Family size

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by FarrahWaters

Ok, I'm not going to even guess what that could be about. I thought you'd been on DAM long enough to know it's "do the deed" (with the intention of getting pregnant.)

Those DAM women... Half the time I didn't know what they were talking about. It was always in code. I didn't even know what dh stood for when I signed up for that board.

DTD stands for (among other things) drunk til dawn or drunk til dead. There was also some other definition that had something to do with hooking up with a fat chick. In any case, yes, you probably don't want to know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by marsupial

And "doing the duty" sounds better?

you might as well say f..ing. But at least that has some positive connotation.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by marsupial

My best guess on why Mormon family sizes have gotten smaller is that birth control has gotten better and there is no longer a stigma in our culture for using it. Seriously, it takes a special woman (and man) to want a large family. I admire these people. They are rare.

When we were growing up, the Pill had more side effects and was frowned upon by the church. I bet a lot of these large families back in the 60s and 70s would have limited their family size had they felt the freedom to do so. I think Mormon women today feel that freedom and are exercising it.

Why are we limiting our family size? We've been married for 10 years. We have three children, but could easily have 5 or 6 or possibly more if we were not limiting ourselves as we obviously are.

We waited to have our first so that I could finish school and we could have time together. Selfish? Sure.

I actually got pregnant by surprise despite our best efforts to prevent. We were thrilled nonetheless. We waited almost four years to have another because my husband was still in school, I was working from home to support us while caring for our rambunctious son and I felt overwhelmed. Despite this, baby fever eventually hit me and I got pregnant again. It didn't take me as long to want a third one, but I don't know if we will have more after this. Why? A millions reasons, all are probably selfish and they include:

1. I freakin' hate being pregnant. I feel like my body never recovers and I end up more damaged with each one.
2. C-sections suck. Recovery's a bitch. I've had three and it doesn't get easier. I am scared every time.
3. I feel rather inadequate as a mother (I assume this is normal and most women feel this way) and so I sort of feel like adding more children will only make me a worse mother instead of a better mother.
4. I am tired.

It probably is just that we can have more control, so we exercise it. It doesn't make sense to me that we are more selfish than before. I have trouble believing that people aren't basically selfish at any point you may pick in history. The answer that it boils down to selfishness is too reductive.

Perhaps we also get less support than we used to. More women work, extended families are more dispersed.

Another friend of my hypothesized that minivans and carseats killed big families. You really can't fit more than 4-5 kids in there at once, given all the safety equipment. Back in the day, you could pile 8 kids in the back of the station wagon.

I agree most mothers probably do feel inadequate. Guilt seems to come with the job description. And most parents probably do want what's best for their children, for their families. How you come to know what that is is at the heart of my question.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by FarrahWaters

This is my guess as well.

Mike is pretty eager to have another child soon (he says, what's not to like? DTD unprotected + your breasts get bigger + you get a baby out of it-- it's a win-win-win). Also, I'm evidently not getting any younger. Since our oldest was diagnosed with some special needs, I've been delaying a new pregnancy. I'm a little afraid that I'm not equipped to adequately help with all his issues, and have an additional child right away. Is it selfish, and a needless worry? Maybe. I'm still trying to decide.

It's also interesting to me how much of this decision rests with the mother. I don't disagree that she should choose. It probably does add to the mother guilt, though. Again, you do your best, you hope for the best. It's not selfish, IMO.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

It probably is just that we can have more control, so we exercise it. It doesn't make sense to me that we are more selfish than before. I have trouble believing that people aren't basically selfish at any point you may pick in history. The answer that it boils down to selfishness is too reductive.

Perhaps we also get less support than we used to. More women work, extended families are more disbursed.

Another friend of my hypothesized that minivans and carseats killed big families. You really can't fit more than 4-5 kids in there at once, given all the safety equipment. Back in the day, you could pile 8 kids in the back of the station wagon.

