The blogosphere is a buzz with talk of babies. As your homework for tomorrow, I would encourage you to go over and check out this blog post from Grad Ovaries (which may be the greatest blog name ever. Other than "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Scientist"). I think I am going to have some things to say about it.
Figure 1: Dr. Isis thinks that ovaries are amazing. Ovaries with a PhD are even better. Dr. Isis's ovaries are, of course, totally hot. Dr. Isis's have estrogen to spare.
But before any further discussion of the advanced education of reproductive organs, I wanted to answer a little I received a couple of weeks ago. Today's little muffin writes:
Dear Dr. Isis,
I don't know if you actually read all the letters sent to you (you must get so many!) but I've got a kind of "life question" regarding children and so I thought I'd try you. Namely; how many is it "appropriate" to have?
I'm 27, and no kids yet- I'm waaay to busy with a chemistry/neurobiology postdoc that I'm just starting. My boyfriend of 5 years wants to have, and I quote, "like a million babies" when I finish my position and (funding goddesses willing) get an academic research position. He's willing to raise the little bastards and stay at home for them. (I have informed him in no uncertain terms that I will need to be in lab much of the time-- I'll spend time with them of course!, but I do want to be the "breadwinner".)
However, he does want (at least) four--- and don't get me wrong, I do want kids, but I was thinking more like two! We've been talking about it for a few years now, and he's not backing down. He cites his parent's argument: for each "science" doctorate in the relationship, there should be two kids (his folks both have doctorates--- mom's a comp sci prof, dad's a surgeon-- and yes, they have four kids). Also, yes, my boyfriend's getting his (physics) doctorate as well.
Have you ever heard of this reasoning his parents use? Is it really all that reasonable? Or is it just an elitist form of eugenics? (That being said, I saw Idiocracy, and I must admit I was just a little bit scared.) Also, quite frankly, four kids sounds like a fuckload of work- not to mention, ah, wear and tear on my system. Also, what about overpopulation, reducing the carbon footprint, and all that good hippie stuff? Or maybe I've overthinking this? But how can you overthink a responsibility as large as children?
My own parents do each have college degrees, but no doctorates, so I'm not really all that comfortable talking to them about it. All of my academic advisers, past and present, are male, so no help there....
Of course, this will ultimately be a question only I can answer for myself. However, as someone with both a doctorate and a uterus, I would very, very much value any thoughts/insights/wisdom-for-the-ages you may have on this situation.
Yours Sincerely,
antistokes
Holy balls. Where do I even begin with this one? How about with a bit of a tangent?
This week Dr. Isis has descended down to the dirty, dirty south. I was invited by a colleague to learn a new surgical procedure in his laboratory that I could then take back to our university. First, it is really hot. Second, I have learned just how lukewarm my science is. Don't get me wrong. I am exceptionally well trained for what I do and there are some things that we do that no one else is doing and it makes us totally l33t, but I saw surgical technique over the last two days that made me look like a total poser.
Figure 2: Dr. Isis's surgical technique compares to what she learned today
So, how do we bring this tangent home? During the second surgery today, the surgeon I was working with turned and asked me if I have children. I told him about Little Isis. He smiled and told me about his brand new baby girl. He then asked me if I plan to have more children, I told him that I do, and he asked me how many children I plan to have. I'm going to tell you the same thing I told him.
I am going to have as many children as I have room for in my heart and in my purse.
Now, to address something that is unique to this question, do people with advanced degrees have the responsibility to have more babies to destupify the human race? I sincerely hope not. If that were the case, Isis the Scientist might not be here. Neither of my parents have a degree, let alone an advanced degree. I was raised, in part, during my teenage years by two wonderful non-English speaking family members who never went to college and worked as laborers. My uncles are still laborers. But, my brother and I went to college because my family told us that an education was important. Not because they already had advanced degrees. I'm not so sure brilliance always begets brilliance. Trust me. I've met some pretty stupid scientists.
I mean, can we all just agree on the complete wackaloonery of the idea that PhDs and MDs have a responsibility to spawn more? Do I need to adress it further? Frankly, mama's tired and I want to get to the important part of the question.
The real question is, how many babies should you make? I think any discussion of that before you've had a child is entirely academic. Before I had Little Isis I thought I had an understanding of what motherhood would be like. I realize now that my ability to comprehend motherhood pre-Little Isis was like my ability to tell a joke after a few drinks. I think I can totally do it, but noone around me thinks I am hilarious. Before I had Little Isis I thought I wanted four children. Now, I am not sure that is the best thing for Mr. Isis, Little Isis and I.
