From: pfieland@citron.sw.stratus.com (Peggy Fieland)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Having more than 2
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:48:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Oct13.162057.19644@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> sgauch@ccs.northeastern.edu (Susan Gauch) writes:
>I'm mom to Laura (3.7 years) and Brian (9 months) and debating 
>having another.  The evening seemed so long when we had just one, but now
>that it is split between the two of them, there just doesn't seem to be
>enough time.  The thought of having to divide the hours three ways seems
>impossible.  However, I imagine that the oldest starts spending more
>time with friends or with her own pursuits, leaving (hopefully) time
>for number 3.  I just love babies (and I'm pretty fond of kids, too!)
>and don't really feel "finished."
>
>I'm contemplating a larger age gap (4-5 years)
>between number 2 and 3.  Basically, Laura and Brian are developing
>a good relationship and I don't want to disrupt it by having another
>baby that ends up close to Brian and leaves Laura in the lurch.
>Anyway, I'd love to hear from others who had more than 2 while
>working.  I would expect it to be more work than 2 (I'm not a fool)
>but did it disrupt family harmony?  Any thoughts on spacing?
>Am I out of my mind?  What was the deciding factor for those who
>had 2 and stopped?  Sanity?
>
>P.S.  We use a nanny for daycare, so except for college and preschool 
>and clothing and.... there wouldn't be that much extra expense (oh, yeah:-)).
>-- 
>Susan Gauch
>sgauch@flora.ccs.northeastern.edu

Well, we have three, and I still work outside the home.  Three are definitely
more work than two.  Our boys are pretty evenly spaced, with  2 yrs 5 months
between the oldest and the middle boys, and 2 yrs 4 months between the
middle and the youngest. A larger spacing between them was not really
an option for us, as I was 40  when my youngest son was born.  

I'm not sure if it "disrupted family harmony", but the dynamic of three
kids is definitely different than two.  For one thing, even with the
relatively close spacing we've got, there are things the oldest, or
the two oldest, want to do, that  the youngest can't. For example,
last winter Chris (now 5 1/2) was still too small to go ice skating,
but Colin (now 8) really loved it.  Unfortunately, Mike (now 10 1/2)
doesn't like to ice skate, which left us with me taking Colin ice skating
and John finding something to do with Chris and Mike.  They there's
the "three kids, two parents" problem.  As the kids get older, there
are sports activities, piano lessons, trips to museums, movies, etc,
which are all harder to coordinate with three kids than two.

We also find with our three that Chris and Colin seem to be more
competitive than Mike and either of the other two, but this seems
to be due to personality type  more than anything else.

There are times when all three play peacefully together, but there
would be MORE times that two (ANY two) would play peacefully together
that three, just because of the increased number of interactions.


As for finding enough time, there NEVER seems to be enough time
for everything I want to do.  It was somewhat easier when the kids
were younger (and jobs were easier to come by) and I was working part time.
And yet, I assure you, most nights I do get to practice my flute 
for anywhere from 30 minutes - 1 hour.
I'm an amateur musician (and very determined, or I'd have no
practice time). But it's true that I'm usually practicing between
9 and 10 PM.

Hope this helps.

Peggy