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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is silly because, aside from these being fictional characters, it assumes that personalities are not in some ways sculpted by the family environment. A youngest child in a large family, like Amy, often becomes someone who thrives on direct attention in part because they become used to getting attention from both parents and older siblings, and being treated always as a little special ("don't tease Amy, she's the littlest") and this factors into their personality. In a family where she was the only, Amy would probably have a slightly different disposition.

[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 agree with all of this. People are very judgemental of parents with only kids and I think this grates on people over time so there can be a lot of defensiveness (like on this thread). I was an only child and now I have three children of my own. There are pros and cons of both and, in general, I think good parents are good parents and exactly what PP said… Family size is what you make of it. I do not think there is one right way to structure your family and that everything else is a mistake or a disservice to your child

[Anonymous]

I have one kid but have only about 20-30 minutes of free time at night when she goes to bed. I work full time and have a long commute. By the time she is asleep I am too exhausted to spend that time productively. Be thankful for what you have and remember that comparison is the thief of joy.

[Anonymous]

The job you have (and how flexible it is), the kids you have (and how difficult they are), and the spacing of the kids make much more difference.

[Anonymous]

I have one kid and I do not work. I definitely have more free time than my friends who have multiples and certainly more than when I was working FT. I have always wanted more children though, but have not been able to have more, so although I greatly appreciate my me time I have also wished for the chaos of more. What one poster said about comparison being the their of joy is true. I have learned to enjoy having one kid but it is something I came to mindfully. Sometimes when I see parents with multiples I long for that too, but I also recognize the reality is more kids equals more work, chaos, exhaustion etc…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The job you have (and how flexible it is), the kids you have (and how difficult they are), and the spacing of the kids make much more difference.

+1, and I would add whether you have any support from family, your financial ability to pay for help to reduce some of the load, and how much your spouse shares the load (especially how willing he is take on the the heavier stuff, like supporting your kids through difficult social or academic challenges that can really weight you down as a parent).

Though I also think that all of this is also why some people choose to have fewer kids. Plenty of people recognize after one kid that their partner is not going to be an equal partner, or how hard it is to raise a kid with zero help from family, or how that your job is not as flexible as you thought, or you have a kid just demands a lot of you and you make the decision to stop at one for everyone's benefit.

It's just important to acknowledge that not everyone has the same resources or situation, and that results in very different "optimal" family situations. Which is why it's not that helpful to try and compare based just on one metric like number of kids. It's apples and oranges and pomegranates and grapes and a pineapple -- it's really not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything has it's pros and cons. I have an only child, and I do have downtime when he is out of the house or occupied, but I am also his "built in" playmate, while others would have their siblings. During the early days of COVID things were hard and he was lonely. I also have other things in my life that I am dealing with so it's all a balance.

I agree. Having one child can have their own challenges. My only 6 year old daughter wants to play with me and I just don't like it. If she had a sibling, they would play with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The job you have (and how flexible it is), the kids you have (and how difficult they are), and the spacing of the kids make much more difference.

+1, and I would add whether you have any support from family, your financial ability to pay for help to reduce some of the load, and how much your spouse shares the load (especially how willing he is take on the the heavier stuff, like supporting your kids through difficult social or academic challenges that can really weight you down as a parent).

Though I also think that all of this is also why some people choose to have fewer kids. Plenty of people recognize after one kid that their partner is not going to be an equal partner, or how hard it is to raise a kid with zero help from family, or how that your job is not as flexible as you thought, or you have a kid just demands a lot of you and you make the decision to stop at one for everyone's benefit.

It's just important to acknowledge that not everyone has the same resources or situation, and that results in very different "optimal" family situations. Which is why it's not that helpful to try and compare based just on one metric like number of kids. It's apples and oranges and pomegranates and grapes and a pineapple -- it's really not comparable.