Don't get me wrong. Motherhood is a blessing and it is possible to manage it with academic life, but it's not going to be what you expect it to be no matter how much you prepare.
So, what do I know about my own life? I know I have it in my heart and purse (meaning I can love and afford a second child), to have a second child. Will I want a third? I don't know because I don't know what two is like. All I feel I can do now is to evaluate my life in the present. I have enough love for a second and I can provide for a second child financially. Thus, if you asked me today what the right number of children for me is, I would tell you "two" because I am fairly confident in that answer.
For now, little muffin, focus on strengthening your relationship with your partner (you'll need it) and discussing your concerns. It may be that this becomes an point upon which you cannot compromise, or he may be willing to understand your anxieties and then this becomes more challenging. But, talk about it now. Before you're pregnant. Before you give birth. Before you conisider another. Because, once they're out, there's no putting them back.
No matter what Bill Cosby said.
Comments
Take it one by one. Totally agree. Well actually I'd say shoot for two minimum because it is easier than one sooner than you think. But whatevs works for you.
(the PHD eugenics is supposed to be the slightly tongue/cheek excuse for exceeding two, not a directive against your inclination!)
Posted by: BikeMonkey | June 26, 2009 12:49 AM
...
your letter-writer said...
Geezus. Like being a parent is somehow not enough expertise or personal experience to even be able to talk to your daughter about the choices she faces as a possible future parent..?!?
Talk about trying to talk from a position of privilege.
I am just glad I am not this young lady's dad.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | June 26, 2009 12:55 AM
"I think any discussion of that before you've had a child is entirely academic." Surely it is. It is academic because the answer: (a) depends largely on your academic salary, (b) requires some math to figure it out. Assuming that you probably want your kids to go to good schools, buy a house, and have a reasonable quality of life. I'd say you quickly arrive at an estimate of.... about 1.5. So, either get a kid and a dog, or if you go for two, know that your now boyfriend will have to get out of the chair and get a job.
Posted by: Denis Alexander | June 26, 2009 12:58 AM
Isis mentioned heart and pocketbook. Support system would be a third thing to consider. I don't have kids but two of my cousins who had four kids each plus others with fewer had extensive support from the greater family (e.g., aunts and uncles, parents, parents-in-law willing to put in time to help out).
Posted by: Erp | June 26, 2009 1:34 AM
Figure 2 is scaaaaaary. *shudders*
Er...my parents both have advanced degrees (JD mum and PhD dad) and they have four kids. That seems to follow the rule of two kids per PhD, right? They were actually going for three, but when my mum was 39 she decided to try for another one. So four it was. Umm...what was my point? Oh yeah, the same as Dr. Isis's, but with more rambling. My parents knew that they had room for another kid, both in attention and in finances, so my littlest sis was born when mum was 41 (not recommended, btw--have your kids while you're young to prevent all sorts of pregnancy and genetic problems). Also, even if my parents wanted to cap it at three at the most, they changed their minds and had four of us, so the number of kids you plan to have is just that--a plan--and it can be deviated from if both of you agree to do so. Maybe once you actually have a child, you and your partner can reevaluate how many children you can really handle.
For me, teh bf says we can have ten cats. Or nine cats and one of our spawn. I wholeheartedly agree with him. :p
Posted by: Nekohime | June 26, 2009 1:44 AM
You need to know that you want at least one. After that it all depends what your experience is with that child. I had the easiest pregnancy ever! Plus the easiest baby (bloody hell a demon of a toddler but easy baby). However I had the labour from hell. HELL. I want another child in my head, but every time I think of it, I cross my legs and shudder. Literally. I, also, always thought I would have 3 or 4 kids. Let me tell you, if that second one is even half as mischievous and active as monkey, it. is. not. happening.
I know a few couples who stopped at one because of those reasons.
Posted by: ScientistMother | June 26, 2009 2:24 AM
Antistokes-you yourself said that you're not in a position to start the whole baby-making process. First, I suggest you two decide if you're getting married or not. It's not a requirement for raising children, but my experience shows that the adults are more willing to fight for family solidarity when things get hard if they've already committed to each other. Second, you don't even know if you can have kids, how the pregnancy(ies) will go, or how you'll like being a parent. My parents wanted four. They barely got two - my birth almost killed my mother, and sent her into early menopause. And as for this whole PhD child rearing elitism? Never heard of it. I know quite a few profs who opted for NO children, so I'm guessing they haven't heard it either. It's your body, your uterus, and your ultimate decision. Again-you're not even ready to actually HAVE the munchkins yet, so stop freaking out. But the dude needs to stop being so narrow minded, ASAP.
