If popular culture were any indication, you'd think big families are back. Television shows like Jon & Kate Plus 8, 19 Kids and Counting and 9 By Design follow women whose outlook on kids seems to be the more the merrier. Plus, celebrities like Heidi Klum (four kids) and Angelina Jolie (six kids) make many-children motherhood look glamorous.
All of which raises the question: Are professional women shattering the two-children, nuclear-family norm?
Susan W. Hinze, professor of sociology and women’s and gender studies at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, offers a definitive "maybe." According to the National Center for Health Statistics, fertility rates increased steadily until 2006 to 2.1 children per American woman, hitting a high since the baby boom in 1961. However, there's been a slight decrease in births in the past few years likely because of the recession, says Hinze. This year, the Central Intelligence Agency estimates an average rate of 2.05 children per woman.
Two kids per family might remain the average, but the story doesn't end there.
Hinze says there is evidence that affluent families are beginning to have more children. According to the Council on Contemporary Families, there's been a significant increase in three- and four-children families among the "super rich," or the top-earning 2% of households, which translates to an annual household income of about $400,000 or more.
The economic costs of having children today are huge, and high-earners probably have more simply because they are able to afford them. In fact, the cost of raising a child has exploded in the past few decades. A 2009 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) says that in 1960 the average middle-class family spent $25,000 per child, compared with a whopping $222,000 in 2009. When adjusted for inflation, that’s an increase of 22%. The report also estimates that the current per-child cost can be as high as $370,000 from birth to age 17 (which would not factor in college tuition costs), or about $23,000 each year.
According to David Hacker, a demographic historian at State University of New York at Binghamton, eight children per family was the norm in the 1800s because infant mortality rates were high and children were economically beneficial (they helped with the family business and supported their parents into old age). Today, however, children are viewed as offering emotional value rather than practical value. Economist Ann Crittenden estimates that a college-educated woman loses about $1 million in lifetime earnings after having just one child.
Why, then, are some working moms having six, seven, even 14 kids in an age where birth control is socially acceptable and children are so expensive? Hacker says kids are now "luxury goods," which people believe fill their lives with joy and deep satisfaction (despite the fact that many studies show that children do not increase overall happiness). And if the wealthy are raising more children just because they can, it may have a ripple effect. "The rich are trendsetters," says Hacker. "It may bear watching whether these well-publicized larger families will lead to overall increases in fertility."
Lorin Arnold, dean of the College of Communication at Rowan University in New Jersey, can speak from experience. She juggles six children between the ages of 10 and 21 and her full-time job. "That means lots of laundry," she says. Arnold always wanted a big family but says that, like many working moms with multiple kids, she didn't have a goal number or work out the details on a spreadsheet first.
She also wonders if the big-family celebrities and TV moms are actually envied or if they are a bizarre fascination. "I get a lot of people coming up to me and my kids in the grocery store," she says, "asking why did I have so many? As if it's so weird."
Cortney Novogratz, star of Bravo’s 9 By Design and mother of seven, decided with her husband early on that they would recreate the happy chaos of their own childhoods. (She has four siblings; he has six.) Today, their kids range in age from 13 years to 16 months.
But the couple also owns their own real estate design and development company, Sixx Design, in New York. "If we didn't create our own hours and switch hats, I don't know how I could have done it," says Novogratz. In fact, she admits, having a large family puts more pressure on her career success because large families are so costly today.
While she occasionally becomes overwhelmed by the idea of seven college tuitions, she says she prioritizes her spending: "If we had only two kids, my wardrobe would be nicer and I'd take more extravagant trips. But having my kids is more important than my wardrobe."
Even if one could handle the finances, how does a modern mom manage a full-time career and a big brood? Novogratz has developed some tricks. She insists that the children contribute to the family, helping out with chores and watching over their siblings. Novogratz also expects her older children to be responsible for their social calendars. "I tell them, 'If you expect me to remember all your friends' birthdays and bar mitzvahs, you're dreaming,'" she says.
Even tasks that might be routine for a smaller family, such as scheduling doctors' appointments, become nearly impossible for this clan of nine. When one of the children needs a teeth cleaning, they all go in at once and overtake the dentist's office. It’s just easier that way, she notes. She has also become super mom in terms of planning and preparation. She keeps copies of the kids' health forms on her person at all times, which has been especially helpful in summers, when they all go off to camp.
Shannah B. Godfrey, a Missouri-based chemist and mother of 14, says she gave up on a lot of things to be a working mom of so many: "Like pajamas."
Godfrey, who adopted four children, gained three from her second marriage and had seven of her own, has always been a full-time mom and employee. When she was working in the rocket fuel research and design department of Alliant Techsystems ( ATK - news - people )--"yes, you could call me a rocket scientist"--she came up with some innovative solutions in the lab and at home.
Godfrey found it too difficult to dress so many kids in the morning before work. So she dressed them at night. Instead of pajamas, the kids slept in their school clothes, and the next morning Godfrey would pick them up--still sleeping--and carry each directly to the car. After dropping them off at a caregiver's house, she’d go in to work while the caregiver went on to make the children breakfast and see them to school.
"You have to know what to let go of," explains Godfrey. For her, that meant a spotless house and a full night's sleep was not in the cards. But she says having a big family was worth it and she encourages other professional women not to dismiss it.
"I was the only female scientist at work who had children," she says. “Especially if they had Ph.D.s, they thought they couldn't have kids because their careers came first. I call that reverse Darwinism--the smartest people choosing not to have kids."
Sociology professor Hinze believes the notion that career women don't have time for kids is changing. Hard-charging boomers may not have had much choice, being forced to decide between career and family. But today, many companies offer better parental leave packages and more flexible scheduling for both women and men.
Shannon Fox, a marriage and family therapist, agrees that there's been a generational shift in family size. Fox says that Generation X, those approximately 30 to 45 now, have come of age and are raising young children. Gen X is known for valuing work-life balance and for being more family-oriented, says Fox, "so it makes sense that they'd want larger families."
When asked about her predictions for Gen Y, those in their teens and twenties now, Fox says it's still too soon to tell. However, with the uptick in unmarried, cohabiting couples, she expects that Gen Y women will have more children out of wedlock than previous generations.
Source
