids, “We probably could have been just as happy—and less sleepy—if we’d stopped after one or two children.” I can’t imagine any parent who thinks they’d be happier if one or two of their children had never existed. What an incomprehensible attitude.
Update:: KrisD writes below that the common denominator among the Wellesley families is that they’re all faithful Catholics, but the reporter chose to ignore that. Instead he made it look like their big families were another accoutrement of materialism like a big SUV or a big house. That makes the article even worse, in my opinion.
“In two weeks, the Sunday Globe magazine will no doubt publish lots of letters decrying the selfishness of these families, they’re using up the resources of the planet, etc.”
I hope not. Considering demographic realities, these “extra” young’uns are the ones who will really be carrying the weight for paying for Social Security, the prescription drug benefit, etc., when whiny 0-1-2-child baby boomers are in their 70s and 80s. Guess the Globe never publishes stories on that, though, either.
I used to think 5 or 6 kids was a lot, but that was before I married into a family with *16* - who, BTW, all had a good Catholic school education and then put themselves through university, including 2 Ph.D.‘s and 4 master’s degrees. They didn’t have a lot of “stuff” growing up, but they all turned out okay, and I can’t imagine one of my brothers- or sisters-in-law not existing.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
Three is the new two and four is the new three
The Sunday Globe Magazine notices a hip, new trend among the wealthy, liberal, white suburbanites: Having more than two kids, or as the article puts its, “three is the new two.” Mind you, they can’t get away from the slightly disapproving tone. After all, they sniff, children of larger families are decidedly more blue-collar. As if what’s most important in life is what schools you go to and what jobs you have, rather than the love of a big family. What child of a big family would trade in their brothers and sisters for more material goods? What only child wouldn’t trade it all for a brother or sister to bond with?
Of course, you might be tempted to say that the statistics could be coming from all those poor immigrant families that haven’t learned the ways of their more prosperous native-born neighbors. Au contraire.
That old-time anti-child Blue State attitude
Technorati Tags: children, family
Update: One of the women interviewed for the article comments on this blog… Check out the update after jump.
Still you can’t get away from the blue-state, “you have how many kids?” attitude with anecdotes about women in the old days having plenty of kids in case some of them dropped dead (how lovely) and, of course, the backward old Catholic Church’s oppression of our sexuality to force us to have kids: “The Catholic Church’s prohibition on any birth control that didn’t involve counting and calendars got backing from Beacon Hill. In fact, it wasn’t until 1966 that the Legislature amended the state’s 19th century ban on contraceptive devices.” You can almost hear the superior tone.
And then the message is that these suburban big families can afford to have plenty of kids, which is just laughable considering that my paternal grandparents had eight kids on a Gloucester fisherman’s tiny salary in a tiny apartment in Boston’s West End. You don’t live in Wellesley unless you make a good six-figure income, and I mean a good one. “Afford” is very interesting concept.
Even so, the trend is merely a blip on the screen and is in no danger of reversing the precipitous decline in birth rates. (The US would be as bad off as Europe with below-replacement rates if not for a steady influx of immigrants.) And the anti-family attitudes are very real. Isabella was not three days old before nurses and doctors started discussing birth control options. She’s our first child, people! We’re hoping to have plenty more.
Or there’s the experience of Pansy, one of the Two Sleepy Mommies, who’s expecting her sixth child.
I hear similar tales from other mothers of large families, especially when they are all fairly young. Nearly all of them have heard everything from mutters of discomfort to outright disgust that someone would “breed” so readily. I once had a co-worker complain that people with large families made all the family employee benefits more expensive for the people who only had one or two kids.
We have a long way to go to reverse the trend, but to those wealthy suburbanites who are so open to life (maybe they happen to be conservative Christians although it’s never mentioned) good for them. Yet there’s still too many people—at least in this Blue State—with the same attitude as the author of the article who says of himself and his wife about their three kids, “We probably could have been just as happy—and less sleepy—if we’d stopped after one or two children.” I can’t imagine any parent who thinks they’d be happier if one or two of their children had never existed. What an incomprehensible attitude.
Update:: KrisD writes below that the common denominator among the Wellesley families is that they’re all faithful Catholics, but the reporter chose to ignore that. Instead he made it look like their big families were another accoutrement of materialism like a big SUV or a big house. That makes the article even worse, in my opinion.
COMMENTS
I’m sure the author’s second and third children will be pleased to read that article later.
A good meditation to chew on. At least some in our generation are having children, for whatever reason.
Posted by Meg Q on 05/29/06 at 08:08 PM
No one says on their deathbed, “Man, I really which I didn’t have Billy.” The Globe is, as usual, sick.
Posted by infanted on 05/29/06 at 08:29 PM
“In two weeks, the Sunday Globe magazine will no doubt publish lots of letters decrying the selfishness of these families, they’re using up the resources of the planet, etc.”
I hope not. Considering demographic realities, these “extra” young’uns are the ones who will really be carrying the weight for paying for Social Security, the prescription drug benefit, etc., when whiny 0-1-2-child baby boomers are in their 70s and 80s. Guess the Globe never publishes stories on that, though, either.
I used to think 5 or 6 kids was a lot, but that was before I married into a family with *16* - who, BTW, all had a good Catholic school education and then put themselves through university, including 2 Ph.D.‘s and 4 master’s degrees. They didn’t have a lot of “stuff” growing up, but they all turned out okay, and I can’t imagine one of my brothers- or sisters-in-law not existing.
Posted by Meg Q on 05/30/06 at 05:53 PM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.