Posted by: ktbug ladydid | June 26, 2009 7:43 AM
It's also quite dependent on the specific children that you have. What if the first turns out to have special needs? Or the second? Or both? It's all well and good to imagine your perfect little spawn and how fun it might be to have a litter of them, but change it to one who's autistic and one who has ADD and you might have your hands full.
As for the PhD/number of children nonsense, that's repulsive in a way I have trouble even expressing. I'd give a more charitable interpretation of your reluctance at talking to your parents as being that you want advice from someone who understands the lifestyle of an academic, not that they aren't educated enough to understand parenting, but still. Let's not have stupid eugenic arguments about reproducing, thanks. Discussions about who should reproduce for the benefit of society and who shouldn't never go anywhere good.
Posted by: Carlie | June 26, 2009 8:17 AM
I think Isis should have 9 children, and I will be disappointed if she doesn't. All the rest of them should be all girls. Get cracking, Isis.
I think here is no advise one can give another on either the number of timing of children. I think the desire choice is pretty primal, as I found when I was pregnant with my second after not having given it much thought. But, I think that one useful piece of advise is to count back from your years of fertility if you are a woman, to think about whether you've left time enough to have the children you want (using the usual probabilities). I still surprised at the number of young women who do not understand how drastically fertility falls off at 40. Many seem to assume that fertility will last 'til menopause, rather than the shorter clock we really have.
Posted by: neurolover | June 26, 2009 9:31 AM
Oh and one more thing on destupefying? It doesn't work. Regression to the mean is a bitch. (Although my amazingly attractive and phenomenally intelligent twerps seem to buck that trend...)
Posted by: BikeMonkey | June 26, 2009 9:35 AM
Having kids: start with one. Then see how it goes.
I've been a huge Cosby fan since the 60s, when I listened to my parents Cosby albums - on vinyl no less. He's one of the all-time greats. Now my kids are fans too.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | June 26, 2009 9:45 AM
I think two is a great number. However, during the 18 minutes when I had two children I was too busy pushing numer three into the world to really appreciate the fact. Apparently your chances of spontaneous twins are higher in your late thrities. Who knew?
Posted by: estraven | June 26, 2009 9:55 AM
I guess my parents missed out on that rule because I'm an only child. And they've doubly broken the rule by having one child who isn't really interested in having kids. Oh well.
Seriously? Does anyone over the age of 13 actually believe that in a non-joking manner? Hell, even if that's supposed to be a joke, it's the kind of joke that deserves a "haha, you're a douche" rather than laughs.
Posted by: LostMarbles | June 26, 2009 9:58 AM
Another cautionary voice -- special needs kids can happen. Accidents can happen. Jobs can dry up. Mortgages can go underwater and older family members can need care.
Planning on an absolute of "we will have X many kids, with Y job for mom and Z work for dad" is a fun game. But it bears little resemblance to the reality of actually living things.
When my husband and I decided to make a team effort of it, we both agreed on the general principles of where we'd live (due to my job) and to have some kids. The rest we sort of made up as life threw curve balls at us.
Posted by: Janice | June 26, 2009 10:29 AM
My answer tends to agree with yours, Isis...I always pictured myself with three children, and I still do, but my official answer is two because my husband hasn't agreed to three yet, and I don't know whether having two will be enough of a handful for me. If I have another one like my boy now, I will be sorely tempted to go for three though, he is really a great little guy.
As for those who hesitate to have another solely because of a difficult labor, I would question whether that should really prevent you from having another child. Yes, labor sucks, but then it's over and it's the best pain you can have since you gain a child from it.
My mother in law, after caring for, then visiting her ailing mother for months in a nursing home, looked at my husband and begged him not to have an only child. She had to deal with her mother's long struggle all by herself, since she has no brothers or sisters. My father died when I was a teenager and I have nearly no information on that side of my family because he was an only child and his parents died when I was very young. Maybe those sound like silly reasons to go for more than one, but that's my two cents.
Posted by: Minerva | June 26, 2009 10:29 AM
...
Carlie said...
This is not addressed directly at Carlie but rather all of you.
Geezus, you gals and guys ever listen to yourselves..?? Do you really think only 'academics' have tough job hours and tough long-term working conditions and tough life decisions to make..??
It is not just this letter, this post, this comment thread. Just seems like a lot of slobbering over the communal 'woe is my career/life' salt block that is the Dr. Isis blog.
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | June 26, 2009 10:42 AM
Wait, what? There are people who really believe that because they have advanced degrees, they owe the world more offspring? And everyone else should be freakin' thankful that we've reproduced, I suppose?
