I can't be friends with moms of 3+ kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 5 kids so I have an evolutionary advantage over everyone in this thread

Except me (I have 7)

While you were having evolutionary advantage, you also destroyed the environment. There is nothing worse for the environment than having so many children.

So your children will be fighting wars over fresh water and natural resources and very likely climate refugees. Have you thought of this or did you just picture them living in a house and buying crap at Walmart and having litters of children?

Can you please go to the travel board, the cars board, or the home improvement board? People aren’t going to kill off their children because they are bad for the environment.

Or maybe go boycott Amazon or Walmart or China who are a zillion times worse for the environment?

Actually overpopulation is the worst thing for the environment. Who do you think uses Amazon and Walmart, if not people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 5 kids so I have an evolutionary advantage over everyone in this thread

Except me (I have 7)

While you were having evolutionary advantage, you also destroyed the environment. There is nothing worse for the environment than having so many children.

So your children will be fighting wars over fresh water and natural resources and very likely climate refugees. Have you thought of this or did you just picture them living in a house and buying crap at Walmart and having litters of children?

Can you please go to the travel board, the cars board, or the home improvement board? People aren’t going to kill off their children because they are bad for the environment.

Or maybe go boycott Amazon or Walmart or China who are a zillion times worse for the environment?

Actually overpopulation is the worst thing for the environment. Who do you think uses Amazon and Walmart, if not people?

It’s actually a combination of both - overpopulation combined with incredibly wasteful and inefficient Western lifestyles. If PP Mom of 7 raises kids to live off the land in an ecologically sustainable way, perhaps even with some improvements to their little corner of the world, it’s possible they could have LESS negative impact than your singleton who lives in a 4000 sqft new build McMansion in the burbs, drives their SUV literally EVERYWHERE, plants non-natives/invasive species around the perimeter of their massive lawn complete with a sprinkler system, keeps the air conditioning set at 70 all the time, gets crap delivered from Amazon on a daily or weekly basis, and so on and so on…

You have got to start using your brains when you hear these types of platitudes, people.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe people are still so ignorant to blame global warming on cars.

Oh, well, it’s SAHMs with seven children. They don’t read much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s actually a combination of both - overpopulation combined with incredibly wasteful and inefficient Western lifestyles. If PP Mom of 7 raises kids to live off the land in an ecologically sustainable way, perhaps even with some improvements to their little corner of the world, it’s possible they could have LESS negative impact than your singleton who lives in a 4000 sqft new build McMansion in the burbs, drives their SUV literally EVERYWHERE, plants non-natives/invasive species around the perimeter of their massive lawn complete with a sprinkler system, keeps the air conditioning set at 70 all the time, gets crap delivered from Amazon on a daily or weekly basis, and so on and so on…

You have got to start using your brains when you hear these types of platitudes, people.

Oh, please!

A singleton in McMansion vs 7 kids in SFHs, 1 car vs 7 cars, 10 lb of food a week vs 70 lb of wood a week consumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What's your point? If you have three kids and therefore can't afford airfare and hotels then presumably travel wasn't a big priority of yours (unless you wanted one and ended up with triplets...).

If you're like all my friends with three kids, you can afford it, that's why you had three.

My point is most of them can’t afford even a babysitter, not to mention travel.
They can’t afford to have a life.

And the rest if society is expected to pay for their college scholarships because they won’t be able to cover it. And many other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s actually a combination of both - overpopulation combined with incredibly wasteful and inefficient Western lifestyles. If PP Mom of 7 raises kids to live off the land in an ecologically sustainable way, perhaps even with some improvements to their little corner of the world, it’s possible they could have LESS negative impact than your singleton who lives in a 4000 sqft new build McMansion in the burbs, drives their SUV literally EVERYWHERE, plants non-natives/invasive species around the perimeter of their massive lawn complete with a sprinkler system, keeps the air conditioning set at 70 all the time, gets crap delivered from Amazon on a daily or weekly basis, and so on and so on…

You have got to start using your brains when you hear these types of platitudes, people.