I agree most mothers probably do feel inadequate. Guilt seems to come with the job description. And most parents probably do want what's best for their children, for their families. How you come to know what that is is at the heart of my question.

Why do most women feel inadequate as mothers? And anecdotally, I note that it is the more sincere, devoted mothers who usually espouse this concept. We fathers also feel grossly inadequate but probably not to the degree I hear mothers voice their fears.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Another friend of my hypothesized that minivans and carseats killed big families. You really can't fit more than 4-5 kids in there at once, given all the safety equipment. Back in the day, you could pile 8 kids in the back of the station wagon.

Danimal has a cousin with 9 kids. They bought a used limo on eBay for really cheap to use as their family car.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by FarrahWaters

This is my guess as well.

Mike is pretty eager to have another child soon (he says, what's not to like? DTD unprotected + your breasts get bigger + you get a baby out of it-- it's a win-win-win). Also, I'm evidently not getting any younger. Since our oldest was diagnosed with some special needs, I've been delaying a new pregnancy. I'm a little afraid that I'm not equipped to adequately help with all his issues, and have an additional child right away. Is it selfish, and a needless worry? Maybe. I'm still trying to decide.

yes, Farrah. You're egregiously selfish. It's a wonder how you live with yourself.

You're not the selfish one here. You're the one looking out for junior and juniorette, realizing that they need more attention than you could manage with a newborn. I know that you could do it if you had to, but unless you thoroughly exhaust yourself some of either junior's (considerable) or newborn's needs would go unmet, and you would feel frustrated and inadequate.

So Mike's asking that either
1) you physically and emotionally exhaust yourself
or
2) you forego some of junior's needs and potential for the sake of a new baby
or
3) you forego some bonding time with newborn for the sake of junior's development.

So I'm not going to suggest who it is that's being selfish here, but it's not mom.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yes, Farrah. You're egregiously selfish. It's a wonder how you live with yourself.

You're not the selfish one here. You're the one looking out for junior and juniorette, realizing that they need more attention than you could manage with a newborn. I know that you could do it if you had to, but unless you thoroughly exhaust yourself some of either junior's (considerable) or newborn's needs would go unmet, and you would feel frustrated and inadequate.

So Mike's asking that either
1) you physically and emotionally exhaust yourself
or
2) you forego some of junior's needs and potential for the sake of a new baby
or
3) you forego some bonding time with newborn for the sake of junior's development.

So I'm not going to suggest who it is that's being selfish here, but it's not mom.

as usual I receiving the incoming artillery. My wife can say what she wants, in the way she wants to, and people can make their conclusions about it however they want. I'm just not going to make these kinds of private discussions (which are mischaracterized) fodder for the masses, no matter how satisfying some people find it.

[FarrahWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

yes, Farrah. You're egregiously selfish. It's a wonder how you live with yourself.

You're not the selfish one here. You're the one looking out for junior and juniorette, realizing that they need more attention than you could manage with a newborn. I know that you could do it if you had to, but unless you thoroughly exhaust yourself some of either junior's (considerable) or newborn's needs would go unmet, and you would feel frustrated and inadequate.

So Mike's asking that either
1) you physically and emotionally exhaust yourself
or
2) you forego some of junior's needs and potential for the sake of a new baby
or
3) you forego some bonding time with newborn for the sake of junior's development.

So I'm not going to suggest who it is that's being selfish here, but it's not mom.

To be fair, I think Mike was joking (mostly) about the win/win/win thing. I don't think he wants me to exhaust myself or neglect the needs of the oldest, but I also think he thinks I worry too much.

[FarrahWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

as usual I receiving the incoming artillery. My wife can say what she wants, in the way she wants to, and people can make their conclusions about it however they want. I'm just not going to make these kinds of private discussions (which are mischaracterized) fodder for the masses, no matter how satisfying some people find it.

Sorry, I guess I overshared a little. The discussion brought up some issues I've been thinking of myself, and it spilled over onto the keyboard.