You know what? Don't have any kids till you sort that shit out. "Elitist" doesn't even begin to describe it.
That said, all the good advice about taking things one at a time applies. Sure you can have an idea what you might do, but life tends to throw curve balls, and children are all about that.
Posted by: sandy | June 26, 2009 10:52 AM
When I got married, we were going to have roughly a squintillion children. Then we had our son, who has ADHD, and a number of other things happened. Then the marriage ended. Our son is 15, my fallopian tubes are happily and firmly cauterized in 4 places each (because one child is really all I personally can cope with in any case, and I am so very much not interested in being a mommy again at this stage of my life), and life goes on. Longwinded way of echoing what others have said about plans not being absolutes.
Also, BF may say now that he's willing to stay home and raise babies, but he may change his mind about that once he's actually doing it, or change his mind about the relationship as a whole, or any manner of other stuff may happen. Antistokes should ask herself if she's ok with raising them on your own, or at least willing to include that contingency in your planning? If not, that's kind of important to know.
An aside:
I was so grateful to be an only child when my parents each died, because I did not have to fight with anyone over their care or the disposition of their stuff.
Posted by: kalieris | June 26, 2009 11:16 AM
My wife and I decided we'd go by the by the one-at-a-time method. We mentioned this to someone who said that he and his wife were doing the same thing until they discovered the 3rd was twins - during delivery. The joy of the pre-ultrasound days.
The one caveat that I think is important is that it is vital that potential parents are on the same page about general # and what criteria will be used to decide. If both one person is one-at-a-time and no way more than 2 and another person likes the idea of 6, there might be future conflict that should be discussed early. Also, if one person thinks finances and a certain standard of living are vital and other is willing to drop standard of living for more kids, that's also something for early discussion.
Posted by: e | June 26, 2009 11:31 AM
Minerva wrote:
As for those who hesitate to have another solely because of a difficult labor, I would question whether that should really prevent you from having another child. Yes, labor sucks, but then it's over and it's the best pain you can have since you gain a child from it.
Well, it's also true that the same woman can have different labor experiences with each child. The first might be awful, but the second might be much easier.
Posted by: Adrienne | June 26, 2009 12:00 PM
As for the boyfriend: the decision to stay at home is a big one. I did it for 15 years and loved it, but I also had a husband who supported my need to get out of the house and get involved in the community so I didn't go stark raving mad. Are you willing to support him in all the ways he will need? Are you willing to see his work as just as important as what you do in academia? Just some things to think about...
About planning family size: My husband and I used to make long-term plans about children: total number, number of each gender, spacing, etc. After all these years I realize how absolutely silly this was.
Getting pregnant is, in and of itself, a crap shoot: I have a sister-in-law who discovered that she could get pregnant, but only if she went off the medication that keeps her alive. I've known several people who got pregnant with their first immediately but then had incredible difficulty conceiving a second--sometimes leaving the person in question with an only child, in other cases yielding two children spaced many (up to 10) years apart. And I've known people who could get pregnant but never carry the baby to term.
We did end up having the number we wanted, but there's a large-ish gap between #3 & #4, in part because #3 was a holy terror as a toddler and we couldn't imagine another one for a while, and in part because my fertility had started to slow down and it took us a number of months to conceive.
In the end, you can only really make one decision: will I try to have a child now? If no, great: take precautions. If yes, have everyone around you pray/wish you luck/etc. because there's no guarantee that it will happen.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | June 26, 2009 12:49 PM
but, but, but...
doesn't Holy Mother Church answer this one for you?
Posted by: ildi | June 26, 2009 1:30 PM
I have to agree with Tom @16 and Sandy @17.
To the letter writer:
Sort your feelings out with the BF first and work on the relationship's fundamentals a la Isis' suggestion. But don't think you can make a plan and stick to it or that it will necessarily happen the way you expect or want it to; allow yourselves some wiggle room because frankly your views pre-baby may not be the same post-baby.
You say now that you don't want more than two. You also say that you want to be the breadwinner and be in the lab a lot. The only thing you can truly prepare for now is the unexpected - the best laid plans pre-baby may likely be blown to shit post-baby, and that may be putting it mildly. But although they're blown to shit, that's not a negative thing; priorities and perspective on the world have a way of shifting and evolving.
As a mom of two, I can say that two is definitely easier than I imagined but it's also busier than one obviously. Physically, I don't have it in me to have more, so adoption it is if we want more. That may be something for you to consider, too.
Posted by: Callinectes | June 26, 2009 1:35 PM
Apparently your chances of spontaneous twins are higher in your late thrities. Who knew?
