Conference moira::parenting_v3

    Well, I can speak only for our experience, but we found going from 2 to
    3 to be the toughest for us. We had the usual adjustments with number
    1, going to two was a minimal adjustment for us. Going to 3 was
    difficult, but we had some extenuating circumstances, such as I had to
    be away from the time he was 2weeks till he was 3 weeks old, and my
    wife had had a very *nasty* delivery (fourth degree tear, as a result
    of Daniel choosing to come out with his arm over his head...they later
    measured the circumference around his head with his arm up over it, and
    figured it was the equivalent of a 12 - 13 lb. baby!). My wife just
    didn't recover anywhere nearly as quickly as a result, and my being
    away for a week, only made it worse. The hardest "normal" part of giong
    from 2 to 3, when they're all young like yours (ours were 3 yrs, 8 mos,
    and 22 mos. when Danial was born...probably about where yours will
    be!), is that suddenly there's not one parent for each child anymore.
    And it's tough when all three need you at once, and there simply
    doesn't seem to be enough parental hands to go around! It evens out,
    things settle quickly. For what it's worth, goign from 3 - 4 has been
    virtually no adjustment at all. It's like Jacob's always been here, and
    has taken no chnage in routine, really.
    
    Smile and bear it with the comments. We found that people not only
    acted sad, but some were downright rude and obnoxious. We planned #3,
    as well as #4, and it was a bummer at times, but we just chalked it up
    to people being uncomfortable with our situation and not knowing how to
    handle it graciously (like just saying "congratulations", or even just
    shutting up if they couldn't be nice). We got fewer comments with #4,
    actually...I guess people though we were hopelessy mental by then and
    beyond speaking to or reasoning with!
    
    Anyway...Congratualtions!!!!!!!!! I hope its an easy pregnancy for you,
    and remember that you *WILL* adjust...it just may take a bit of getting
    used to. We wouldn't have traded any of it (except my wife's pain after
    delivery), and just love each and  every child we've been blessed with!
    Here's to #3!
    
    --dave--

    
    Joyce - CONGRATULATIONS!  Sorry to say tho, I won't be joining you this
    time!!!!  I can't believe your son is already 15 mos!  I love tossing
    the idea of 3 around, but it seems that people think you are crazy if
    you have more than 2.  I think its just the day and age, I'm not sure,
    but it seems that whenever i mention another one, people think I'm nuts
    (even my husband does sometimes!!!)
    
    Anyways, I hope 3 will be great for you guys (I'm sure there will be
    times it won't be) but isn't everything like that?  I came from a
    family of 5 kids and I thank God we had that many.  We've really had
    some tough times to go through and I coudn't imagine not having my
    brothers and sisters - the first 4 of us were all only 16 mos apart!
    
    Good luck and congrats...
    
    Elizabeth
    

    Thanks Elizabeth!  I took two pregnancy tests and they were both
    negative.  The blood test came back positive.  I really didn't think I
    was pregnant because I have NO symptoms.  BUT... I guess the blood test
    is pretty definite.  I have my first appointment next week.
    
    People definitely do think you're crazy when you have three children,
    but I guess I don't see anything wrong with having a child.  Oh well!!!
    
    Thanks again!
    
    Joyce

    I like this note.  I'm 28 with 2 kids, 9 and 7.  No, I don't need
    more children, but for some reason I want another baby.  Do I have
    to explain my feelings.  What previous notes have said rings very
    true today.  I've read plenty of times in newspapers and elsewhere,
    where people are suggesting that American households have no more
    than 2 kids.  That it's dangerous to our economy, our earth and
    whateverelse.  This seems so wierd to me.  I recall reading about
    China government allowing household only 1 child and how appalled
    I was upon reading that; and now in my own country the very same
    thing may apply directly or indirectly.  I'm sure others have seen
    people make nasty faces or hear terrible remarks toward families
    with many kids, today more than 2 kids is many.
    
    Anyway, I'm not going to have a 3rd child without my husband's
    willingness, but I do romantize the concept of another baby.  I
    enjoyed when my 2 were babies and toddlers and will always treasure
    those years.  They go very quickly.
    
