If you are Gen X and had your kids in your twenties

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Free as a BIRD! A frickin' BIRD, I TELL YOU! Bye bye kiddies see you at Thanksgiving. Life is great.

I'm surprised by that sentiment. Is that because having kids when young and unsettled and raising them during the difficult career years was so tough that your primarily feeling of seeing them go is relief?

DP. That is a helluva lot projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m gen x and only two of my friends had their first in their 20s, and that was like 28 which everyone thought was sooo young. One friend even got called a teenage mom.

This. I'm Gen X, and almost no one I know had kids in their 20s (and some of those were birth control failures). I feel like the majority of my friends had kids mid-30s to early 40s. I was 40 myself. But that's for highly educated, ambitious professionals on the coasts. I now live in the Midwest, where people of every generation have/ had kids in their 20s. I'm decades older than the other kindergarten moms.

I don't get why anyone thinks Millennials invented having kids late. My dad was Silent Generation and waited until 40, mostly for career reasons.

+1 I'm 52 and had my kids at 33 and 35. Early 30s was the norm among my friends. But I do have Gen X relatives who had kids more in their early to mid 20s, generally more in the midwest or working class communities and didn't go to college. I do think having kids a little earlier would have been nice, might have tipped the balance toward having three since as it is, DH (59) will be ready to retire when our youngest is finishing college.

My mom was Silent Generation, didn't go to college, and was a big outlier in her Irish Catholic community because she didn't have her first child until 26. She got a lot of hassle about not being quick to settle down -- and then when she did she married a Protestant!! -- so she always encouraged me and my sister to take our time settling down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way! Had our first at 27, second at 31. I just turned 45 and the oldest heads to college next year.

That is young to start college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No way! Had our first at 27, second at 31. I just turned 45 and the oldest heads to college next year.

That is young to start college

Np. Wouldn’t her oldest be 18, a normal age to start college?

[Anonymous]

I had plenty of time to be young, travel, go to grad school and had my first at 28. I’m glad I started when I did!

[Anonymous]

I had my first just a few days past my 25th bday. I'm now 44 and DC is 19 and a sophomore in college. For the longest time I thought it would be great to be in my early to mid 40s and done with all the day-to-day parenting stuff. That I could travel and focus on my career. But now I see that stuff isn't nearly as fulfilling as parenting can be. I started a career and traveled when my first was young; DC leaving for college didn't change any of that.

Good news is I had my second child at 38 and 3rd at 41. My youngest will be off to college right around the time DH and I intend to retire. Sure, some days are a slog, as I don't have nearly the energy I had when I was younger with DC 1, but I cherish every moment. I love seeing my little ones smiles when I come home, all the hugs and snuggles, they way the smell when they are bed asleep. Life would seems so empty w/ DC off at college and no little ones at home. It goes so fast; it's hard to believe my oldest is now 19. The days when my 19 was as young as my other 2 seems like yesterday. So I am grateful.

If I really had to choose, I might have waited a little longer just so I could appreciate and enjoy my first born a little more; seems like I was always anxious and worried about my career or DC and wanted to rush things- I wanted DC to become more independent so we could move onto the next "new" stage or thing. Now I just want to slow down time and savor my time with my other two DC as long as possible. I guess time offers a little perspective, and some life-lessons. But I don't think you can go wrong either way; it's a personal choice and there is no one encompassing answer.

[Anonymous]

I had my first at 28 and my second at 42. My only regret is that I didn’t have my kids closer together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my first just a few days past my 25th bday. I'm now 44 and DC is 19 and a sophomore in college. For the longest time I thought it would be great to be in my early to mid 40s and done with all the day-to-day parenting stuff. That I could travel and focus on my career. But now I see that stuff isn't nearly as fulfilling as parenting can be. I started a career and traveled when my first was young; DC leaving for college didn't change any of that.

Good news is I had my second child at 38 and 3rd at 41. My youngest will be off to college right around the time DH and I intend to retire. Sure, some days are a slog, as I don't have nearly the energy I had when I was younger with DC 1, but I cherish every moment. I love seeing my little ones smiles when I come home, all the hugs and snuggles, they way the smell when they are bed asleep. Life would seems so empty w/ DC off at college and no little ones at home. It goes so fast; it's hard to believe my oldest is now 19. The days when my 19 was as young as my other 2 seems like yesterday. So I am grateful.

If I really had to choose, I might have waited a little longer just so I could appreciate and enjoy my first born a little more; seems like I was always anxious and worried about my career or DC and wanted to rush things- I wanted DC to become more independent so we could move onto the next "new" stage or thing. Now I just want to slow down time and savor my time with my other two DC as long as possible. I guess time offers a little perspective, and some life-lessons. But I don't think you can go wrong either way; it's a personal choice and there is no one encompassing answer.

