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

[Anonymous]

I have two and do have time for myself because my husband takes on an equal amount of child related and home things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have two and do have time for myself because my husband takes on an equal amount of child related and home things.

But would you have more time if you had the same husband and one child? Not sure why folks are having such difficulties with reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

I have three kids and always made time for myself. I have always worked out daily. I have hobbies and go out sometimes with friends. I don’t have outside help but I do have and also am a supportive spouse.

[Anonymous]

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.

I also have 3 but onliest also have rich lives- and the parents are the ones to import this richness. Having a 'rich' life with a lot of meaning, connections, depth of feeling isn't dependent on how many kids, parents, etc you have. It is dependent on how people choose to interact with each other and the experiences that you have. In one way, my friends who fled repressive regimes- they had rich textured childhoods crammed with meaning due to their suffering, I lost a parent at an unusually early age- that grief and loss and suffering has ultimately enriched my life b/c it changed me and made me a stronger more self aware person. Having an only, being an only, having siblings. whatever life throws at you- it doesnt make your experience more rich in comparison to someone else, it just makes the source of your life experience different. I dont like this shade thrown at parents of onllies that somehow their children are living skim milk lives, that they are lonely. Some people are just lonely, go look on the families board- plenty f lonely people with siblings. I have a sibling, she couldn't care less if I lived or died really. Shed be shocked if I said that but its the truth- it wouldn't change her life or matter in the long run at all. And we get along fine, no estrangement or anything.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

PP you’re quoting: I’ve long had a problematic relationship with my sister, my only sibling. I don’t know that my childhood would have been better without her, but she’s a major source of stress as an adult. That’s one of the reasons we had three, and not two.

Also, I was talking specifically about *my* kids and their sibling relationships. They get along really well, generally, and have a lot of fun together. I also listed things they don’t have because we have three kids and not one, lest anyone think I’m saying that more kids is always better than one kid.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

I have an only in large part because I thought DH and I would struggle with 2+. We're introverts, we have other caretaking responsibilities, DH has executive function issues, etc etc. So while yes 1 kid is less work, it's about as much work as we can handle and neither of us is lolling about wondering what to do with our time. I would hate to think my boss or coworkers is making assumptions about my life based on my having one kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an only in large part because I thought DH and I would struggle with 2+. We're introverts, we have other caretaking responsibilities, DH has executive function issues, etc etc. So while yes 1 kid is less work, it's about as much work as we can handle and neither of us is lolling about wondering what to do with our time. I would hate to think my boss or coworkers is making assumptions about my life based on my having one kid.

+1, we had one in part for financial reasons and in part because I have a history of depression and while it is reasonably well-managed it takes work that I think would be hard to accomplish with more kids. I had one kid so I could be a good mother to one kid, instead of having two kids and struggling to take care of myself and them at the same time. I know there are people who think I have it "easy" because I have one kid but these are not people who know that there are times in my past where a good day was one where I managed to get out of bed and go to work instead of simply staying in bed all day staring at a wall. I have no shame in saying that baseline for me is different than it might be for someone else, and my ability to be a pretty great parent is a massive victory for me. I good care less that someone else thinks it's not that hard. It's hard enough.

[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.

I have four, and I absolutely agree with you. I have no idea why people say this stuff. It’s like they are trying to trick new parents.

My mom actually told SIL that having one was easier than being childfree because it was easier to make friends and participate in family activities.

People lie!!

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

It depends on the siblings and their relationships. My sibling tormented me and they and my parents created a triangle to bully and be mean to me and I basically have no relationship with any of them now.

There are huge trade offs but ultimately it really depends on how involved teh parents are and how they choose to spend their evening and weekends.

[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?

My siblings was horrible to me and I my husband would say tis but I'm the younger. My parents made it clear I was an accident and treat me as such. My husband helped me stand up to them and separate from them and my life has been so much better without their negativity.

[Anonymous]

My oldest child is difficult and has some special needs. If he was my only child, my experience of parenthood would be much different, and our household would be a much less happy one.

That being said, I do think that you need to take some time to nurture yourself and be an adult human being, OP. Being a good parent comes from within, not without. If you aren’t growing and becoming the person that you want to be, then how can you effectively nurture your children? There is no activity that a 4 and 7 year old need to do that is more important than you being able to live your adult life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My siblings was horrible to me and I my husband would say tis but I'm the younger. My parents made it clear I was an accident and treat me as such. My husband helped me stand up to them and separate from them and my life has been so much better without their negativity.

Good for you. I’m glad you met your husband.
Maybe pp’s wife is your sister. What a horrible person. I hope he doesn’t make it on her list