Mom with 1 kid vs more kids have more time/energy for herself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of y'all sound happy with your choices because if you were, you wouldn't be defensively yelling about it on here.

I love my family size (I have an only) but also get that it's not for everyone. The only thing that is annoying to me is when people idiotically weigh in on the size of my family without thinking about all the many factors that go into those decisions (age, money, fertility, availability of support, mental health, etc.) that can vary greatly from person to person. Sometimes people will make this comments about my kid being lonely or whatever and honestly they don't really bother me because I know it's not the case. Like anyone who thinks my kid might be weird or selfish or lonely because they don't have a sibling is kind of dumb because anyone who meets my kid will see that they are none of those things. But I don't like when people poke at my decision to only have one because I definitely wanted another one at one point and it was sad when we made the [correct] decision to stick with one. I don't want/need people who don't understand those dynamics weighting in or passing judgment. MYOB.

You know, I think that some people would be really lonely as only children and others would love it. I am thinking of the sisters in “Little Women” since most of us have read it at one point or another. Amy, the youngest and the most social, probably would have loved being an only child and having all of the family resources dedicated to her. But Beth, the shy introvert, would probably have had a very lonely life without her sisters.

Different people can have different experiences of exactly the same situation and upbringing. You can be right about your child thriving AND they can be right that they would have been lonely as an only child. Both things can be true.

I just disagree on principal. I grew up with siblings and was always lonely because my family was dysfunctional and those relationships didn’t bring me comfort or happiness. Loneliness is really not about how many people are around, it’s about how connected you feel to those people. That’s a question of family dynamics and the ability of parents to develop strong and healthy family bonds. It doesn’t really have anything to do with number of children.

In your example, I think the daughters from LW could have had joyful childhoods no matter the number of children because they had affectionate and mature parents who set the tone. But I’ll also note that each of them sometimes experienced loneliness or isolation in their lives because of a disconnect from their families. Jo sometimes felt very singular and alone because of her ambitions, despite the love and support of her mother. Amy and Meg both felt out of place or frustrated with their families at various times. Only Beth seems content in herself always, perhaps she would have been the same as an only.

IME loneliness and connection are not a function of family size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of y'all sound happy with your choices because if you were, you wouldn't be defensively yelling about it on here.

I love my family size (I have an only) but also get that it's not for everyone. The only thing that is annoying to me is when people idiotically weigh in on the size of my family without thinking about all the many factors that go into those decisions (age, money, fertility, availability of support, mental health, etc.) that can vary greatly from person to person. Sometimes people will make this comments about my kid being lonely or whatever and honestly they don't really bother me because I know it's not the case. Like anyone who thinks my kid might be weird or selfish or lonely because they don't have a sibling is kind of dumb because anyone who meets my kid will see that they are none of those things. But I don't like when people poke at my decision to only have one because I definitely wanted another one at one point and it was sad when we made the [correct] decision to stick with one. I don't want/need people who don't understand those dynamics weighting in or passing judgment. MYOB.

You know, I think that some people would be really lonely as only children and others would love it. I am thinking of the sisters in “Little Women” since most of us have read it at one point or another. Amy, the youngest and the most social, probably would have loved being an only child and having all of the family resources dedicated to her. But Beth, the shy introvert, would probably have had a very lonely life without her sisters.

Different people can have different experiences of exactly the same situation and upbringing. You can be right about your child thriving AND they can be right that they would have been lonely as an only child. Both things can be true.

I just disagree on principal. I grew up with siblings and was always lonely because my family was dysfunctional and those relationships didn’t bring me comfort or happiness. Loneliness is really not about how many people are around, it’s about how connected you feel to those people. That’s a question of family dynamics and the ability of parents to develop strong and healthy family bonds. It doesn’t really have anything to do with number of children.

In your example, I think the daughters from LW could have had joyful childhoods no matter the number of children because they had affectionate and mature parents who set the tone. But I’ll also note that each of them sometimes experienced loneliness or isolation in their lives because of a disconnect from their families. Jo sometimes felt very singular and alone because of her ambitions, despite the love and support of her mother. Amy and Meg both felt out of place or frustrated with their families at various times. Only Beth seems content in herself always, perhaps she would have been the same as an only.

IME loneliness and connection are not a function of family size.

Completely agree. Every human on the planet will experience loneliness at some point. But a “lonely childhood” is about the parents’ ability to form close attachments and bonds with those around them. Doesn’t matter how many kids there are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

You’re not wrong though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

You’re not wrong though.

