Observation Time

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   It seems that in large (6-7 children per household) and very large families(8 or more children per household), it is either middle or youngest/younger children who want LARGE families themselves, it is SELDOM the oldest /older children who want LARGE families.
   
   Is IT perhaps that the oldest/older children had the baptism of fire as to how it was REALLY like growing up in such families?  They often bore the ONUS/BRUNT of the responsibilities early on while their middle-child and youngest-child counterparts NEVER HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY, they were ON THE RECEIVING end!   Do you agree with this premise?
   
   Some links showing what oldest children of large/very large families GO THROUGH :
   http://youtu.be/DJ_qzuN6G8A
   http://youtu.be/MRfRrP5ZeI8
   http://youtu.be/YD6gYSX6fOo
   
   Oldest children in large/very large families endure conditions akin to forced laborers in a Siberian gulag or in a German forced labor camp and/or enslaved people in the Antebellum South. They have NO INDIVIDUAL lives.  Hell is better than the life of many oldest children in large/very large families.
   
   In contrast, youngest children in large/very large families have it so easy.  They are catered to by parents and siblings.  They have childhoods and adolescence; in fact, they have no responsibilities even to young adulthood.  They CAN be children while their OLDEST siblings NEVER HAD the opportunity to be carefree. 
   
   What really incenses me that parents of large/very large families refuse to believe that their oldest/older children are children themselves and are entitled to a normative childhood and adolescence.  That fact falls on such parents' deaf ears!

   replyreport
2. 61

   janesixposted 10 years ago

   No.
   
   Why don't you provide some scientific research proving that any of that has any relevance to anything, ever.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Younger/youngest children in large families HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITES at all!  They are on THE RECEIVING end of everything.  They do not have to lift a bloody finger as far as the family goes. 
      
      They are the pampered princesses/princes while their OLDEST/OLDER siblings are the drudges/slaves who must be on 24/7/365.   Oldest/older children go through hell in large families while the younger/youngest children endure bliss!  Of course, parents of large families DON'T PARENT their children, it IS the OLDEST CHILD who is THE REAL PARENT! 
      
      Large families are UNFAIR to the OLDEST children, parents should have the number of children that they can ADEQUATELY and EFFECTIVELY raise  by themselves, not have the OLDEST/OLDER children raise their children.  Large and very large families are abusive overall to the oldest/older children, they should be CHILDREN!  Parents of large families are ABUSIVE in more ways than one. 
      
      Also such parents are utterly thoughtless and extremely unconcerned/uncaring regarding the needs of their oldest/older children.  The mantra of many an oldest child in the large/very large family is, " I am just a slave, release from these chains, somebody, somebody help me! 
      
      I remember my father telling me that when my mother heard that my grandmother was having a TENTH child, my mother became highly incensed.  Many oldest children are NOT HAPPY when succedent pregnancies are announced. After all, THEY are the ones who will be MORE SADDLED with raising siblings, NOT THE PARENTS!
      

      replyreport
      1. 61

         janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You are making wide, probably wrong overgeneralizations based on....nothing, and a bit of personal experience.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            What I AM saying is true! Youngest/younger children in large and very large families DO NOT have any responsibilities, even as they mature.  They do not have to parent younger siblings. They are on the receiving end as far as parental resources go.  If not the parent, it is the oldest/older sibling who has to care/raise them.  Youngest/younger children in the large and very large family environment are pampered, spoiled, even indulged by their parents.   
            
            In comparison to their oldest/older siblings, youngest/younger children in large families have everything or almost everything DONE for them.  They are waited on hand and foot by parents and by oftentimes reluctant oldest/older siblings.  That is why so many youngest/younger children of large and very large families LOVE being in such families.  They are the little kings and queens in their families. 
            
            Celine Dion and Robert Clary, both the youngest of very large families, maintained that they loved being pampered and indulged by their parents and siblings.  Mr. Clary even acknowledged that he was a brat and spoiled.  During an interview, Mr. Clary related that on his way to a concentration camp with some of his family, his mother issued him a very dire warning.  He related that his mother told him that NOW he had to grow up and stop being a brat if he wished to survive.   
            
            Many youngest/younger children of large families that I know relayed to me that they could come and go as they want.   In contrast, oldest/older children in large and very large families, told me that THEY WERE TIED DOWN and had NO FREEDOM.  My oldest aunt relayed bitterly in a telephone conversation that she was tired of being used as the family mascot.   Youngest/younger children of large and very large families HAVE IT EASY and HAVE IT MADE!  They are also selfish and have developed no empathy as everything was done for them.  It is the oldest/older children of large family who are the heroes/heroines!
            
            This is how youngest/younger children are seen and treated in large and very large families.
            

            replyreport
3. 81

   Moon Daisyposted 10 years ago

   Yes, I definitely agree with this, at least based on what happened in my family. 
   
   In a similar discussion a while ago now I remember telling the story of my grandmother who came from a family of 10, (there may have been even more as I heard once that there were some children who died early on). 
   
   She was the eldest child and a girl so she got to bring up many of her siblings, as her mother was always busy with the "new baby" of the family.  As times were different then and they didn't have much money she also had to help deliver most of her siblings, which seems inconceivable now (- excuse the pun!)
   
   Several of her youngest siblings went on to have larger families, because their childhood must have seemed idyllic with multiple mother figures, and all the attention that they got! But she was the only one in the family to stop at two.
   
   Her childhood was really hard, and she didn't want any child of hers to go through the same thing.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Moondaisy, definitely, most oldest/older children from large and very large families DEFINITELY DON'T wish to repeat the pattern.  They also do not want to subject their children to what they have been subjected to.  If one notices, it is the younger/youngest children from LARGE families who have large families themselves. 
      
      Of course, youngest children of large families have IT MADE IN THE SHADE and they COAST ALONG while the oldest/older children are OVERBURDENED from early childhood!  Michelle Duggar, the youngest in her large family, had a humongous family.   She never had to raise siblings and apparently makes the OLDEST daughters RAISE/PARENT her children.   
      
      Oldest/older children, for the most part, HATE being in large families and when they become adults, opt for small families or no children at all!   If you have a person saying that he/she loves being in a large family, guess what, he/she is oftentimes the younger/youngest child!

      replyreport
4. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   To Moondaisy, let me add that relating to my oldest maternal great aunts, there were about 10-12 children in all, including 5 great uncles (all long deceased).  The oldest great maternal aunt, Aunt Russ, had 2 sons, the next oldest maternal aunts, Aunts Martha and Aileen, had NO children.  The youngest maternal aunt, Aunt Alice, also had NO children, did not want them.  It was the latter middle(my grandmother Fanny ) who had a slew of children. Also another younger aunt, Aunt Ruth, also had a slew of children.
   
   It also stems from the selfishness of many middle and youngest children not to have empathy because they were on the receiving end.  They really could care less about what it is like to be the oldest child.  Oldest children, of course, have empathy, and that is why they do not wish to repeat what was negatively done to them.  Siblingships is always THE HARDEST on oldest children.  I really cry for all oldest children, particularly those from large to very large families.   
   
   
   I am giving ALL oldest children, especially those from large/very large families a BIG HUG and LOTS of LOVE.  They deserve it for they are the UNSUNG heroes and heroines in their families. I am highly partial and sympathetic towards oldest children because they have it so hard.  They have to give up so much of themselves, getting SO LITTLE in return.   There is an award for ALL oldest children in large/very large families:
   

   replyreport