Oh, please!

A singleton in McMansion vs 7 kids in SFHs, 1 car vs 7 cars, 10 lb of food a week vs 70 lb of wood a week consumed.

You didn’t read the beginning of my comment apparently, or else you somehow didn’t understand it (which is truly sad because it’s not complicated). Obviously, when lifestyles are comparable 7 is worse than 1…

[Anonymous]

[guardian]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s actually a combination of both - overpopulation combined with incredibly wasteful and inefficient Western lifestyles. If PP Mom of 7 raises kids to live off the land in an ecologically sustainable way, perhaps even with some improvements to their little corner of the world, it’s possible they could have LESS negative impact than your singleton who lives in a 4000 sqft new build McMansion in the burbs, drives their SUV literally EVERYWHERE, plants non-natives/invasive species around the perimeter of their massive lawn complete with a sprinkler system, keeps the air conditioning set at 70 all the time, gets crap delivered from Amazon on a daily or weekly basis, and so on and so on…

You have got to start using your brains when you hear these types of platitudes, people.

Oh, please!

A singleton in McMansion vs 7 kids in SFHs, 1 car vs 7 cars, 10 lb of food a week vs 70 lb of wood a week consumed.

You didn’t read the beginning of my comment apparently, or else you somehow didn’t understand it (which is truly sad because it’s not complicated). Obviously, when lifestyles are comparable 7 is worse than 1…

I don’t have a lot of kids yet but after reading this thread it looks like I’m going to have to in order to outweigh these truly stupid people procreating. If you’re making decisions about your family based on environmental “impacts” (WTF) do us a favor and just have no kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s actually a combination of both - overpopulation combined with incredibly wasteful and inefficient Western lifestyles. If PP Mom of 7 raises kids to live off the land in an ecologically sustainable way, perhaps even with some improvements to their little corner of the world, it’s possible they could have LESS negative impact than your singleton who lives in a 4000 sqft new build McMansion in the burbs, drives their SUV literally EVERYWHERE, plants non-natives/invasive species around the perimeter of their massive lawn complete with a sprinkler system, keeps the air conditioning set at 70 all the time, gets crap delivered from Amazon on a daily or weekly basis, and so on and so on…

You have got to start using your brains when you hear these types of platitudes, people.

Oh, please!

A singleton in McMansion vs 7 kids in SFHs, 1 car vs 7 cars, 10 lb of food a week vs 70 lb of wood a week consumed.

You didn’t read the beginning of my comment apparently, or else you somehow didn’t understand it (which is truly sad because it’s not complicated). Obviously, when lifestyles are comparable 7 is worse than 1…

Do you think the mom with 7 kids grows her own food, makes her own clothes and uses cloth diapers and bikes instead of driving? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t have a lot of kids yet but after reading this thread it looks like I’m going to have to in order to outweigh these truly stupid people procreating. If you’re making decisions about your family based on environmental “impacts” (WTF) do us a favor and just have no kids!

I think a lot of people are making decisions about having kids based on the future that these kids will have. Only idiots don't think ahead.
There is a correlation with number kids and education. You know, idiocracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have different friends with different age children. I have one twelve year old.

I find it impossible to maintain a friendship once they hit child #3.

It's impossible to have adult only time doing something fun because spending $60 an hour for a sitter is too expensive for them. They usually don't have any other support as no one wants to watch their kids for free.

If we get together with kids it's exhausting just to watch - both dad and mom are constantly chasing their 2 year old and 4 year old and making sure they don't kill themselves. You can't have a conversation with them because they're constantly running around after the kids. Also, if you have a nice, clean house with expensive furniture their kids will jump on your nice couch with their shoes on, spill juice on your carpet, leave hand prints on walls, etc. You'll need to do a deep cleaning afterwards.