My mom, who delivered twins three months after she turned 40. :)
tom, calm down, 'k? I didn't say the lifestyle of an academic was OMG SO HARD, I said she might be looking for the viewpoint of someone who had the same kind of job she was likely to have.
Posted by: Carlie | June 26, 2009 1:54 PM
I tend to think it's completely insane to consider how many, before you have even one - unless the number being considered is zero. Seriously - it is impossible to know how it's going to work, until you have one and have some idea of what to expect.
And four!?!? Seriously?
Posted by: DuWayne | June 26, 2009 1:54 PM
There are rules for how many kids I should have? Who knew? And my husband & I, both MDs, were supposed to have 4? And we only have 2? OMG - I'VE FAILED.
Seriously, this "destupify" the world thing is the biggest piece of arrogant asshattery I've ever heard. OK, maybe not the biggest, but it's right up there...
When we got married I was saying 1, maybe 2, and my hubby was saying 2, maybe 3. After baby 1 (easy pregnancy, reasonable labor, and easy baby) I thought 2, maybe 3. Then I had a bad outcome pregnancy with intrauterine fetal death (umbilical cord knot) at 36 weeks. We then had my son (9 1/2 lbs through 12 hrs of "interesting" labor) following a nerve-wracking 40 weeks of pregnancy. To say he was a difficult infant is the biggest understatement I can think of - we believe he was born with hair to cover the "666" that is somewhere on his person.
So after 3 full pregnancies to get 2 children, a healthy boy & girl, I decided I was done. I told my husband that if we had another child we would be rich - cause the Enquirer would pay so much for the story of his pregnancy. He was in agreement with me.
The bottom line: you and your significant other must decide if & when you want children, then how many. It may change over time. There are no rules.
Posted by: Pascale | June 26, 2009 2:04 PM
Seriously, this "destupify" the world thing is the biggest piece of arrogant asshattery I've ever heard. OK, maybe not the biggest, but it's right up there...
Totally agree. This guy's family might think they're destupidifying the work, but instead they're increasing the asshole quotient.
Posted by: Nat | June 26, 2009 2:48 PM
And if you want to destupify the world, as an academic, it is way easier to get a number of students... It is incredible how much students behave like their advisors after a few years together. They will carry your intellectual legacy, because they want to do what you do. You never know what your kids will want to be, and it would not be healthy to coach them into academia against their will.
Posted by: Mag | June 26, 2009 3:12 PM
Thoughts:
*Wait, you mean the Dr. Isis answer isn't "every sperm is sacred"?
*I used to tell folks I wanted nine kids- it evoked amusing responses (not that it was anything I was serious about even then).
*Now that I'm pregnant, I'm pretty sure I never want to do this again (or rather, I never want to do the first trimester part *shudder*).
*Don't commit to doing the pregnancy thing more than once until you've tried it. Also, make your partner be present at the birth. It's just correlation, but men who are present for the birth are less likely to want more kids.
*Or just propose what Pascale did- he can have the next one! (or you can adopt. Seriously, adoption can be a wonderful thing, particularly for those who actually care about all that hippie stuff. If his or your family is emotionally attached to the notion of their genes being propagated, that's entirely understandable. You should still ignore them)
Posted by: becca | June 26, 2009 3:36 PM
My advice to antistokes is to seriously think if she wants to have and raise any children with a man who thinks so highly of his IQ and genes. I'm hoping that he said this in a joking manner, but the email doesn't quite support that interpretation.
I absolutely adore Dr. Isis' answer - "I am going to have as many children as I have room for in my heart and in my purse."
Posted by: Donna B. | June 26, 2009 5:27 PM
It's true, you just don't know what parenting will be like until you do it. That said, if you think you'd like more than one or two kids, and want bio-kids, then start sooner rather than later.
Adoption is also a wonderful thing. Am going to babysit tonight for friends who adopted 4 year old twins from foster care (twins are now 6). Anticipate serious exhaustion and fun.
Posted by: sea creature | June 26, 2009 5:27 PM
That reminds me of one of my favorite lines from a Simpsons episode, Marge v. Singles. Marge is sitting at a table with a single person, Lindsey. Bart breaks in:
Bart: Also, Maggie puked in your purse again.
Marge: [Sighs]
Lindsey Naegle: Poor me… all my purse is full of is disposable income. [opens purse, stuffed-in bills burst out]
Posted by: Carlie | June 26, 2009 6:17 PM
That sounds great and all, but I don't think the technology is really working for that.
Or does he mean that he wants you to have, like, a million babies? In which case, in the interests of politeness, I will keep my opinion of him to myself.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 26, 2009 7:10 PM
G'day all, yes, lots of heartfelt comments as always. Some are very wise. Yes to Isis 'room in my heart and my purse', yes to Pascale 'it may change over time'.
