Gransnet forums

News & politics

Large families

(281 Posts)
Butty Fri 05-Apr-13 07:33:45

In response to the original OP - Education.

MiceElf Fri 05-Apr-13 07:33:41

I cannot see why any interfering busybody feels they have a right to declare that those with either large families or no children are living selfishly. Families these days are much smaller than of old and materially much better off. Sadly, that seems to have given rise to the idea in some quarters that those who have large large families are in some way irresponsible. It does not seem to me to be any more irresponsible to have a large family than to have no children and then rely on the children of others to provide the goods and services they need / enjoy.

JessM Fri 05-Apr-13 07:31:11

Some of those large families will be two merged families I assume. These are very common and they may be taking care of children who would otherwise be "looked after" - in care. Is it from census data? It might also include foster families?
I have only ever met two women who had more than 5 children. One was middle class and not on benefits. I seemed to remember she eventually stopped and went to train as a social worker. The other, more recent, did have an unemployed husband but he was trying hard to get a qualification and get off benefits. They seemed to be very good parents who loved children and the children were doing well in school. Who is to say that children from families like this, who have had state support, but also a lot of loving parenting and attention, may not ultimately make a greater contribution to society than the children round the corner whose parents are both working long hours and paying a lot of tax? In the past lots of people came from larger families and did very well.

absent Fri 05-Apr-13 07:16:03

In the eyes of some they would Granny23 and probably be severely criticised for what the popular press would characterise as their "hippy lifestyle", I suspect.

Granny23 Fri 05-Apr-13 02:50:40

I only know one large (9 I think, 11 counting the parents) family locally. As far as I know they have never been on benefits other than the usual child benefit etc. The father has a good job, while mother (a former teacher) has home educated the children, grown lots of organic fruit and veg, made clothes etc. They live in a bought 4 bed house. No fancy holidays, no car, walked or cycled everywhere. The oldest children are now going out into the world mainly into the arts. A lovely and loving family by all accounts, although I always found the father a trifle arrogant - bit of a 'know it all'. So far so good. Their life style choice.

BUT if say, the father lost his job or became ill (which I fevervently hope does not happen) what then? Would they instantly become social pariahas?

Greatnan Fri 05-Apr-13 01:55:18

I am starting a separate thread as I think it is very wrong to link the subject to the Philpotts case.

According to the Daily Mail, which would certainly not minimise the figures, there are 100,000 families with four or more children in receipt of benefits. There are only 900 with 8 or more children. This hardly makes such families a huge drain on the exchequer.

I take the same view as I do about the death penalty - better a small number of feckless people should receive benefits than that a large number of responsible parents should be deprived. Of course, some people come onto benefits through illness, death, divorce or redundancy after their children have been born.

No, I am not advocating large families per se or condoning fecklesness and Yes, I am a UK tax payer.

I would liike to know how anybody suggests that the state can limit family size - the Chinese solution?