Then why do the ones on this thread spend so much time telling us parents of more than one what selfish, shitty parents they were? Or is that part of living your best life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

You’re not wrong though.

Then why do the ones on this thread spend so much time telling us parents of more than one what selfish, shitty parents they were? Or is that part of living your best life?

I agree people on this thread have been very hard on the parents of more than one for some reason. I don't think it's necessary.

However, IRL I find it's the reverse -- people tend to be very critical of people with only children and will openly just tell you that having one kid is going to mess them up. I have an only not-by-choice (secondary infertility) and I can't even count the number of times friends, parents, teachers at my kids school, etc., have said some version of "yes, your child will struggle because they don't have a sibling."

I think perhaps parents of only children get defensive because we hear this stuff so much and that might account for some of the unkindness on this thread. When you've been told for years that you're selfish for only having one, and that it will result in a weird, lonely child, you might spend some time working up arguments for why that's false. And it is false! There are happy only children and there are unhappy kids with siblings. And vice versa. Number of kids is really not the critical choice people make it out to be. As someone who didn't really have much say in how many kids I had, I can assure you that it turns out you can be very happy even if it doesn't work out as planned. I'm not religious but I sometimes find myself thinking that my inability to have a second was a blessing because I am so happy with my only now. I'm guessing there are lots of parents of "oops" children who feel the same. Turns out family size is what you make of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

You’re not wrong though.

Then why do the ones on this thread spend so much time telling us parents of more than one what selfish, shitty parents they were? Or is that part of living your best life?

I agree people on this thread have been very hard on the parents of more than one for some reason. I don't think it's necessary.

However, IRL I find it's the reverse -- people tend to be very critical of people with only children and will openly just tell you that having one kid is going to mess them up. I have an only not-by-choice (secondary infertility) and I can't even count the number of times friends, parents, teachers at my kids school, etc., have said some version of "yes, your child will struggle because they don't have a sibling."

I think perhaps parents of only children get defensive because we hear this stuff so much and that might account for some of the unkindness on this thread. When you've been told for years that you're selfish for only having one, and that it will result in a weird, lonely child, you might spend some time working up arguments for why that's false. And it is false! There are happy only children and there are unhappy kids with siblings. And vice versa. Number of kids is really not the critical choice people make it out to be. As someone who didn't really have much say in how many kids I had, I can assure you that it turns out you can be very happy even if it doesn't work out as planned. I'm not religious but I sometimes find myself thinking that my inability to have a second was a blessing because I am so happy with my only now. I'm guessing there are lots of parents of "oops" children who feel the same. Turns out family size is what you make of it.

I’m the PP you’re quoting, and I completely agree. That people criticize parents of only children is appalling, on so many levels. MYOB, people. I understand feeling defensive; how could you not, when people won’t shut up about it?

Also appalling: insisting that any parent of 3+ kids is neglectful. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is someone seriously surprised that two or three kids take more time and energy to raise than just one?

Right? Isn’t that obvious? I have 3 because that’s what I wanted for my family but was at no point under the impression that it would be as easy as having an only

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is someone seriously surprised that two or three kids take more time and energy to raise than just one?

Right? Isn’t that obvious? I have 3 because that’s what I wanted for my family but was at no point under the impression that it would be as easy as having an only

Again with the sentiment that having an only is the “easy” way out of parenting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of y'all sound happy with your choices because if you were, you wouldn't be defensively yelling about it on here.

I love my family size (I have an only) but also get that it's not for everyone. The only thing that is annoying to me is when people idiotically weigh in on the size of my family without thinking about all the many factors that go into those decisions (age, money, fertility, availability of support, mental health, etc.) that can vary greatly from person to person. Sometimes people will make this comments about my kid being lonely or whatever and honestly they don't really bother me because I know it's not the case. Like anyone who thinks my kid might be weird or selfish or lonely because they don't have a sibling is kind of dumb because anyone who meets my kid will see that they are none of those things. But I don't like when people poke at my decision to only have one because I definitely wanted another one at one point and it was sad when we made the [correct] decision to stick with one. I don't want/need people who don't understand those dynamics weighting in or passing judgment. MYOB.

You know, I think that some people would be really lonely as only children and others would love it. I am thinking of the sisters in “Little Women” since most of us have read it at one point or another. Amy, the youngest and the most social, probably would have loved being an only child and having all of the family resources dedicated to her. But Beth, the shy introvert, would probably have had a very lonely life without her sisters.