    Today, I'm older than when I had my 2 kids, 18 and 20.  I'm in school,
    there are experiences I want and other matters.  It's very strange
    now, I have more money now then back then, but the thought of another
    child just seems so crazy now, when it should have been when I was
    18.  I've tamed I guess.  Oh well, I've got to really, really want
    another and persuade my husband in order for that formation.  Either
    way, I guess I'll be O.K.

    We had two children, 15 and 5, when we had our third.  It was a
    bit of a surprise, but I can't say it was unplanned because we had
    discussed and accepted the possibility of a surprise pregnancy
    when we decided to use a form of birth control with fewer side
    effects but somewhat less reliability.  
    
    David has been a truly delightful surprise, but it has been a very
    difficult transition for me, and much less so for Neil.  The
    biggest factor appears to be that he's the third child in a
    three-child family while I'm the eldest of a two-child family and
    both my parents were only children.  We were quiet.  His family's
    a lot noisier.  So the chaos level of three kids doesn't bother
    him because he's used to it.  I sometimes literally have to go
    hide in my study for a while to get my cool back together.
    
    Problems:  restaurants don't have a lot of tables for five people. 
    Travel becomes much more expensive.  (For instance, lots of motel
    chains only allow 2 kids in room with parents.) You need a bigger
    car.  Your child-care complications don't just double, they become
    3-factorial.  Your family interactions and possibilities for
    alliances, arguments, disagreements, and incompatibilities become
    5-factorial (5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120 different combinations...) 
    Finding food that everyone enjoys becomes an adventure -- and
    you'll find that very few food packages come in the right size for
    five people.  
    
    Though I must say that despite the hassle it's been worth the
    trouble, and we still haven't fully ruled out the possibility of
    a fourth child.  (God, what fools we mortals be . . . :) )

    All you people who have three... what do you do for daycare?  I'm
    afraid my babysitter will be too afraid to take three, or she'll want
    to charge me some outrageous fee!!!
    
    BTW, thanks for all the positive notes.  I'm real nervous about having
    a third child and it's good to hear that people DO survive!!!
    
    Joyce

    
    I'm not "qualified" to answer your question, Joyce (i.e. I don't
    have 3), but had an idea I'd like to throw out anyways.   By the
    time your new baby arrives, your oldest will be almost 4, right?
    Maybe around that time would be a good time to transition the oldest
    to some sort of pre-school and have the little one "replace" him/her
    at the babysitter.   Perhaps the pre-school would be part time
    providing a gradual transition for both the child and the babysitter???
    
    Carol

    My two oldest are in school, and Kat's old enough to take care of
    other people's kids, so it's really only one in daycare.  
    
    Neil and I are working split shift so we don't have to worry about
    finding somebody to watch the first-grader after school.  Neil
    goes in to work at 6 so he can come home at 3 when Steven gets
    home from school; I take the boys to school/daycare, then work
    until 5:30-6.
    
    We both get up at 5:30 in the morning, and that gives me an hour
    or two of personal time before the boys get up in the morning. 
    This has gone a long way toward alleviating the pressure I feel
    from the crowding.  The whole family then goes to bed at 9-9:30,
    with Steven allowed to read in bed if he's not ready for sleep
    then.  
    
    Carol's idea is a good one, too.
    
    I wanted to add, after my last note made it sound like there are
    more disadvantages to a third kid, that the 5-factorial
    possibilities for interactions are also the strength of the larger
    family.  If Neil or I don't have time to play with David, Kat or
    Steven probably do.  Last year on vacation Neil and Kat wanted to
    see the Universal Studios tour, which sounded absolutely boring to
    me and Steven.  So Steven and I spent an extra day in the EPCOT
    center while Neil, Kat, and the baby went to the studio, and we
    all had a wonderful time instead of half of us feeling martyred.  
    
    You have to be flexible and learn to take advantage of the
    differences, which I think is what Neil knows from having grown up
    in a bigger family that I never learned in my smaller, do
    everything together family. 
    
    --bonnie

    My rule of thumb is that it's not really a family until the kids
    outnumber the parents.
    
