Family life sucks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: didn’t have a village and realized too late I was married to a hunter type who wanted to go off to get meat for weeks at a time. He also had some characteristics that would have probably gotten him killed off in a farm or factory accident 100 years ago, or shot dead on the frontier 150 years ago.

This will sound harsh but along with the isolation of modern life, modernity has also allowed the survival of some characteristics and genes that otherwise wouldn’t make it to reproduction and family life and caregiving duties even a couple generations ago. Only in a society focused on academic achievement and computer-based white collar work could my exDH have made it to the point of meeting me, let alone marrying and having a child.

I think back to my grandparents cousin’s and some random great uncles when I was very small and they were kind of off in their own exile and always had been, and no one expected much from them. Back then there was room for these types to just do their thing and survive at a low-level pensioned job or in a cottage on the back acres of a small family farm. Now there’s a lot more pressure to play along to find a place on society even if it’s a bad fit. (And obviously some don’t and become homeless or addicts or otherwise never find their role)

Wow! I thought I had written this and this thread has been resurrected, but, wow, someone else has the exact same thoughts and experiences today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

Actually babies typically cry because they are hungry, tired, bored, constipated or sick.

Many babies do just fine sleeping in a separate room from their parents.

Parents are the best people to decide what is best for their child and their family within basic safety parameters. For many, that does not involve room sharing for 12 months. Studies have shown that infants older than 4 months who room-share may experience more night wakings and shorter overall sleep stretches. Families often choose to transition the baby to their own room between 4 and 12 months for better sleep quality for both parents and baby.

The guidance from the CDC and APA on room sharing is pretty dumb IMO, but not surprising from orgs that managed to increase nut allergies in children by putting out unsupported guidance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Immigrants are having a good time but we’re making it a priority to get rid of them because they are inferior
IMHO - basically something is very wrong with America. But, it has been wrong for a long, long time. The basic unit of society - family - is broken for everybody. No one is having a good time. Not the kids, not the mom and not even the dad. Elderly grandparents are also in a limbo though they may also share some blame for being hedonistic aholes when they were parenting.

Karma is kicking your backside - in a big way. Young people should not have kids. You should look after yourself and live a small and frugal life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

IMHO - basically something is very wrong with America. But, it has been wrong for a long, long time. The basic unit of society - family - is broken for everybody. No one is having a good time. Not the kids, not the mom and not even the dad. Elderly grandparents are also in a limbo though they may also share some blame for being hedonistic aholes when they were parenting.

Karma is kicking your backside - in a big way. Young people should not have kids. You should look after yourself and live a small and frugal life.

Immigrants are having a good time but we are making it a priority to kick them out because they are inferior and stuff

[Anonymous]

There is no perfect system. I worry about my children and their spouses. My DD and DIL are as educated as my son-in-law and son. However, I see them not having the bandwidth to juggle work, home, education, health even now when they don't have kids and they all are in their 20s. And all of this when they are renting and living in apartments and don't have the added burden of house and yard maintenance.

The only reason I feel I was able to survive was because my parents and my DH helped a lot. And then I was SAH and had additional help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

What actual help did you provide,?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Yes! There is a better way. We need to stop expecting moms to do it all. Go to work and also be the mom from the 1950's. During WWII the government had daycares because women were needed when men went to war. They closed them when men came back.

To be fair, there are times where family life is really bad like after the birth of children so it isn't a fair snapshot of life. Like if you came over when you were puking every 20 minutes you would think life isn't worth living but, miss the sunsets.

Most mom's don't do it all if they are married. Many fathers do half or more.

American dads spend about half the time of moms doing unpaid family labor. Your assertion is not backed up by the data.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-4-how-mothers-and-fathers-spend-their-time/

American dads put in more time doing paid labor than working moms. When you add up total hours worked -paid and unpaid - moms and dads do the same. So fathers do half, and your misandry is not backed up by the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Yes! There is a better way. We need to stop expecting moms to do it all. Go to work and also be the mom from the 1950's. During WWII the government had daycares because women were needed when men went to war. They closed them when men came back.

To be fair, there are times where family life is really bad like after the birth of children so it isn't a fair snapshot of life. Like if you came over when you were puking every 20 minutes you would think life isn't worth living but, miss the sunsets.

