Anonymous wrote:If you at all care about the future of our planet (and the future of the two children you already have), not having any more kids is the right thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP. Yes, we are an active family - lots of trips, incl international travel, skiing, surfing, lots of theatre, after-school activities etc. - and that is a big factor in a decision against a third. However, I like at least a 3yr age gap so I can enjoy each child individually and give them my proper time and attention. I think that three kids under 3 or 4, even under 5, is a big blur in the young years to a lot of my friends, although with proper help they manage. I would hire help for the the youngest child. I feel like the older ones would need me more, and the needs of 1-4 yr olds can be met by any competent nanny (we are fortunate to have had one). I am even comfortable with leaving a young child with a nanny while we travel, because he/she will neither remember that, nor would they really miss out on active hiking/skiing/European trips, in which they cannot meaningfully participate. Lastly, DH and I are comfortable to divide and conquer as needed, since we do it with the 2 we've got anyway.

We have 3 kids and this same type of lifestyle including the ski trips and surf trips. Anyway, when our third was a baby, I hired a nanny so that I could still take the older kids on daily outings and to their activities. We left her home with grandparents when we went on trips that weren’t a good match with a baby (skiing, Costa Rica, Disney, etc.). Other trips we brought her on like trips to the beach. Traveling with her became a lot easier once she potty trained, gave up the naps, and no longer needed a stroller. She’s been on skis since four.

All this to say, it is very doable if this is what you really want. Don’t listen to the people saying it is too hard to live an active life of frequent travel with three. We’ve been on 5 trips since the pandemic (safely).

Anonymous wrote:OP. Yes, we are an active family - lots of trips, incl international travel, skiing, surfing, lots of theatre, after-school activities etc. - and that is a big factor in a decision against a third. However, I like at least a 3yr age gap so I can enjoy each child individually and give them my proper time and attention. I think that three kids under 3 or 4, even under 5, is a big blur in the young years to a lot of my friends, although with proper help they manage. I would hire help for the the youngest child. I feel like the older ones would need me more, and the needs of 1-4 yr olds can be met by any competent nanny (we are fortunate to have had one). I am even comfortable with leaving a young child with a nanny while we travel, because he/she will neither remember that, nor would they really miss out on active hiking/skiing/European trips, in which they cannot meaningfully participate. Lastly, DH and I are comfortable to divide and conquer as needed, since we do it with the 2 we've got anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your second post sounds seriously smug, OP.

1- Don't pride yourself on divide-and-conquer working so well when you have three kids.

2 - There are advantages and disadvantages to ALL age spacings, and your dismissal of people with smaller age gaps really rubs me the wrong way.

3 - You pride yourself on your perfect 3 year gap yet also say that a nanny can care for every need a 1-4yo would have, so which is it? You're free to enjoy them due to your perfect age spacing or you outsource?

4 - Three kids add exponentially to the family dynamics. Think of it this way. It's not just the dynamic of all four people, the dynamics of each kid with each adult, the dynamic of two kids together. That multiplies because each subset of the family has its own dynamic. It's actually wonderful ... at times. It can also be challenging beyond belief.

I had three under four (now teens/tween) and wouldn't change a single thing about how much fun we had, how we only had to deal with a short period of diapers, how they are all approaching being in the same life stage, which is such a special part of having a sibling. Hearing them open up to each other about friends and teachers and their many common experiences ... heck, even hearing them discuss the characters and plot lines in their favorite show--it's an incredible gift to be raising kids so close in age.

But also? Whatever spacing and number that any family has is incredible--a miracle.

Honestly, you strike me more as a person who thinks there is one right way to do things and I don't think that perspective lends itself well to having 3+ kids. On the other hand, there is little I can think in the world that could teach that lesson more fully, so maybe it would be a good thing for your growth as a person.

I have a 2 year gap between my first two and 3+ years between second and third. I wish I had my third a year earlier... they are little still, but the third prevents us from doing many things we would be doing had he been 1-2 years older such as: skiing, flying the kids alone (they need to be 5 or older to fly alone), longer car rides, etc.
I love my 3 kids and their dynamics like you say, but I wish I had a smaller age gap (like yours).

Anonymous wrote:Your second post sounds seriously smug, OP.

1- Don't pride yourself on divide-and-conquer working so well when you have three kids.

2 - There are advantages and disadvantages to ALL age spacings, and your dismissal of people with smaller age gaps really rubs me the wrong way.