Different people can have different experiences of exactly the same situation and upbringing. You can be right about your child thriving AND they can be right that they would have been lonely as an only child. Both things can be true.

I just disagree on principal. I grew up with siblings and was always lonely because my family was dysfunctional and those relationships didn’t bring me comfort or happiness. Loneliness is really not about how many people are around, it’s about how connected you feel to those people. That’s a question of family dynamics and the ability of parents to develop strong and healthy family bonds. It doesn’t really have anything to do with number of children.

In your example, I think the daughters from LW could have had joyful childhoods no matter the number of children because they had affectionate and mature parents who set the tone. But I’ll also note that each of them sometimes experienced loneliness or isolation in their lives because of a disconnect from their families. Jo sometimes felt very singular and alone because of her ambitions, despite the love and support of her mother. Amy and Meg both felt out of place or frustrated with their families at various times. Only Beth seems content in herself always, perhaps she would have been the same as an only.

IME loneliness and connection are not a function of family size.

I don’t think Beth or Jo would have been happy as only children. Beth was so anxious and shy that she didn’t go to school and almost never left the house. I think she would have been very lonely without other children to play with.
Jo, despite being close with her mom, did not want her mom all up in her poop. She and her mom would probably not have been on speaking terms by the end of adolescence if her mom didn’t have other things to focus on.

A child with Amy’s personality, though, would thrive as an only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is someone seriously surprised that two or three kids take more time and energy to raise than just one?

Right? Isn’t that obvious? I have 3 because that’s what I wanted for my family but was at no point under the impression that it would be as easy as having an only

Again with the sentiment that having an only is the “easy” way out of parenting

DP but no. That’s you seeing criticism where it was probably not intended.

Generally, moms with one kid have more time and energy for themselves than moms with more than one kid. That’s it. That’s all. It’s not a value judgment on your decision to have one child. It’s really, really not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of y'all sound happy with your choices because if you were, you wouldn't be defensively yelling about it on here.

I love my family size (I have an only) but also get that it's not for everyone. The only thing that is annoying to me is when people idiotically weigh in on the size of my family without thinking about all the many factors that go into those decisions (age, money, fertility, availability of support, mental health, etc.) that can vary greatly from person to person. Sometimes people will make this comments about my kid being lonely or whatever and honestly they don't really bother me because I know it's not the case. Like anyone who thinks my kid might be weird or selfish or lonely because they don't have a sibling is kind of dumb because anyone who meets my kid will see that they are none of those things. But I don't like when people poke at my decision to only have one because I definitely wanted another one at one point and it was sad when we made the [correct] decision to stick with one. I don't want/need people who don't understand those dynamics weighting in or passing judgment. MYOB.

You know, I think that some people would be really lonely as only children and others would love it. I am thinking of the sisters in “Little Women” since most of us have read it at one point or another. Amy, the youngest and the most social, probably would have loved being an only child and having all of the family resources dedicated to her. But Beth, the shy introvert, would probably have had a very lonely life without her sisters.

Different people can have different experiences of exactly the same situation and upbringing. You can be right about your child thriving AND they can be right that they would have been lonely as an only child. Both things can be true.

I just disagree on principal. I grew up with siblings and was always lonely because my family was dysfunctional and those relationships didn’t bring me comfort or happiness. Loneliness is really not about how many people are around, it’s about how connected you feel to those people. That’s a question of family dynamics and the ability of parents to develop strong and healthy family bonds. It doesn’t really have anything to do with number of children.

In your example, I think the daughters from LW could have had joyful childhoods no matter the number of children because they had affectionate and mature parents who set the tone. But I’ll also note that each of them sometimes experienced loneliness or isolation in their lives because of a disconnect from their families. Jo sometimes felt very singular and alone because of her ambitions, despite the love and support of her mother. Amy and Meg both felt out of place or frustrated with their families at various times. Only Beth seems content in herself always, perhaps she would have been the same as an only.

IME loneliness and connection are not a function of family size.

I’m sorry that you grew up in a dysfunctional household. I think that parents really make a mistake when they air their frustration with one child to another child in the family. They think it prevents sibling rivalry, but, in fact, it creates it. The child is always going to take the parent’s side in the conflict and hate their sibling that is causing their mother distress.

[Anonymous]

I have an only who is a very difficult child for multiple reasons. I assure you many parents of multiples have much more free time and less stress than I do.