U
Usige
Guest
My apologies that you must have missed that I have 7 children, five of whom are 8 or under and the oldest two have autism spectrum challenges. Your hassle must be subjective, because my wife has figured it out and deals with it daily while also homeschooling. Heck, even I was able to figure it out. It’s called adaptability. Yes you have to change how you do things (my wife laughed at the thought of “running to the store for a handful of items”), but we are talking about inconvenience not impossibly. It is not an objective fact since it is all about the attitude we approach things with. I never consider the challenges of a large family a hassle.When getting three or four babies from a car to the grocery store in order to pick up a loaf of bread starts to look like one of those logic puzzles where you are trying to get a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain across the river in one boat, I think, objectively speaking that constitutes a “hassle”. Whether that “hassle” is worth it or not is up to the individual. I don’t think its fair to characterize parents who aren’t up to that particular challenge as “selfish”, which is the word you used, anymore than it’s fair to call those who are up to it “outliers” or “insane”, which were not words used by the previous poster.
There are plenty of people on this thread with large families, and I notice it is people with smaller familes that talk about the difficulties of large families, not those of us with 6, 8 10+ kids.
As for selfish, I never said not being up to the challenge is selfish. I merely object to people stating that it’s nearly impossible to raise more than 2 kids on a single income or that it’s a logistics nightmare to raise more than 3. That is simply not the case as I know dozens of people that live on 1 income and are raising “hordes” of kids. Some are well off, but many others are not.
I have a problem when people lay out their own difficulties as insurmountable challenges that apply to everyone else. It reinforces as truth what many of us are proof is not the case.