    We have 3 - 7, 3.5 and 22 months. I agree completely that the big
    change is between 0 and 1.  After that the extra burdens are marginal,
    albeit real (of course, they are counter-balanced by the extra fun).
    Remember also that after a certain age, children can (and should) be a
    big help with the other kids and the household duties in general. This
    is one reason why after 3 or 4 kids, people say it gets easier, or at
    least no harder. Our seven year old is an excellent ad hoc helper --
    "Can you run up and get Abba's sweater?", "Get the door (or phone),
    will you?", "Mop up that melted ice cream while I throw in this
    laundry", etc. (He's less happy about his assigned chores, but that's
    another story.)
    
    As for those dumb comments by some people, treat them with the bemused
    and icy disdain they deserve. It's remarkable how many people who
    wouldn't dream of being rude in most circumstances say the most damned
    fool things about kids -  an it's not just how many you have. My wife
    and I used to laugh about the litany of disaster we were promised when
    we had our first, starting with "oh, you think you're miserable while
    you're pregnant, just wait til the birth", moving on to "you think he's
    tough to deal with now, just wait til he can walk", all the way up til
    "wait til he's a teenager".  Ridiculous, and we always make a point of
    sweetly contradicting these oafs.
    
    Kit

    We have 3 ... I am the eldest of a family of 4 kids ... so I've
    certainly been a part of larger families ...  
    
    The transitions of adjustment to coping with 1 - 2 - 3 children get
    easier with each step ... in terms of handling the child, coping
    with the problems.  Coping with the effort required only gets
    easier if your "standards" ease a bit between each ... like
    strerilizing every thing in sight and so on.  For us #3 has been
    a comparative breeze.
    
    Logistics really do seem to be the difficult thing with the third.
    Things seem to take significantly longer to do ... like going out
    ... you've just finished dressing #3 in snowsuit and boots, #2
    decides she wants something, you turn around and within a minute #3
    has peeled snowsuit half off and boots too!  
    
    Your hall closet has about enough room in a 3 bedroom house for 4 
    ... getting that 5th snowsuit pair of boots in is a real challenge.
    
    With 3 bedrooms, 2 kids must share ... and have territorial fights,
    disagree over trivial things like night lights, and when you've 
    finally covinced them to liek each other, they chatter away to each
    other half the night keeping each other up till the late hours!
    
    Then there are those things like cans of food made for 3 or 4 or
    20 ... but never 5.  "I'd like 5 muffins ..." but they're cheaper
    in 6's.  Restaurants don't seem to like parties of 5.  All kinds
    of little things.
    
    Just when you think you're getting all these things licked along
    comes middle-kid-itis.  "You don't care about me ... you only care
    about #1 or #3".
    
    Still, I'm glad we have 3 ... dunno quite why!
    
    Stuart

    >Restaurants don't seem to like parties of 5.  All kinds
    >of little things.
    
    I'm glad to see you say this, Stuart.  I was beginning to think it
    was my imagination or something.  Places that are perfectly happy
    with parties of 6 or 8 seem miffed by 5.  A couple of places where
    we've gone for years with the 4 or us suddenly seem a little aloof
    when it's 5 of us.  Its's really bizarre.  
    
    --bonnie

    Nope, it's not your imagination.  The reaction is like "I guess
    we'll have to use up a table for 6 ... unless the little one can
    squeeze on the end ... sticking into the aisle where we can
    fall and trip."  Mind you, it was similar for 3 as well ... but
    not so bad because most tables are for 4 and so they weren't losing
    quite teh same resource.
    
    Have you ever noticed too how they want to find some out of the way
    spot to put you where you are almost ignored too ?
    
    Stuart

    Yes!  Usually between the fire exit and the kitchen door, or else
    next to the busboys' station.  
    
    Which works out great because David loves to watch them go in and
    out and fill up pitchers and make coffee and such . . .
    
    I think they also assume that kids in a party of 5 are going to be
    less well behaved -- and this though our party is essentially 3
    adults and two kids, since Kat's now 17.  
    
