People that actually wanted to have a baseball team's worth of kids?

October 16, 2008 2:40 PM

Parents of many children: Help me find parents that chose to have many children for purely secular reasons.

I am thinking of families that might appear on TLC's "Kids by the Dozen" or even the Gosselins. However, so many of these parents use religion as the basis for the choice. They are either religiously opposed to birth control, feel that their religious duty is to have as many children as possible, or in the Gosselin family, found themselves pregnant with six babies and were opposed to selective reduction.

This got me curious: Are there any such well-known parents that viewed all the option as viable and still chose to have more than say, eight kids? I'm wanting their personal stories, such as why they chose to do it and whether they regretted it afterward. An autobiographical piece of writing would be ideal.

Thanks in advance.

posted by starbaby to society & culture (21 comments total)

Do you restrict your query to just biological children? I think it would be fairly easy to find instances of people who adopt many underprivileged children for secular reasons.
posted by desjardins at 2:44 PM on October 16, 2008

Hmm. Good question. I'd like to restrict it, mainly because from what I've seen, people that are able to adopt many children are often times more financially able to do so, such as celebrities. I'm thinking more along the lines of an average family. If there is an average family out there, not millionaires, just working people with normal jobs, that adopted (not fostered) eight or ten kids from a young age, they would probably fit the bill.
posted by starbaby at 2:48 PM on October 16, 2008

The Gilbreths (the real family on which Cheaper By The Dozen is based)? I don't think they were religious or opposed to birth control. Wikipedia says they simply loved kids, though I'd bet there's a more in-depth explanation somewhere.
posted by needs more cowbell at 2:53 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

This might be a generational thing, but my dad had 12 brothers and sisters because my grandparents needed help on their potato farm back in the 30s/early 40s. I don't know if farmers do this as much anymore thanks to mechanized farming and agrocorps, but who knows.
posted by taraza at 2:54 PM on October 16, 2008

they simply loved kids

This reason would be a great example, but something a little more current and a little more in-depth would be more helpful.

Thanks.
posted by starbaby at 2:57 PM on October 16, 2008

Lillian and Frank Gilbreth, efficiency experts in the mid 20th century had a dozen children. I read Cheaper by the Dozen and Bells on their Toes, but can't remember any explanation of why they had such a horde of children (other than to use as guinea pigs for their efficiency experiments).

Lillian was a PhD educated engineer, Frank a former bricklayer who had turned into a practitioner/developer of motion study intended to increase the efficiency of daily processes.

They ran their household as an efficiency experiment as well (though there my have been some religious underpinning to the number of kids they had- I just can't find reference to that)
posted by arnicae at 3:01 PM on October 16, 2008

d'oh! Should have previewed (and not hunted around for the link...)
posted by arnicae at 3:01 PM on October 16, 2008

The Gilbreths (the real family on which Cheaper By The Dozen is based)? I don't think they were religious or opposed to birth control.

I just read this biography of Lillian Moller Gilbreth, which fleshes out a lot of her life outside of how she's portrayed in "Cheaper by the Dozen", and the book suggests that although the Gilbreths loved the idea of contributing toward the creation of better human beings by raising wonderful children, it was also partly a reluctance to discuss the topic of birth control that led to their having so many. Their last child was born in June 1922 and Lillian had an emergency hysterectomy in March of 1923; one might wonder if they would have continued to have children had that not happened.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:07 PM on October 16, 2008 [1 favorite]

Do you restrict your query to families in your country?
In many poor countries, it is common, even normal, to have a lot of children for largely practical reasons - you need them to support you. There is no social security, no safety net, so as you age and you can do less and less work, if you don't have children to support you, you'll end up starving/dying out in the streets. Children start working (paying their own way) at a much younger age too, so the benefits go further than being just a poor-man's retirement plan.

It's one of the reasons why developing countries have much larger birth rates than developed. Once people don't need so many children, they stop having them.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:07 PM on October 16, 2008

Completely anecdotal, so not really what you're looking for, but a high school teacher of mine was very good friends with a couple who had 10 children. One was a surgeon, the other a molecular biologist (I do not know their names). Neither of them were even remotely religious. Evidently, they chose to have as many kids as possible because they felt it was their duty as smart, driven, productive members of society to fill the earth with other smart, driven, and socially aware people. And so they bred.
posted by phunniemee at 3:30 PM on October 16, 2008

The Landmark family in Pleasant Prairie, WI adopted 6 boys. The kids are biological brothers and half-brothers. They started out by being foster parents to the first 5 boys and then the biological mother had a sixth child. All six were adopted by this couple. It's pretty nice that they could take in a half-dozen kids and keep these siblings together. I met them on a couple of occasions through my job and they are the nicest people. I am not sure of their religious orientation but I can tell you they didn't set out to have 6 children - it just happily worked out that way.
posted by Kangaroo at 3:44 PM on October 16, 2008

The main example is having a lot of kids to work on a farm or a family business, but that doesn't seem to be very common nowadays. But almost everyone I've ever known of having lots of kids had them for religious reasons.
posted by fructose at 4:29 PM on October 16, 2008

I'm one of eight children, and my parents definitely believe in birth control (Dad got a vasectomy after the eighth).