Finally, they don't have any interests. These women usually don't work. Their life revolves around changing diapers and feedings and there is nothing to talk about other than which gymnastics class to take. It's utterly boring.

This is not a year or two. This lasts years.

All this makes me wonder why women sabotage themselves having 3-4 kids? Why do you do this to yourselves?

I had my third last year. It’s taught me why playing at home and in the yard are a better option. If we’re going somewhere divide and conquer. It’s also taught me who my real friends are.

So in short, I don’t want to be friends with you either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have different friends with different age children. I have one twelve year old.

I find it impossible to maintain a friendship once they hit child #3.

It's impossible to have adult only time doing something fun because spending $60 an hour for a sitter is too expensive for them. They usually don't have any other support as no one wants to watch their kids for free.

If we get together with kids it's exhausting just to watch - both dad and mom are constantly chasing their 2 year old and 4 year old and making sure they don't kill themselves. You can't have a conversation with them because they're constantly running around after the kids. Also, if you have a nice, clean house with expensive furniture their kids will jump on your nice couch with their shoes on, spill juice on your carpet, leave hand prints on walls, etc. You'll need to do a deep cleaning afterwards.

Finally, they don't have any interests. These women usually don't work. Their life revolves around changing diapers and feedings and there is nothing to talk about other than which gymnastics class to take. It's utterly boring.

This is not a year or two. This lasts years.

All this makes me wonder why women sabotage themselves having 3-4 kids? Why do you do this to yourselves?

We do it to weed out friends like you. We don't want to hang out with you anyway.

-- Mom of 4 kids who works full-time, has a life, enjoys her friends and talks about kid stuff often because I like my kids more than you anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What's your point? If you have three kids and therefore can't afford airfare and hotels then presumably travel wasn't a big priority of yours (unless you wanted one and ended up with triplets...).

If you're like all my friends with three kids, you can afford it, that's why you had three.

My point is most of them can’t afford even a babysitter, not to mention travel.
They can’t afford to have a life.

And the rest if society is expected to pay for their college scholarships because they won’t be able to cover it. And many other things.

I don't know who you are friends with but you can take your Trumpian rants elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have 5 kids and have never paid more than 25 an hour for a babysitter. You have to try a lot of people and cast a wide net but eventually you get enough regulars to manage.

Let me guess - you live in panhandle Florida or Missouri or Ohio?

Boston, Massachusetts

Boston is crazy high for childcare costs. I have 3 kids and a partner so no sitter for Saturday night girls' night needed. We pay $20/hour for a sitter on date night. We have a housecleaner and a clean house.

I don't get why you would paint a parent of 3+ kid as some Super Nanny castoff who has no interests. If you aren't a kid person, fine, but I feel bad for your lonely kid. Did it ever cross your mind that some parents enjoy parenting? They enjoy the messy stuff? The mindless stuff?

Maybe we feel bad for you that you seem to think it's beneath you to enjoy your own child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t have a lot of kids yet but after reading this thread it looks like I’m going to have to in order to outweigh these truly stupid people procreating. If you’re making decisions about your family based on environmental “impacts” (WTF) do us a favor and just have no kids!

I think a lot of people are making decisions about having kids based on the future that these kids will have. Only idiots don't think ahead.
There is a correlation with number kids and education. You know, idiocracy.

Plan ahead for what the freaking ice age? You need to go back on your meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t have a lot of kids yet but after reading this thread it looks like I’m going to have to in order to outweigh these truly stupid people procreating. If you’re making decisions about your family based on environmental “impacts” (WTF) do us a favor and just have no kids!

I think a lot of people are making decisions about having kids based on the future that these kids will have. Only idiots don't think ahead.
There is a correlation with number kids and education. You know, idiocracy.

Plan ahead for what the freaking ice age? You need to go back on your meds.

I have a PhD and 3 kids… most women I know in DC with 3 kids are highly educated (as most women in NW DC are)