Oh yes, family support is a big one (in addition to resources)! Having involved grandparents who live nearby and help with childcare is huge. Especially if the involved grandparents are still quite young. My grandmother was in her mid-40s when her first grandchildren were born and she helped care for them and was basically a second mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have some full time working moms with only 1 child, and their daily life seem to be so easy & smooth. They sign their only child with weekly activities (academic enrichment or sport or musical instrument) and they have time for themselves to take swimming class or ice skating class (either with the child or go by themselves) or go to gym on a weekly basis. They learn and grow together with their child and seem to have all positive energy/influence.

I am the odd full time working mom with 2 children (the oldest is the same age as them like age 7/8, and the youngest is 3 years younger). I don't have time for myself at all to take classes that I like (e.g. drawing, pottery or musical instrument). I could not find time and I have been transporting and managing both kids activities after school or on weekends. They have parties and playdates sometime.

I am wondering if it is me that I am suck at managing/organizing to make it work for me, or is it true that mom with 1 kid have more time/energy to do things for herself because 1 kid is a lot easier to manage?

As a mom with one I am often the other child playing games, legos, pool, etc. I don’t mind most of the time but I often wish my daughter had a built-in playmate.

[Anonymous]

My life would be easier with one for sure (I have two, 4 and 1). I work out in my basement and see friends a couple of times a month. But, I have many friends who are able to carve out more time for themselves despite multiple kids and a serious job. There are so many variables but I think it's mostly a matter of priorities. If there is something you really want to do, make it a priority and adjust other things around it. I don't have any hobbies that I feel strongly about so I don't do that, although I do make time to exercise most days.

[Anonymous]

I have one and my friends all have 2-3. I have WAY more time and much less stress than every single one of them. There are many conversations about the hardships of parenting that I just can’t relate to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have one and my friends all have 2-3. I have WAY more time and much less stress than every single one of them. There are many conversations about the hardships of parenting that I just can’t relate to.

Same. Like the overscheduling. Even if our only kid is in activities it's never like we're overscheduled or pulled in different directions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's true that "mom[s] with 1 kid have more time/energy to do things for herself because 1 kid is a lot easier to manage." People have strong opinions on what family size is the correct one (spoiler: there's no universally correct answer), but nobody can credibly claim that the responsibility of raising two humans is easier than raising one. Humans suck at multitasking and parenting multiple kids is a decades long exercise in multitasking. It's exhausting, even if it's also joyful and enriching.

Agree with all this. I think part of the problem is that there is stigma against having only one child so something you hear a lot is not only that having two is "better" but that it is "easier". The argument will be that the kids entertain each other and that you've already acclimated to parenthood do a lot of the stuff that was hard the first time around won't be hard this time. And while those things might (emphasis *might*) be true, nothing changes the fact that two kids means two whole people you need to raise, two sets of teachers and friends and activities and needs. Of course it's harder.

The other one that made me laugh (and also annoyed me) was when we would tell people that we were likely going to stick with one in part for financial reasons and they would tell us that two kids really doesn't cost much more than one. I mean it's comical. Sure there are some economies of scale -- they can share a room and in some cases can use the same clothes and toys and gear. But two kids is not just a little more than one. It's a lot more. Even with stuff like sibling discounts for activities, you are still talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of that child's life. Or if not that much, it means that you will be dividing however much you have to spend on kids between two kids, so less for everyone. I'm not saying this is a reason for people who really want two kids to stop but it's absolutely a factor.

When people tell you "two is easier than one" or "it's really not much more financially" DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM. They are lying. Why is complicated, but these are lies people tell.

Having two easy going, neurotypical kids would be way easier than having one child with disabilities. There is no universal answer to this. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, obviously all other things being equal, 1 child is a lot less work than 2 or 3+.

I have 3 under 9 and we are busy. I am still able to workout a bit because work is flexible and I work from home so I always find time to go for a 30 min run. Money is much tighter than if we were only putting 2 child through private school, etc.

But I also would never want to have an only and that’s why I have 3. My kids play (and sometimes fight) together all the time, they have their own unique relationships and they are teaching so much to one another. My kids’ lives are so much richer than they would have been had they been onlies.