Why so many? Apparently Dad didn't ever have a number in mind and was always happy to go along with another one, but Mum had always wanted to have a big family. I think she just loves being a mother. And was against the vasectomy, incidentally. She still works part time, so it's not that she only ever wanted to be a housewife, but I think she just genuinely loves children, loves raising them, and wanted to keep doing it for as long as possible.

We're not at all famous for having a big family (except among other parents at the various schools), so I can't help with that part of the question, but as for 'did they regret it'? Absolutely not. I think the main regret on my mother's part is that she didn't have more.
posted by twirlypen at 4:34 PM on October 16, 2008

Could well be generational as well as the previously mentioned situation where poverty can be a driver to have a large family.
My father is the youngest of 8 children, his parents had a farm, which may or may not be a factor. My parents had 2 kids and then stopped voluntarily.
posted by arcticseal at 4:45 PM on October 16, 2008

My dad is one of 7 (one died at birth, one in childhood, however). Although his mom was mormon, his dad was not, and they kept at it because my grandma really wanted a little girl after her only daughter died at age 6.

My mom is one of 8, but both parents are Catholic. For them, however, there were 5 boys before my mom and her twin sister came along, so, again, my grandparents were after those daughters. The 8th sibling in my mom's family is a boy, though, so, as my mom is fond of saying, they should have stopped while they were ahead.
posted by messylissa at 5:32 PM on October 16, 2008

Oh, "well-known." Missed that part.
posted by messylissa at 5:39 PM on October 16, 2008

George Osmond, the patriarch of the Osmond family, was an only child - his father died when George was a youngster and his mother never remarried. He had a lonely childhood, which apparently (according to books and interviews I've read) instilled in him the desire to eventually have a large family. He'd joined the Army as soon as he was eligible because he longed for a sense of "belonging" and brotherhood. He and his wife were Latter-Day Saints, which encourages having children and "populating the Earth," but doesn't specifically forbid or discourage the use of birth control.
posted by Oriole Adams at 6:49 PM on October 16, 2008

Angelina Jolie & Brad Pitt?

They're only up to 6, not eight, but give 'em time. And c'mon, the glossies have been all over that one.
;D
posted by Elysum at 8:14 PM on October 16, 2008

I've got six, and my wife has many cousins and aunties who had 8 or more. Now, we're all muslims, but I never got the feeling like my in-laws were having lots of kids as an act of religious devotion, but simply because they liked kids. I have lots of in-laws who have less kids, but not because they are less religious. I dunno, it's an ethos I guess. Kids are loved, taken to be a gift or blessing, and are certainly counted on to take care of Mom and Dad in their old age. All of these three things have religious underpinnings, I suppose. It's just not that uncommon here in Malaysia. Nobody has told me, "I have a huge family because it is the will of Allah." I think it is just widely held that life with more children is just more pleasurable. Note that birth control is uncontroversial here, and widely and cheaply available, so it is not like options do not exist.
posted by BinGregory at 9:42 PM on October 16, 2008

Again, from outside the US/ developed world:

1- Children die. Better have as many as possible.

2- More bread earners/ workers in the house and in the fields.

3- Wanting as many boys as possible, especially as the number of daughters (and thus total dowry size) grows. (On the other hand, lots of people have a sneaking wish for daughters who tend to be the ones who take non-financial care of their parents in old age)

4- No particular reason.

I work in the development sector. Can't tell you how many times I've come across a confused shrug when asking (a) how many children live in a joint family household and (b) why a woman didn't use birth control. Most alarming when I met a woman who'd had 24 live births.
posted by tavegyl at 10:47 PM on October 16, 2008

The question is just funny to me, not that it isn't a valid one to ask in the US. But the whole reason people have to give reasons is because it is contrary to the social norm. Here in Malaysia, couples who have been married for a while but don't have kids or have only one or two are the ones who have to give excuses: "we haven't had any luck", "we're both so busy all the time" and whatnot. But no one would suspect them of being, like, atheists or something.

Wanting as many boys as possible, especially as the number of daughters (and thus total dowry size) grows.
Certainly this is not universal. Among Sarawakian Malays, boys are not preferred to girls because it is customary for sons to leave to join the daughter-in-law's family. Your boys leave you and your girls stay in your home/village with their husbands. For this reason, in previous generations, there was widespread adoption of baby girls from poor Chinese immigrants, who did strongly prefer boys. Also, here, boys give girls dowries. But yeah, children = wealth: any American subgroup that maintains extended family ties would probably still see it that way.

OP: in Malaysia, there is an annual award given nationally to exemplary mothers, the Ibu Mithali award. Winners are often widows or divorcees who raised huge families to success in the face of hardship.

Here are some english links to Ibu Mithalis:
Gayah Osman: 10 kids

the late Rakayah Rajak, may she rest in peace: 16 kids
posted by BinGregory at 12:18 AM on October 17, 2008