DP and one who finds this perspective very helpful. I'm someone who traveled independently in my 20s, pre-kids, and am really happy I did it that way. Once I had my first, life became much less carefree--which is as it should be, I think. But I don't know that I could enjoy the kind of independent, spontaneous travel that I did as a single, non-parent in my 20s that I would as a parent in my late 40s/early 50s, even if my kids were grown. I'll still be there mom; I'll still want to be available for them.

I also wouldn't have had nearly the patience in my 20s that I have now. I probably focus more on social/emotional development than many parents, but I think that's a benefit to my kids, so I'm glad I can do it (i.e., it's a benefit to me of being an older parent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 29, 3rd and last at 32 and I think that’s the way to go. I felt I had plenty of time to be single and have fun in my 20s before I got married at 27. Kids are almost out of the house and I still feel young enough to travel, enjoy DH, and we have way more money than we did in our 20s so we can spend it on ourselves.

I agree with this. Have kids in the 28-32ish range. You have time to live it up in your 20s and also have an empty nest early. Best of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 29, 3rd and last at 32 and I think that’s the way to go. I felt I had plenty of time to be single and have fun in my 20s before I got married at 27. Kids are almost out of the house and I still feel young enough to travel, enjoy DH, and we have way more money than we did in our 20s so we can spend it on ourselves.

I agree with this. Have kids in the 28-32ish range. You have time to live it up in your 20s and also have an empty nest early. Best of both worlds.

+1. I traveled for almost the entirety of my 20s. Lived in different places and on different continents. Got married at 29 and baby at 30. Last baby #3 at 35. I don't feel that I missed out at all. I'm actually quite happy that I didn't just start having kids in late 30s/40s, as I'm now able to travel with my kids and do fun things with them. I'm also looking forward to being semi-young enough to still do all the things that I want when they are off to college. .

[Anonymous]

I’m a millennial and I had 3 kids in my 20’s. I wish I would have had them later and enjoyed more of my youth being free and having fun. Sure the kids will be out the house when I’m in my 40’s but your 40’s are obviously not your 20’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 29, 3rd and last at 32 and I think that’s the way to go. I felt I had plenty of time to be single and have fun in my 20s before I got married at 27. Kids are almost out of the house and I still feel young enough to travel, enjoy DH, and we have way more money than we did in our 20s so we can spend it on ourselves.

I agree with this. Have kids in the 28-32ish range. You have time to live it up in your 20s and also have an empty nest early. Best of both worlds.

DP, but why is having an empty nest early a good thing? I mean, do people really think that have your last kid at 37 vs. 32 means you won't be able to travel or enjoy your spouse once the kids leave? That doesn't make sense to me.

The only real downside I see to having kids later is less time as a grandparent, assuming you become one. That, I completely get. But that sense of wanting to get the kids out of the way isn't how I want to feel as a parent (acknowledging how hard it is to parent). I don't know, I guess I see myself more as a marathon parent, in that I'm in this for the long haul, rather than sprinting to get it done and then get back to things I "enjoy." For example, we were FaceTiming with my MIL some months back, and it had been a long day with the kids and I was tired. And she said, "don't worry, Larla, it gets better: they grow up and leave the house and then you have it all to yourself!" And that's... not how I want to feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had my first at 29, 3rd and last at 32 and I think that’s the way to go. I felt I had plenty of time to be single and have fun in my 20s before I got married at 27. Kids are almost out of the house and I still feel young enough to travel, enjoy DH, and we have way more money than we did in our 20s so we can spend it on ourselves.

I agree with this. Have kids in the 28-32ish range. You have time to live it up in your 20s and also have an empty nest early. Best of both worlds.

DP, but why is having an empty nest early a good thing? I mean, do people really think that have your last kid at 37 vs. 32 means you won't be able to travel or enjoy your spouse once the kids leave? That doesn't make sense to me.

The only real downside I see to having kids later is less time as a grandparent, assuming you become one. That, I completely get. But that sense of wanting to get the kids out of the way isn't how I want to feel as a parent (acknowledging how hard it is to parent). I don't know, I guess I see myself more as a marathon parent, in that I'm in this for the long haul, rather than sprinting to get it done and then get back to things I "enjoy." For example, we were FaceTiming with my MIL some months back, and it had been a long day with the kids and I was tired. And she said, "don't worry, Larla, it gets better: they grow up and leave the house and then you have it all to yourself!" And that's... not how I want to feel.

+100. Some of these posters don’t even sound like they like their kids. It’s sad really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No way! Had our first at 27, second at 31. I just turned 45 and the oldest heads to college next year.

That is young to start college

Np. Wouldn’t her oldest be 18, a normal age to start college?

Exactly he turns 18 in a few weeks and will start college next Fall. I have no idea what the bolder means.

[Anonymous]

We got married as soon as I graduated from college at 21 (he was 24). Had our first at 22 and our second at 25. Our youngest will head off to college right before I turn 44. I wouldn’t change a thing...and not because I want them out and want the rest of my life to myself, but because we have had so much time together and (lord willing) could have another 30-40 years to be on this earth together. Time is everything. And every year later they could have been born would have been one year less we had together.