We all prioritize and want different things. The lucky ones are the ones that are able to have what they want… including parents of onlies.

The bolded is not true but I'm glad you got the family you want and it sounds like your kids are having a great childhood. But that's a loaded judgment that is false, it's like people who don't think you can have a meaningful life without becoming a parent or people who think SAHMs can't have intellectual stimulation in their lives. It's based on a narrow experience that assumes the alternatives are not as good. They are, they are just different.

+1

Eh. I’m a NP who also has three kids. That they have each other as siblings enriches their lives in specific ways, at least as children. It also means trade-offs of less enrichment around things like specialized camps, lots of activities and extracurriculars, etc., because we don’t have the resources (of all kinds) to give those to each kid. I wouldn’t necessarily say my kids live richer lives than only children, but they do have sibling relationships that only children, by definition, don’t have. Mostly, so far, I think those are for the better.

I also work FT and have time to myself. My youngest is six, which helps, but I have always made time for daily exercise and with friends, at the very least. Now I’m at the point of being able to read for pleasure, which I love. If I really wanted to do a pottery class or something, DH and I could work it out. I also agree with a PP who said to embrace this season of life - I signed up to be a working mom of three kids, so I’m certainly not going to complain about it. I feel like I won the damn lottery.

My wife’s sister was problematic since she was a child. She loves her but has often said she thinks her childhood would have been better without her. A good friend has a similar thing with her younger brother. One reason among many that we’re sticking with one.

That’s a mean thing to “often” say about your sister.

Does your wife just say this about her sister, or does she have a list of people that she thinks her life would be better without?

NP, but stop it. You have no idea what it is like to grow up and live with a sibling who has many problems. So stay in your lane and don't criticize people who are in bad situations that you know nothing about and clearly aren't smart enough to be able to comprehend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an only child by choice. It was the best thing I ever did for our family. I would not be happy with two, even if the second were as easy as the first.

Wait… so it’s ok for you to say that you would not be happy with more kids, but not ok for parents of 2+ to say that they would never want to have only 1?

DP, but hold on right there. There's a BIG difference between saying YOU the parent would not be happy, and saying your CHILDREN are less happy or have less rich lives. 99.9% of the time people with 2+ say they would never want to have "only one" BECAUSE only children are lonely/selfish/alone after their parents die/missing out on foundational life experiences and relationships. If you said "I love kids and want to raise a gaggle, so I'd never be happy stopping at one," that's one thing. But that's just not what people actually say when they're having these conversations based on the dozens of times I've had it over the years.

See the difference?

The reason why I had more children it’s because I think my (and my kids’) life is better with more kids. This is my opinion based on my priorities. I never pretend to speak for anyone else. My kids (and I) are actually poorer in some ways than if I only had one. Financially for example. I am poorer because I have to pay 3 tuitions, 3 sets of activities, 3 plane tickets, etc. Given my HHI I am probably still richer than some families with 1 kid.

Same applies to time. I have a nanny and a flexible job so while my kids keep me busier than if I only had 1, I might still have more time than single moms that work 2 jobs and have no help even if they only have 1 kid.

Everything is relative to MY situation and MY life. In MY opinion MY kids’s lives are richer from having siblings than from having an extra play date or activity or an extra hour alone with their parents per week.
If I had 2 jobs and no help I would probably think my kids lives would be richer if they were onlies because they would be able to have more of everything. Same applies to other priorities/needs of course. If I appreciated quietness, alone time, if I were introverted, etc. I would probably prefer to have only one or even perhaps not kids at all.

I was lucky I was able to have the family I wanted when others are not. Families that only wanted 1, but end up with twins or surprise baby, families that wanted kids, but for one reason or another can’t have kids, etc.

My kids are in private school but this sentence made me gag. You don't HAVE to pay three tuitions. You're choosing to do so. It's very, very hard to take you seriously.