…for thinking you’re batsh*t crazy.
In the past, I would occasionally witness women I knew, with three or more children, go on to become pregnant with their fourth or fifth. I wrongly assumed that, though I may like and respect this woman, she had one or more of the following major problems:
- Her health insurance didn’t cover birth control.
- Her husband was an heinous neanderthal who was trying to keep her in the kitchen, barefoot, and etc.
- She was trying to catch up with Michelle Duggar.
- She was totally batsh*t! crazy.
I know. I said in the title, I’m sorry.
Obviously she couldn’t watch all of those kids at the mall, the playground, and throughout their little paths in life! How could she be so unfair to her older children, saddling them with the caretaking of one or more babies? And how could she leave her little one in the care of *gasp!* upper elementary-aged kids? I know children in this age group who couldn’t keep a pet rock alive. Most tragic of all, how could she do that to herself? Doesn’t she want a life of her own? A moment for her?? So sad.
However, viewing the larger family from the 70’s Mom goggles, I realized…I’m an idiot.
One day at the playground I was talking to a mom with four, count ’em, FOUR kids…double my count. WOW, four! And the youngest was under 1 year old. And she wanted more someday. “How cool!” I said. “How the hell are you even able to stand here talking to me?” I thought. “Lack of sleep has made you delirious, you poor woman.”
I then noticed that her older kid was helping her baby down the slide, way over there. They both seemed fine. The baby made it down the slide alive. The two middle kids were…somewhere. It was a big playground. It’s not like I could pinpoint my own offspring’s whereabouts at that moment either. But I only had two. My new mommy friend wasn’t even looking around. Dang, the confidence.
Playgrounds: A real-life ‘Where’s Waldo’ adventure for your 30’s. Go.
Several generations ago, the older children caring for the younger ones was not only normal, it was survival. Kids were, to be blunt, actually useful. While I’m not suggesting we repeal child labor laws, the change in attitude is something to think about. Only since the invention of leisure time and “Parenting Experts” are children are commodities to be guarded and helped through life. Before that time we needed them to make the family run.
The good 70’s Mom would probably understand that rather than precious flowers to shield, kids are clay that we’re to mold into big, helpful, productive, self-sufficient people. Yes, I just did the MommyBlog “kids-are-clay” metaphor. Blech. First and last time, I swear. Kids will, no doubt, need the skill of caregiving in their bag of tricks someday. We are all caregivers at one point. Likewise, that baby on the slide over there will also learn that care comes from other places, besides Mommy. Mommy will therefore be able to hang with a new friend at the playground and sip her coffee.
Oh.
I’m sorry, Moms of Many, I didn’t know.
Also, please accept my condolences on what I’m assuming must be an epic laundry situation at your house.
At least until you train the oldest to do it. Wa ha ha.
(Dear 7 year old…you have until you can reach the dials on the machine.)
I was a mom of the 70’s and there were really very, very few parents who had over 3 children. It was more like my grandparents parents who went crazy and just kept having them–that would be in the early 1900’s One great grandmother had 11–all of them on the farm. Another in Philly had 13. But after that it drops off to 2-4 per family, just about like now. Any number seems to work out fine if that’s what the parents want and prepare for. Although you are correct–any more than 2 and I would have gone crazy!
I’ve been thinking a lot about the multiple child decision. Right now, it is all about space and resources (time, money, and energy to be a good parent, not just a parent). But maybe it should be a choice of the heart and you have as many as you please. And maybe that’s how wild, sad- eyed, dirt-crusted miscreants run amuck!