    The "stick out in the aisle" part is inconsistent, too.  Kat's
    been away for the summer, so it's been just the four of us, but
    David's still in the highchair.  They don't seem to mind putting
    the highchair at the end of the table and having three people in
    the booth nearly as much as they mind putting the highchair at the
    end of the table and having four people in the same booth.  It's
    really strange. 
    
    --bonnie

    I am also a mother of three, Craig 10, Lauren 7 and Kyle (who just turned
    1).  For me, the transition from 1 to 2 was awful.  I had a terrible
    time coping.  Lauren was not the happiest of babies--so that had a lot
    to do with it.  Going from 2 to 3 has been a breeze.  I know it is
    because of the age differences.  The kids help out a lot. I've really
    got to enjoy Kyle more than my other 2.  The kids really enjoy Kyle and
    love seeing/watching him learn and getting into everything.
    
    My question:  What kind of car/van does everyone drive?  Things are
    getting cramped in our cars.  No one ever could take a friend along,
    even for a short drive.  Any recommendations?
    
    Julie
    

    Dodge Aries station wagon, with stereo (to keep the teenager
    happy) and luggage rack . . .
    
    --bonnie

    Well, we have children who are 4yrs, 2yrs and 5 mos old, and I think
    it's great.  Going from 1 to 2 was the hardest for us, I guess it was
    getting used to the idea of being able to divide your time and love
    between the two, kind of hard to manage it sometimes.  I think it is
    hilarious how people react when you have 3 kids, it as though you had
    30.  "Your having another one?!?!?",  You know, they figured out what
    causes that now, etc, etc.
    
    We have a minivan, IMHO the only way to go.  We had stationwagons when
    we had just 2 kids and they weren't nearly big enough.  
    
    On an aside, my wife is an only child (while my brother and I are 11
    months apart) and she has a hard time dealin with 1 & 2 fighting with
    one another, I end up rolling on the floor.  All I can see are my
    brother and I doing the same thing.
    
    Mike

    
    Those of you who are shocked, disgusted, etc. with people's reactions
    to your 3 or more children do understand that at least some of the
    reaction you are getting might be from a concern about the world
    population problem and/or nature's dwindling resources, right?
    
    I mean, if _every family_ subscribed to the earlier philosphy about a 
    family isn't a family until the kids outnumber the parents, this
    planet would be in deep sneakers!
    
    Carol

    T'aint so Carol.  The reason the planet is in trouble is because of the
    industrial revolution, not because people have 3 or more children. 
    THere is still plenty to go around.  If someone was kind enough to
    bring this tidbit of information to my attention in person I'd kindly
    tell them to keep their big nose in their own business.
    
    Mike

	If on the other hand, you decide to stop at one, you get all the "That
isn't fair to your child."  "Won't he/she be lonely?" , etc.,etc.

	You wouldn't BELIEVE the amount of censure I got when I had my tubes 
tied at the birth of my daughter.

	*I* wouldn't have three kids (obviously :-) ), but it's none of my 
business what you decide to do.

	Oh, and by the way, CONGRATULATIONS!	

Tracey	

    
    I've always wanted to have a big family, so I think it is great.
    
    We just had our first last September. We will probably try for the
    next one next summer, after I finish school! Unfortunately, the
    size of our family is dependent on our finances. So we have decided
    that if the next one is a girl (we have a son) that we will most
    likely stop. If the next one is a boy, then we will discuss whether
    to try for a girl or not. It is possible that we will stop at two
    and they may both be boys, but I have no problem at all with that.
    
    I had a brother when I grew up, and always wanted another kid in
    the family. My husband grew up with 2 sisters and a brother, so
    he prefers a smaller family. 3 would be a compromise!!
    
    Congratulations, and have fun!!!!
    
    Sheila
    

Yet another perspective! ...

I wanted 2 - maybe 3.  Jim wanted "many" (4'ish?).

Since I cannot bear children (hysterectomy in my early 30's), we were
very fortunate to get our newborn daughter through adoption.  After
many LONG, DIFFICULT, STRESSFUL years riding the adoption process roller
coaster, looks like Jim/I will pour all our love into our "one and only".

