Dads

434 readers

1 users here now

This is a community for Dads. Single Dads, new Dads, Step-Dads, tall Dads, short Dads, and any other kind of Dad. If you've got kids in your life that you love and provide for, come join us as we discuss everything from birth announcements to code browns in the shower.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

FlyLikeAMouse

blackn1ght

Fellow parents with multiple kids... (self.dads)

submitted 1 year ago by Oneeightnine to c/dads

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What did you find harder, or perhaps 'a bigger shock to the system'. Going from zero kids to one, or going from one to two, two to three.

Sorry for the word-salad. I'd have written a shorter post, but I don't have the time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Brent@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Two to three is the hardest. You can’t play man to man and have to go zone. But, three to four is a snap.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Knew a guy whose second kid ended up being twins. Barely seen him this decade.

[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I thought 1 to 2 was a bigger leap myself. You went from being able to hand off the kid and take a break to handing off the baby and getting the toddler in return.

To use your "man-to-man vs. zone" analogy, going from one to two is like going from playing defense to playing both sides of the ball. Sure, going from two to three, more stuff gets missed, but the exhaustion level and overall work load didn't change that much (in my experience).

Then again, maybe it's more about the age of the elders. We had two in two years and then didn't add the third until the big kids were 6 and 8, so they had already gotten the hang of basic life skills like getting dressed for school, getting themselves breakfast, reading, etc. Maybe that's why 3 to 4 was easier for you and 2 to 3 was easier for me.