Why does 4 kids seem so much more than 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, it's not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

But you are (presumably) speaking from your own experience, which cannot be generalized to all kids. Many 6 and 9 year olds would love to be with their grandparents / sitters for a few hours each week. When my kids were younger, we had a 19 year old neighbor who helped me from 4-7 PM several nights a week. My kids LOVED her. She was like the cool big sister who brought new energy to our home. Having her around also allowed my kids to enjoy more individualized attention.

Honestly, it feels like you have an agenda here. You have parents of four on here telling you that their kids are loved and cared for. You have PPs on here who grew up in large families telling you there was lots of love and care. It seems like you want to invalidate their lived experiences. You may want to explore why that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

Putting aside how rude your comment is, I think you’re not recognizing the benefits that come with siblings being parented as a group. I have 3 and sometimes a kid or 2 gets toted along to a sibling’s practice. But there’s almost always other siblings brought along too. And many of the fields are right next to a playground.

With 3 kids and keeping busy, we are pretty much always around other kids. Mine always have a play mate and are good at cross age play. They get invited back to play dates because they know how to include siblings. We do also make sure to schedule them 1:1 time, they all got to do varied camps based on their interests this summer, and they get to take turns inviting a friend when we do family activities.

But I guess I just don’t see growing up in a family where you’re expected to do things for the benefit of others and to be able to go with the flow as a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Speaking from experience, if you are Mormon (or similar) unless you're the first to have grandkids you can't count on grandparent help because there are so many grandkids. The luckiest in a Mormon family is usually the first grandchild or two because they usually get the monopoly on free grandparent babysitting (that was definitely the case in my family--the first grandkid(s) on each side were the ones that were basically raised by my grandmothers and everyone else had less help) plus usually when the first grandchild is born the grandparents are still super young and energetic. My grandmothers were like 42 when their first grandchild was born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Speaking from experience, if you are Mormon (or similar) unless you're the first to have grandkids you can't count on grandparent help because there are so many grandkids. The luckiest in a Mormon family is usually the first grandchild or two because they usually get the monopoly on free grandparent babysitting (that was definitely the case in my family--the first grandkid(s) on each side were the ones that were basically raised by my grandmothers and everyone else had less help) plus usually when the first grandchild is born the grandparents are still super young and energetic. My grandmothers were like 42 when their first grandchild was born.

Interesting. I guess it makes sense, I mean I think in any family the first round of grandkids gets the most grandparent help (age like you mention being a factor).

It must just be the first sibling to have kids who is making these blogs/Instagram accounts with perfectly neat and decorated homes and a gaggle of kids in matching outfits lined up in age order for cute photos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? Its not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. Its just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

If there is a minimum ideal range of one on one time parents should spend with their children, spell it out ( with evidence) and then make an argument that it's impossible to do that with 4 kids in a certain age range.

Otherwise, your argument is biased and centered around your rigid worldview. Or you can keep going: Why does anyone have 2 kids then? Why does any household have 2 working parents? Why does any working parent work day hours instead of night time hours so they can spend more time with their 1 kid? Why should these children even go to school or have playmates when they could be spending time with their parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

DP. I also hope she’s not using *gasp* aftercare or regular date night sitters or going to the gym after work or having any sort of hobby. Because her kids are already away from her during the day and she otherwise would not be truly parenting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

I imagine there’s a lot of carpooling and siblings getting toted to practices. That is already how we manage 3 kids with full time jobs. I think if I didn’t work I’d have a bigger network of other moms to trade off with. Anecdotally I know some SAHMs of 3 or 4 and they seem to not mind having an extra kid in tow and will then trade off. Especially the military moms. It’s like an entire village just coordinating getting kids places or hosting a sibling for drop off. I think if I didn’t work/wanted a 4th I’d just lean into like this.

Most parents mind when you take advantage of them. They are just too polite to say anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

I imagine there’s a lot of carpooling and siblings getting toted to practices. That is already how we manage 3 kids with full time jobs. I think if I didn’t work I’d have a bigger network of other moms to trade off with. Anecdotally I know some SAHMs of 3 or 4 and they seem to not mind having an extra kid in tow and will then trade off. Especially the military moms. It’s like an entire village just coordinating getting kids places or hosting a sibling for drop off. I think if I didn’t work/wanted a 4th I’d just lean into like this.