There are times I yearn for "more" kids running around, but at 41+, I
know my patience and strength is on a downward slide.  So to fill the void of 
having more kids, we encourage any and all neighborhood kids to
come around ... some days I wish they were ALL mine ... and other days
I'm glad to say "bye, see you tomorrow!"

Jim/I do get a lot of "indirect" comments about "choosing" to raise ONE
child.  Not all of it was our chose, however!!!, and besides, IT'S NO ONE'S
BUSINESS but OURS!

I say "go for it!"  If you have the means and desire to add more children,
then GREAT!  When you figure how many people choose "0" kids today ...
not to mention that the numbers of children per family have decreased
over the years ... I worry more about surviving the financial (thus, STRESS!)
mess the government AND PEOPLE are in far more than any probability of 
OVER-population.

Dottie

    Congratulations!  I think it is wonderful to have 3 kids.
    We just had our second (now 10 months old)  and already we are 
    debating whether to have one more.
    
    My husband came from a family of 5 kids and my mom had 3 
    children.  We both like to have a big family.  Two is just
    not enough.  Our ideal family will have 4 kids, 2 boys and
    2 girls.   Unfortunately, whether we will have more kids
    depends on our family finance.  More than 2 kids will make
    our family budget very tight.  Which is probably not a wise
    decision during economy depression.
    
    I am really happy for you.  Hopefully, one day we will
    also have the courage to go for number 3.
    
    Wendy
    
    

    re: economics
    
    A third kid doesn't cost as much out of pocket as the first one
    did.  A good portion of the expenses are "sunk costs" -- we
    already owned the house, the car, the crib, etc. etc. etc. 
    
    I'm sure that over the years the costs will add up, but the cost
    of three kids isn't three times as high.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .20
    Carol,
    
    No, I don't think you're rude at all, but a trifle mininformed. The
    myth of world overpopluation is one of the most persistently
    perpetuated ones I know of, and I once accepted it as fact, too. I've
    read some startling facts, and I've looked 'em up for myself (which I
    wholeheartedly encourage you to do, also).
    
    here it is: If you were to take the *entire* population of the world
    and relocate them to an area the size of the state of Texas, it would
    be less densely popluated than NY city is right now! And you'd have the
    whole rest of the planet for natural resources! Look it up...it's
    absolutely true. I haven't got a good atlas at home, or I'd enter the
    figures...I went to the library and looked in an atlas there.
    
    This may be very difficult to believe for diehard overpopulationists,
    but it is absolutely true.
    
    (In quickly rereading the above, it occurs to me now that I'm not 100%
    postive it was all of NY city, or just the island of Manhattan, but you
    get the idea anyway...cna't remember which figure I used, but it's
    seems to me I looked 'em both up and it worked out with either one!)
    
    --dave--

    Again, in rereading my last entry, it might appear I am advocating
    relaocating everyone to an area the size of Texa! Absolutely not! But
    my point was ther are vast amounts of land which is not being used
    anywhere near to it's fullest potential. Add to this cultural problems
    which contirbute (particularly in 3rd world nations) to starvation and
    filthy santiary conditions, etc., and you have a better picture of why
    things are so bleak in many parts of the world. 
    
    --dave--

    The idea of overpopulation is dependent on the infra-structure there
    to support that population to a given standard of living.  One could
    quite easily say that many of N. America's cities are seriously
    overpopulated given the crumbling city infra-structures.  One could
    also say that one person on a desert island could be over-population if
    there was no opportunity to grow food!
    
    Stuart

    re: .20  
    
    >I mean, if _every family_ subscribed to the earlier philosphy about a 
    >family isn't a family until the kids outnumber the parents, this
    >planet would be in deep sneakers!
    
    Carol,
    
    As you see from intervening replies, strong cases can be made for or
    against the view that the world suffers from overpopulation, excessive
    consumption of resources, etc.
    
    However, what can be clearly stated is that few families *do* subscribe
    to this "philosophy". Those of us with 3 or more are a distinct
    minority, and dwindling. This is the inevitable result of modern
    industrial standards of living, not to mention changes in the role of
    modern women. In fact, in the rich nations, population growth and
    overpopulation are not issues. I agree that excessive consumption of
    resources and the related deleterious effects on poorer nations are
    issues, but they are not strongly related to population, rather to
    consumption per person.
    
