Back before the hills got dusty, when I still had the luxury of deciding how early I would get up and what I would do in the morning, I observed that any amount of time I allowed for getting ready was exactly enough. If I overslept and only had 20 minutes, I could be ready in 20 minutes. If I got up early and found myself with two hours, I was just as likely to be trying to put my shoes on as I ran out to my car as if it were a 20 minute day. The time required somehow always shrank or grew precisely to fit the time available.
This is how it's gone for me kidwise, too. When the hills had just started to get dusty, we had one kid, and I don't remember any less scrambling in our lives. One kid is as much reason for a littered house, rolling in late, or a sleepless night as five kids. I've rarely been as tired as I was with one kid (who, admittedly, slept less than most adults), or spread as thin as I was with two. Five, for me, is much easier than two. I'm not saying there are no differences between the few-kid house and the many-kid house, just that around here it hasn't felt like as wide a gulf as people seem to think. A kid complicates things, period. After that we're just arguing about how many fit in a minivan.
11 comments:
LOL I have heard many people say after you have 2 (which is the most earth-shattering) you could have 10. Well I'm here to tell you that since I went from zero to 2, three was a PIECE OF CAKE!
And isn't it funny what what used to entail getting ready as to what we do NOW? :)
We currently have two children. But I believe what you say to be true. Our transition from zero children to one child was far more "dramatic" than adding our second little one. Now, when we contemplate the addition of more little ones the first issue is not how we'll deal but how we'll all get around:-) A mini van is next for us!
LOL I've got the vehicle (suburban) now I just need another baby or two ;)
Good to know. Lately, with *only* two, I've been wondering how there could possibly be enough of me to spread any further... Granted, the older one is two-and-a-half and all that entails and the younger one is a very wiggly almost-one, but still.
Kristi, I'm pretty sure twins would kill me. In a good way.
Glad to hear. With only one, I'm still feeling the huge change, and wonder if two would feel as big of a change as one!
good ol' math, helping a mom out.
Leah - for me, one-to-two was a much bigger change than zero-to-one was. I'm hoping that two-to-three will be the "easy" one...
Zero-to-one was an absolute nightmare for us. (Granted, we met in March, got married in August, and were pregnant-surprise!-by September.) Took me about a year to recover mentally from it all. I'm sure hoping that #2's arrival in September will be a little less dramatic. Good to hear that the general consensus is that 3 and beyond is much easier! I'm keeping my therapist on retainer just in case. ;)
I'm also of the zero-to-one being easier than the adding-another persuasion. So much less shell shock.
When we had 5 children (four under age 5), I had the hardest time keeping things running. Numbers 6 and 7 were just blips on the screen. The time management and crowd control of a large family usually happens incrementally, so the change is gradual. I did notice that my oldest daughters are better at watching our younger children than adults who were used to 2 children. The large number of bodies to keep track of was too much of a change. I would often return home from a day away and find the adult babysitter asleep on the couch and my 11 year old playing with the younger children and preparing dinner. :)
Post a Comment