Just like to add one more comment from my 'experiential research' on this matter. Three is more than double the trouble of two. Two is less than double the trouble of one. People tried to warn me when I was joyously pregnant with my third. I didn't believe them. SILLY ME - they were right. Although, I would do it again in similar circumstances, to be forewarned is to be fore-armed.
And I still remember the agony of leaving my little cuddly part of myself with someone else for the first time, when I went back to the lab - although it was something I had KNOWN I was going to do for, at that stage, 28 yrs. Yes, it was WORTH IT, the euphoria of knowing I was STILL ME and could contribute to the scientific community, but without REAL support at home (both practical and of the tough love type) I may well have chickened out at the last minute. I'm glad I didn't. I'm grateful my family situation was stable and supportive, and I have been able to fall back on all that support to help support other young women through 'that first day'.
Good luck, and 'good managment', with whatever you decide to do, antistokes.
d.
Posted by: d. | June 26, 2009 7:21 PM
I agree with Dr. Isis about "room in my heart and in my purse" as limiting factors. Health and well-being might be implicitly included in those.
The boyfriend's thing about two babies per science PhD makes me want to end the relationship. He's not my boyfriend anyway, but this lays a lot of expectations on the kids about what kind of kids they'll be, and it's not fair to the kids.
And the whole idea that he'd like YOU to commit to having kids #2, #3, and #4 before you've even gotten to know kid #1, suggests a lack of openness to what kid #1 might turn out to need from you.
I'm really sorry to say this, antistokes, because it's rare to find a guy who'll happily take the lead as a homemaker. He's got to have many great qualities or you would not have gotten this far. But, please think about the times when he and you are discussing your disagreements, and how you feel during those times. Do you feel like he cares about your needs, or do you feel that he is interviewing you?
Also, please think about what it would feel like to you to have children #3 and #4 in order to please your husband and in-laws... rather than really really wanting them. Kids can feel the difference and it doesn't feel good to them.
My heartfelt best to you, antistokes, as you work this one through.
Posted by: Gingerale | June 26, 2009 9:22 PM
Trust me, you will not know exactly how a child will fit into your life (or more realistically, how you fit into their life) until they come along. You may have a smooth transition, a perfect baby, you can get back to work and be productive right off the bat....or you may face what a lot of other women do.
I thought I would still be Mrs High Flying Scientist after a few months of maternity leave but even I admit some of my priorities changed a bit (family/career) and they may change again as my son gets older (he is only 14 months). I went back to work when he was 4 months old but found myself eventualy going part-time, despite a committed 'at-home daddy'. While this slows my career a 'little' this is the best decision for me and I am a LOT happier.
Having worked in a research centre where 5 women had babies in the space of 2 years (myself included) most of them admit it threw them for six and did not realise how much of a committment motherhood really is. One of my closest friends among them realised that her preconceptions of how easy it would be were completely smashed and freely admitted she was completely clueless and had no idea what she was talking about pre-baby.
So what was my point again....oh yeah like a lot of other commentors, yes think about how many you want/can handle and have some kind of plan. But do realise that plans change and it may not always end up how you think it will. BE FLEXIBLE.
Posted by: The Science Dilettante | June 26, 2009 10:57 PM
"room in my heart and in my purse"
Thank you Dr. Isis! That's a good argument to throw back at him. And good advice in general! I am also liking the "one at a time" guideline that people are mentioning-- I tend to want to plan out everything, but this is not always the best (or healthiest) approach to some aspects of life.
"being a parent is somehow not enough expertise
or personal experience to even be able to talk
to your daughter about the choices she faces as a
possible future parent..?!?"
Well, see, 1) they are religious people and I'm not,
so we don't talk all that much in general,
and 2) they are biased towards more grandchildren
(not that that's bad, but I was looking for commentary from someone without a stake in the situation). Also, I didn't want them to hear the PhD/number of kids thing, as the argument strikes me as being immoral and I don't want them to judge my boyfriend's folks.
"First, I suggest you two decide if you're getting married or not."
After growing up christian, I'm a little paranoid about religion (sorry Dr. Isis, I know you're Catholic), and I don't feel like I need a ring on my finger to prove my devotion - and we are devoted to each other. He's really, truly been there whenever I needed him over the past five years, whether for nursing me when my wisdom teeth were taken out or listening to me rant about malfunctioning instruments in the lab. We've both lived together and managed long distance, so I am inclined to think I'll be with this guy for, the the very, very least, the 20-odd years it takes to raise the little buggers up.