Most mom's don't do it all if they are married. Many fathers do half or more.

American dads spend about half the time of moms doing unpaid family labor. Your assertion is not backed up by the data.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-4-how-mothers-and-fathers-spend-their-time/

American dads put in more time doing paid labor than working moms. When you add up total hours worked -paid and unpaid - moms and dads do the same. So fathers do half, and your misandry is not backed up by the data.

Care to cite a source? Because even in egalitarian marriages where both spouses earn roughly the same, the man still has 3.5 more hours per week for leisure than the woman.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

So, I am the PP who minored in biological anthropology, and I did NOT write this.

I actually think parents need to be *extremely* cautious when trying to adopt so-called “natural” parenting styles, because much of what is put out in pop culture books does not reflect the reality of hunter-gatherer life. And it always needs to be looked at in the broader, more holistic context.

For example, what PP said about room sharing - actual research data shows that babies often sleep better when in their own rooms rather than with their parents. And while hunter gatherers may have their children in the same room, there is the broader context of having dozens of other adults to help during the day and at night so that parents can take naps, spend time together, get things done, etc.

What is 100% absolutely not healthy in any way is to assume that if something is more “natural”, it is better for children and better for that specific family. I did a more “attachment style” type of parenting with my first child because I enjoyed it (although I did not BF, as I did not like it). By the time I had my second child, I was working again and overwhelmed with raising two kids basically as a single mom, and attachment style would have absolutely wrecked my mental health. Everyone needs to assess what works best for them and their family’s needs.

So I always caution parents when they try to parent similarly to hunter gatherers. For most, there simply isn’t enough of a village to divide that amount of labor around so that it doesn’t become too taxing on one person.

Both of my kids do sleep in my room, but that is because it works for us. If it didn’t, I would have no problem having them in a separate room, and I absolutely do not think all families should do what I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart of you to look around you and see the pattern. As others have said, it IS a pattern, and it’s difficult to watch.

My solution was to just have one child, which allows me to maintain my relationship, professional life, and hobbies while still experiencing parenthood. Many people rule that out because they feel it is “unfair” to that child to not provide them with siblings. I don’t want to get into that debate and how irrational it is, I’m just saying it is why many people won’t even consider stopping at one.

But for modern life, one child is an excellent compromise.

Agree with all sentiments; I predict many more people will consider having one due to emotional and financial toll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

I co slept with my sons until they were 4 years old + breastfed. At nights I would just breastfeed them in my sleep never fully waking up.

After I finished co sleeping with my younger one, he slept with his brother in the same bed for couple of years. They are the best of friends now.

I could never understand American way of putting the newborns in a separate room. Thats just unnatural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

IMHO - basically something is very wrong with America. But, it has been wrong for a long, long time. The basic unit of society - family - is broken for everybody. No one is having a good time. Not the kids, not the mom and not even the dad. Elderly grandparents are also in a limbo though they may also share some blame for being hedonistic aholes when they were parenting.

Karma is kicking your backside - in a big way. Young people should not have kids. You should look after yourself and live a small and frugal life.

Doesn’t seem that great having kids anywhere else. Even in countries with social benefits it’s just worse in other ways. It’s why the birth rate is down in every western country. Having kids sucks.

[Anonymous]

I’m very unhappy having kids. I’ve lost everything. I occasionally have a joyful moment with my kids but most of the time it’s drudgery. I’m so jealous of women who didn’t have kids and younger women who have figured it out. I hate the house, mess, expense, my changed body, need for a sitter to have any fun. Love my kids but now hate my life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

IMHO - basically something is very wrong with America. But, it has been wrong for a long, long time. The basic unit of society - family - is broken for everybody. No one is having a good time. Not the kids, not the mom and not even the dad. Elderly grandparents are also in a limbo though they may also share some blame for being hedonistic aholes when they were parenting.

Karma is kicking your backside - in a big way. Young people should not have kids. You should look after yourself and live a small and frugal life.

Doesn’t seem that great having kids anywhere else. Even in countries with social benefits it’s just worse in other ways. It’s why the birth rate is down in every western country. Having kids sucks.

It's down in every developed country, East and West. Except Israel.