    Kit

    
    re: 28
    
    Overpopulation has as much to do with what sheer numbers of people do
    with their land as much as the sheer numbers of people. Raising 
    domestic cattle in Africa, slash and burn farming in South America, or 
    damming and consuming the Colorado and Platte Rivers until no water 
    reaches the ocean can ALL be viewed as overpopulation. My definition
    of overpopulation is when the numbers of people/animals has exceeded
    the carrying capacity of the land to the extent that the ecosystem
    breaks down and or falters. Just because x number of people can live
    close together on Manhattan Island  and, extrapolating from that , all
    of the people in the world can fit into Texas does NOT mean that the 
    number of people on the Earth has NOT exceeded the carrying capacity 
    of the Earth. However, we (as Earthlings) have not used the land that 
    we inhabit to it's fullest and wisest extent. I have no doubt that 
    we could , indeed, feed every man/women/child on Earth today.
    Unfortunately, this would do nothing to slow the birthrate in most 
    third world countries and (sooner or later with exponential population
    growth) there would be poor and starving people again. Population
    growth in the U.S. today is leveled off, and anyone considering three
    (or more) children should not feel guilty about it because it is not
    the norm (any more) in our society. This is not true, however, for
    countries like China who have only recently achieved zero population
    growth. Only through government imposed deterrents have they been
    able to achieve this (one advantage of totalitarian rule.... one that 
    could probably NOT  have been achieved through democracy), and they 
    will still be faced with the threat of over population for decades.
    One could argue that they could probably fit all of their people in ,
    say, Manchuria, but they would still have to be fed. 
    
    As for the basenoter and anyone else: have as many children as delights
    you! When we, the baby boomers, die out in the next 40 years, the U.S.
    will need them!  
    
    
    doug
    

The eco-system as you describe is indeed, breaking down, but not from
overpopulation as you describe, but our gross mis-management of the
land and water resources.  If you were told to stop watering your lawns
and install low volume flush toilets to replace the high volume toilets
in standard use, then much water would be again available.  This is not
an over-population issue.

    Agreed Stuart.  The key words are "intelligent usage" of our resources. 
    Take and use what you need and leave the rest for the next person. 
    Unfortunately in the industrialized world in the past 50-60 years the
    motto has been, take all you can hold and let the next person worry
    about themselves.
    
    
    Mike

    My, such volatile reactions!
    
    Several comments on my .28.....
    
    I never said that there weren't *sections* of the world that are
    overpoplulated, but just that the world as a whole is *NOT*, and I
    still maintain that. There are vast areas of land which could be used
    for farming, using super-efficient, modern methods. 
    
    The key is, as Stuart and Mike have said, that what we have is not used
    intelligently and is, for the most part, grossly mismanaged. Alarmists
    have been screaming "overpopulation!" for much longer than I can
    remember, and, although the world population has certainly increased,
    it is not nearly as catastrophic as most of the things written in the
    60's said it would be by now. Probably because we have smartened up
    somewhat about not abusing natural and irreplaceable resources.
    
    I absolutely shudder to think that China's methods of population
    control would even be tried in a Democracy such as the US. Or in any
    other 1st world nation. Excuse me, but no one gave this government (or
    any government, IMO), that right to control my desire to have more than
    one child. I cannot imagine living in a society where someone would
    literally come and haul my wife away, and incarcerate her in total
    isolation from her family and child, until she "agreed" to abort the
    life she carried within her. There is no alternative in China, although
    I understand some families in very rural areas do escape detection of
    second pregnancies to a higher degree than urban families, where it is
    virtually impossible to have a second child. If I sound upset about
    this, you read me right....it is one of the greatest acts of horror a
    nation has ever perpetrated, again, IMO.
    
    --dave--

While *everything* in the world is probably of interest to parents, this
conference is intended for discussions on subjects which are of more-or-
less direct interest to parents by virtue of their being parents.

The initial comment on the relevance of the population question to comments
about having lots of children was thus appropriate, but an extended 
discussion of overpopulation would not be.

	-Neil Faiman, PARENTING co-moderator