But we are considering something nonreligious (my family, as I've said, is christian, his is Jewish, so we'd prefer to avoid god as much as possible) to "announce" ourselves, maybe a civil ceremony. I'm gradually being convinced by my boyfriend that weddings are really for the family, not for the people getting married.
"Discussions about who should reproduce for the benefit of
society and who shouldn't never go anywhere good."
Yes, this is what I have always thought. Kids are a decision which is ultimately at the discretion of the parents, and no one else. Yes, sometimes bad situations arise with people having kids and then not being able to care for them, but you have to take the bad with the
good on what is kind one of those fundamental human rights. As to special needs kids: yes, I've thought about that (used to do volunteer work with them when I was young) and am aware of the possibility and commitment involved.
"Or does he mean that he wants you to have, like, a million babies?"
It is a joke! Did you ever read that old Onion article
(http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34180)?
Yeah, my response to that one is for him to get his own uterus.
"But, please think about the times when he and
you are discussing your disagreements, and how you
feel during those times. Do you feel like he cares
about your needs, or do you feel that he is
interviewing you?"
Like he cares about me, defiantly. Perhaps this didn't really come out in the letter, but I am very much in love with this man for a host of reasons, one of the top being that we can have an argument, strongly disagree with each other and not have it turn into a shouting match or a "if you don't agree with everything I think then you don't love me" situation. Relationships are about, uh, relating, right?!?
"And the whole idea that he'd like YOU to commit"
He's not asking me to commit, he's just citing his parent's reasoning, which I had never encountered before and thought was hogwash when I first heard it. We really do not understand human intelligence, and it's not ALL in the genes.
Posted by: antistokes | June 27, 2009 6:46 AM
antistokes says: 2
Mr. antistokes says: 4
Mean: 3
Standard Deviation: 1.414
Assuming a 2 sigma error envelope, antistokes should have between 0.17 and 5.83 children.
Posted by: Lab Lemming | June 27, 2009 8:32 AM
What the balls are you doing, Lab Lemming? You can't calculate a SD with n=2!!!! I would reject your paper for that kind of bitch-assedness ;)
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | June 27, 2009 8:36 AM
Since when did education necessarily represent intelligence anyway? There are plenty of very smart people with very little education. I hope that rule of deciding number of children dies a quick death -- it's not even a funny joke.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | June 27, 2009 9:48 AM
Very interesting post, I feel a little like this could have been a situation discussed in my philosophy class.
Posted by: Sarah | June 27, 2009 2:15 PM
I'm curious to know what the goddess thinks about timing of said babies...what about first year of faculty position (less teaching, but grant writing!!) versus waiting a couple of years to establish lab versus waiting 5-6 years for tenure...?? Would appreciate the opinions.
Posted by: gnuma | June 27, 2009 2:26 PM
There is never a good time. Grad school is very time flexible, but also danger of never getting done. Tenure-track is difficult because of all the pressure, unless you can stop the clock. After tenure there's the risk of not being able to get pregnant without a lot of medical assistance because by then you're on the older side. Might as well just do it when it feels right.
Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2009 2:43 PM
@37:
If you live in the USA, there are secular (legal) bits that marriage changes.
...and to show off some preachiness: I think it is a bad idea to have more children than parents in a family, or if you really feel the need, adopt someone who has ALREADY been born.
Posted by: anonymous | June 28, 2009 5:34 AM
Yes, we're considering adoption. I'd like to adopt the older kids (preteen/teens) too; I hear that there is more of a need for this age bracket than for babies.
Posted by: antistokes | June 28, 2009 5:43 AM
adopt someone who has ALREADY been born.
Easier said than done...which option do you choose?
...do you go through the stress, hassle and incredible expense ($20k+ from what I understand, sometimes over $30k) of adopting overseas?
...or do you do what some of my friends have done and adopt through the foster care system, where you get...
* kids who have been exposed to drugs in utero, or
* kids who have been abused/neglected (you wouldn't believe the things you have to do to counter this, even if you get the kids at age 1)
* not to mention kids who may be pulled away from you right before adoption proceedings start (after you've loved them and cared for them for a year and gotten totally attached to them)
I know lots of parents, quite a few who've adopted, and I only know one person who's adopted domestically who's had a nice, uncomplicated adoption... UnlikelyDad and I have been talking about adopting for YEARS and but have never moved on it because neither international nor domestic adoption sounds good to us.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | June 29, 2009 9:44 AM
I thought today's XKCD comic was particularly relevant to this post, and highly amusing. Enjoy: http://xkcd.com/603/
Posted by: Jackie | June 29, 2009 10:44 AM
heh i was about to mention today's xkcd, that about sums it up really....
