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

[Anonymous]

It’s because you have a job, not because you have more children.

[Anonymous]

If your kids are going to school and aftercare, they don’t also need to go to a bunch of play dates and activities on the weekends. Take a drawing class. You get to have a life too.

Would you want your kids to have the same experience as a parent that you are having right now? One where they are functioning as a chauffeur and activities director and there is no time to be a human being? Show them how to be an adult with their own rich life, interests, and adult relationships. Sleep and get time to yourself so that you actually enjoy being with your kids and have fun playing with them. I promise that’s more important than getting them to every birthday party.

[Anonymous]

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.

Gmail for writing that. That particular sentence stuck out to me as messed up too

[Anonymous]

You don’t suck at time management. I mom tracked myself at work, have a 4yo and a 1yo, full time nanny and still have barely any free time. Everyone works hard and there’s still always more work to do with my kids, my job, my house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the logistics of one kid are obviously much simpler than the logistics of two. Also, you don't mention your spouse -- if you are doing all the kid stuff, it's going to be harder than if your spouse/partner is doing their share.

I have G/G twins who play the same sport so the logistics of the two of them are pretty simple and in some ways it's like having an only because they're (almost) always on the same schedule. BUT the mental energy expended on two is definitely more than with just one. So to me, that's the part that's hard about having multiple kids. You can outsource laundry and driving and making food and other things all you want, but for me it's the mental energy that's the most draining. My kids are generally pretty easy, but even though we have the money to outsource a lot of things, the reason we didn't want more than two (and were actually considering an only but got surprised by twins) is the mental/emotional part of it.

[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.

You can think this if you want, but to say it like it's true is rude, unfair, and ridiculous. I don't have an only, we have multiple kids, but I have friends with onlies and those kids do things and have experiences that children with siblings likely will never have. It's a different experience, but to say one is richer than the other is just plain stupid.

[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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

[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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

+1

Please have your kids come back and report in 40 years when they are fighting over your elder care or estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a working mom on one I can assure you my life is not "easy and smooth." I don't take ice skating or pottery classes and while I do work out, it's in my basement on my bike. Most anyone with a kid and a job is busy. Period.

Agree with this. There are less logistics with one kid, but you still have to prioritize the kid's activities, well being, school life, etc. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 4, someone still has to wake and feed them, cloth them, get them out the door, fix lunch, fix dinner, sign the school forms, wipe the tears, wipe the butt, do the laundry, worry about their social life, worry about their academics, plan their birthday party, etc.

Sure the volume is less with just one, but it's not an easy and smooth experience. Also, my one child requires a lot more attention than most other people's 2 children combined. He has special needs and lots of therapy sessions.

I do have some time to myself, but it's time that i make for myself, i.e. I wake up early to exercise, or run an errand instead of taking a lunch break. I don't think those things would change with more than one child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s because you have a job, not because you have more children.

It depends on the job in question and the kid(s) in question, I think.

[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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

+1

Please have your kids come back and report in 40 years when they are fighting over your elder care or estate.

Christ on a cross, you people are defensive. It's staggering, truly.

The bolded is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on DCUM and I've been on here way too long.

[Anonymous]

As a parent to an only, thank you parents of multiples for sticking up for us and our kids on this thread. It’s exhausting to read these kinds of posts and have to continually argue against the pity and stereotypes. Nothing in life is guaranteed, but I hope we can all get to a place where we can understand that different family structures are rich in different ways, not more or lesser than.

And if I never have to hear “I’d never have an only” or “I would have had zero or two, never one” again, I’ll die happy. Lucky you that you got to make that choice.

[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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

+1

Please have your kids come back and report in 40 years when they are fighting over your elder care or estate.

Christ on a cross, you people are defensive. It's staggering, truly.

The bolded is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on DCUM and I've been on here way too long.

Oh, calm your shorts - somehow in your world, it’s perfectly fine to imply that only children cannot possibly have a rich, love filled childhood, because they will somehow never know the apparently boundless love of a sibling? And how easy moms of onlies have it… such indulgent laziness!

All the boasting and positioning it like some kind of altruistic gift to give your children sibling relationships, etc. is hilarious. You didn’t have multiple kids for your kids, you have them for your own selfish reasons. You have NO idea what a sibling relationship will be over the course of a lifetime - check out the Family Relationships forum for some insight into that.

We have childless friends, child free friends, friends with inlines, friends with “normal” 2/3 kid families, and some friends with very large families (6+). I’ve never come across the same attitudes that seem to appear here towards any size family!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

+1

Please have your kids come back and report in 40 years when they are fighting over your elder care or estate.

Christ on a cross, you people are defensive. It's staggering, truly.

The bolded is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on DCUM and I've been on here way too long.

Oh, calm your shorts - somehow in your world, it’s perfectly fine to imply that only children cannot possibly have a rich, love filled childhood, because they will somehow never know the apparently boundless love of a sibling? And how easy moms of onlies have it… such indulgent laziness!

All the boasting and positioning it like some kind of altruistic gift to give your children sibling relationships, etc. is hilarious. You didn’t have multiple kids for your kids, you have them for your own selfish reasons. You have NO idea what a sibling relationship will be over the course of a lifetime - check out the Family Relationships forum for some insight into that.

We have childless friends, child free friends, friends with inlines, friends with “normal” 2/3 kid families, and some friends with very large families (6+). I’ve never come across the same attitudes that seem to appear here towards any size family!

I believe you, but I've also realized that people really do think the things that are said here, they just (usually) keep it to themselves. I went through both primary and secondary infertility in two different workplaces. The offhand comments and/or "helpful" advice people give when they think you "need" it is exactly the same as PPs on this thread. I have friends with big families that hear comparable comments about their family size too. I really think people with 2-3 kids with the standard age gap just don't know because they've never been on the receiving end. That's why childless folks, parents of one, and parents of big families tend to get defensive. Maybe you didn't *actually* mean that you or your children have richer lives than them or theirs, but when your loose phrasing implies it, people are sick and tired of hearing it and respond accordingly. And can respond more directly on DCUM than they can with the nosy coworker at the office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe for YOUR kids. Man you people are myopic. It's really sad.

+1

Please have your kids come back and report in 40 years when they are fighting over your elder care or estate.

Christ on a cross, you people are defensive. It's staggering, truly.

The bolded is one of the most disgusting things I've ever read on DCUM and I've been on here way too long.

Oh, calm your shorts - somehow in your world, it’s perfectly fine to imply that only children cannot possibly have a rich, love filled childhood, because they will somehow never know the apparently boundless love of a sibling? And how easy moms of onlies have it… such indulgent laziness!

All the boasting and positioning it like some kind of altruistic gift to give your children sibling relationships, etc. is hilarious. You didn’t have multiple kids for your kids, you have them for your own selfish reasons. You have NO idea what a sibling relationship will be over the course of a lifetime - check out the Family Relationships forum for some insight into that.

We have childless friends, child free friends, friends with inlines, friends with “normal” 2/3 kid families, and some friends with very large families (6+). I’ve never come across the same attitudes that seem to appear here towards any size family!

Except that I never implied any such thing. Learn to read. The willingness of people to insult others without even bothering to read what they wrote is pretty breathtaking.