3 - You pride yourself on your perfect 3 year gap yet also say that a nanny can care for every need a 1-4yo would have, so which is it? You're free to enjoy them due to your perfect age spacing or you outsource?

4 - Three kids add exponentially to the family dynamics. Think of it this way. It's not just the dynamic of all four people, the dynamics of each kid with each adult, the dynamic of two kids together. That multiplies because each subset of the family has its own dynamic. It's actually wonderful ... at times. It can also be challenging beyond belief.

I had three under four (now teens/tween) and wouldn't change a single thing about how much fun we had, how we only had to deal with a short period of diapers, how they are all approaching being in the same life stage, which is such a special part of having a sibling. Hearing them open up to each other about friends and teachers and their many common experiences ... heck, even hearing them discuss the characters and plot lines in their favorite show--it's an incredible gift to be raising kids so close in age.

But also? Whatever spacing and number that any family has is incredible--a miracle.

Honestly, you strike me more as a person who thinks there is one right way to do things and I don't think that perspective lends itself well to having 3+ kids. On the other hand, there is little I can think in the world that could teach that lesson more fully, so maybe it would be a good thing for your growth as a person.

Anonymous wrote:OP. Yes, we are an active family - lots of trips, incl international travel, skiing, surfing, lots of theatre, after-school activities etc. - and that is a big factor in a decision against a third. However, I like at least a 3yr age gap so I can enjoy each child individually and give them my proper time and attention. I think that three kids under 3 or 4, even under 5, is a big blur in the young years to a lot of my friends, although with proper help they manage. I would hire help for the the youngest child. I feel like the older ones would need me more, and the needs of 1-4 yr olds can be met by any competent nanny (we are fortunate to have had one). I am even comfortable with leaving a young child with a nanny while we travel, because he/she will neither remember that, nor would they really miss out on active hiking/skiing/European trips, in which they cannot meaningfully participate. Lastly, DH and I are comfortable to divide and conquer as needed, since we do it with the 2 we've got anyway.

To the poster who said that I should not have more children because we never consider a third: we are all allowed to change our minds based on new information, no? I never imagined how much I'd enjoy being a mother. Despite having had a big career, lots of travel, going out to events and dinners, friends, hobbies etc prior to kids, I now find myself in a position where none of that matters to me as much as my kids, and none of it brings me as much joy as spending time with them, even in the more boring baby and toddler years. Hence those new feelings and thoughts about a third. Yes, volunteering, helping out those in need, fostering etc. are fulfilling, and I do a bit of that, however I am allowed to value time with my kids more than any of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We go back and forth about wanting a third. Mine are 3 and 6. I'm 39. My husband does not want a third, but I think that if I told him that it was important to me, he would discuss it. Two months ago we had a pregnancy scare-- I was late-- and I FREAKED out. I thought about how our life would become so difficult, again, how my relationship with my husband would struggle under the additional stress, how I had no desire to pump or breastfeed again, and a million other things.

I wasn't pregnant, but I was shocked by how reassuring that experience was. I realize not everyone would feel this way, but it was a useful "tool" for me.

Ha, this happened to us, too. We weren't sure about a third, but were both relieved when a pregnancy scare turned out to be just a scare. Now our kids are middle and late elementary and we feel like we're in a great place to support their individual abilities and challenges and we are really enjoying the flexibility of older kids. My sister is trying for her fourth baby now, and that sounds awful to me. (The parenting, that is! I love having nieces and nephews to snuggle!)

I know it's somewhat counterintuitive, but I also think that having kids is ultimately a pretty selfish thing--the world doesn't need more people and could benefit from a lot fewer. Cranking out multiple versions of your genes certainly feels good and satisfies your biological urges, but it's the ultimate vanity project. Just because raising children is sometimes difficult doesn't make it selfless. YMMV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note the SAHMs saying they “needed” a third. Hmmm.

I didn’t note anyone saying anything even close to that. I think you are projecting.

A number of posters have strongly implied that (04:59) and people are even suggesting tricking her husband into having another one. Gross.

How is that related to being a SAHM? Tricking someone to get pregnant is gross no matter the circumstances.

OP and 04:59 both stay home. You've never heard of SAHMs wanting more kids so they have an excuse to continue not working? Open your eyes, honey.

'

You are stretching and obviously have an issue with SAHMs. Two posters stay at home, so you are linking that to the others' with no knowledge of their working status. Open your eyes about your own bias.