Posted by: antistokes | June 29, 2009 3:16 PM
also, #46, and anyone else who knows, what ARE the costs associated with adopting just a "normal" (i say this in quotes for a reason, are 'problem kids' easier or more difficult to adopt, and if so WHY), USA-citizen teen(or preteen, not baby! babies are nice but i think there is already a significant market for them, for better or worse)...?
Posted by: antistokes | June 29, 2009 3:24 PM
Late to the party, but I can offer confirmation of the consensus advice - wait until the first kid before making a decision on any more. And having a support system (family and/or friends) makes a huge difference - we live very close to both sets of grandparents, which helped immesurably. And the XKCD strip handles the 'eugenics' bit admirably.
That being said, we're not in an an academic field but my wife and I have four kids. One thing to consider is that kids vary a lot in natural temperament. Even if your first child is an angel, the next might be colic-prone.
But I can report that the biggest jump is from zero to one child. Before you have a child, you just don't have any realistic idea of what raising children is like. The effort grows roughly logarithmically after that, though. Barring special needs (which - n.b. - can't be planned for) two kids is not twice as hard as one, and four is much less than four times as hard as one.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | June 30, 2009 8:54 AM
Very late and chiming in specifically to answer the adoption question, antistokes:
Costs vary tremendously. Adopting an older child through the state in the US can be done for essentially no money, and sometimes you can get a stipend for the care of the child. Many people who do this are foster parents first, and as someone pointed out that means the kids can (and likely will) be removed from your home before the adoption takes place.
Kids are in the foster care system because they've been abused and/or neglected, and the system itself can be a nightmare, so it depends on what you mean by "easier". I would suggest that thinking of them as "problem kids" isn't a good way to start out.
It has been my experience that people who suggest adoption as the more moral way to have children have not generally been involved in the process. The money is the least of it, actually; it's a complex and difficult relationship even when it goes "easily". All adoption starts with a tragedy, and it's our job as parents through adoption to support our children as they heal.
No matter how we come to be parents, the journey can't be planned or controlled.
Posted by: Jay | June 30, 2009 4:57 PM
Yes, I am aware of this. I meant "easier" in a STRICTLY financial sense, I don't think any kid is "easy"--- I've know a few potential adopters that only wanted a wee little baby that they could shape up themselves, and they, um, "paid up" for their wee little (white, too, of course) babies (note: no, I don't care about race! at all! but, these potential adopters DID, which I just couldn't get my head around).
I have worked with disabled, or "special education" kids, but a "normal" kid that has been though abuse may be in a few ways more difficult. However, I do think there is a "moral", or at least, human (I'd hope), inclination to aid those who have been through abusive situations, IN PARTICULAR the age group that people don't normally line up to adopt for. If that means fostering, fine, damnnit. (Had a couple of friends in high school/middle school in baaaaad home situations.) If they don't like me & the environment I give them, also fine, I sorta feel these kids have been through enough without me giving them any judgment.
(ps, talked to my bf about this, and he is agreeing to adopt, heh, so long as I have at least one of his--- we're now ascribing to the "one at a time" guideline :)
Posted by: antistokes | July 1, 2009 1:21 PM
antistokes, it's not really your fault that you're pushing a whole bunch of my buttons, but before you go any further into adoption, you might want to check your language. Or your relationship. Or both. "One of his"? Really?
Maybe this is all shits and giggles to you, and I'm the tightassed old schoolmarm for thinking that a hip young thing like you might be seriously discussing your future on a blog comment thread. Maybe I'm just tired of people treating my family like a second choice or a noble experiment or a political statement. Maybe I just think people oughta think before they post, and I know that's fucked, so wevs.
Posted by: Jay | July 2, 2009 9:48 PM
Yup. I've decided I want to meet (at least one of) the little bastards. Terrible, I know. Yes, at the very least, we can afford at least one.
Really? Really?... No, fuck that, that's what my parents did, and it was a TOTAL fail (o, the swearing AND the religion). And "hip young thing", too? Wow. The only thing I am "hip" to, right now, is molecular neurodiagnostics. Oh, and trying to understand german grammar (really NOT hip there, will subscribe any of my future youngsters to more language classes).
ooook. Read the xkcd.
Although, I guess when I was a small child I did read Dune, and really, I did want to be a bene gesserit witch...(I had the Litany Against Fear memorized before the Lord's Prayer).
ps (Off Topic)-- Dr. Isis, Please show those ads what's what!!
Posted by: antistokes | July 3, 2009 5:07 PM