Military moms are different. That's probably the closest thing to a communal child-raising experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

DP. I also hope she’s not using *gasp* aftercare or regular date night sitters or going to the gym after work or having any sort of hobby. Because her kids are already away from her during the day and she otherwise would not be truly parenting them.

Joke all you want but there are many many times that both of my kids need something at the same exact time - homework help, a ride, a shoulder to cry on, whatever, and if there were more of them, there would be less attention to go around per kid. You can keep denying it, but it’s just basic math. Obviously you are okay with each kid having less individual attention. To each his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

DP. I also hope she’s not using *gasp* aftercare or regular date night sitters or going to the gym after work or having any sort of hobby. Because her kids are already away from her during the day and she otherwise would not be truly parenting them.

Joke all you want but there are many many times that both of my kids need something at the same exact time - homework help, a ride, a shoulder to cry on, whatever, and if there were more of them, there would be less attention to go around per kid. You can keep denying it, but it’s just basic math. Obviously you are okay with each kid having less individual attention. To each his own.

How neglectful of you to have 2 children!

Your poor first child is not getting all the attention they deserve because you were too self centered to stop at 1 child.

[Anonymous]

This comes down so much the individual and I see a thread that I can really relate to. I bought it having a second child and spent many painful hours wondering what was “wrong” with me, and why I was so tapped out at one. It’s really incredible. There’s a special kind of heartache that can come when we internalize the “shoulds” of life and then can’t or don’t want to execute on them. I spent a lot of time and sometimes still feel like there’s something wrong with me that I stopped at one kid. It’s great for our family, but will he be alone at the end?

This is relevant for any kind of family planning though. What “should” your family look like and then whether or not that some thing anyone wants. I find it surprising that we don’t articulate this potential dissidence more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

DP. I also hope she’s not using *gasp* aftercare or regular date night sitters or going to the gym after work or having any sort of hobby. Because her kids are already away from her during the day and she otherwise would not be truly parenting them.

Joke all you want but there are many many times that both of my kids need something at the same exact time - homework help, a ride, a shoulder to cry on, whatever, and if there were more of them, there would be less attention to go around per kid. You can keep denying it, but it’s just basic math. Obviously you are okay with each kid having less individual attention. To each his own.

How neglectful of you to have 2 children!

Your poor first child is not getting all the attention they deserve because you were too self centered to stop at 1 child.

I know! I actually do feel badly for each of my kids sometimes when they are being short-changed and why I did not have any more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you get to the 4th kid you tend to have a parent who is not working or only working very part time. So in that regard there is always a dedicated parent whose life is very kid-centered. I have 3 and my career is my 4th kid. I think one more kid would be the tipping point. I’m also still hanging on to keeping my home fairly near and tidy/organized. Whereas I think once you hit 4 + you’re the type of family that embraces the chaos so to speak. (Unless you’re like a Mormon blogger type with family to help you so you can maintain that Pinterest home).

Once you have 4 kids in after school activities, it really doesn’t matter that one parent is home. There are still only 2 adults to manage driving/dinner/homework/bedtime.

Signed,
A SAHM of two with not much evening bandwidth to spare.

That’s assuming there’s no extended family that helps out, no mothers helpers, and that all 4 kids do after school activities.

Assuming all four kids are neurotypical, by the time the youngest does after school activities and has actual homework (8?), the oldest kid or two should be able to do their own homework and manage their own bedtime, no?

I'm the PP. If I had two more kids right now, (let's call them 9 and 6 since my kids are 3 years apart) they'd either be stuck home all the time with a grandparent or "mother's helper" or being drug to one of their two sibling's activities. Either way, its not remotely the experience my older two children had at those ages. Seems pretty unfair, but large families aren't concerned with individual attention, or actual parents caring for children.

What a gross thing to say.

What's "gross" about it? Are you 9? It's not logistically or mathematically possible for parents of 4 kids to parent as much as a parent of two kids or 1 kid. It's just not. And rather than admitting they are fine with this arrangement, parents in big families argue their kids aren't short changed at all. I can't believe these families are getting babysitters 3-4 nights a week so that the younger kids don't have to be schlepped around. And even if they are, that's a lot of time to spend with a babysitter when you've already spent the entire day away from your parents at school. We had kids because we actually wanted to parent them ourselves.

DP. If I'm tracking, you have two kids, right? I really hope you lose your dichotomous thinking before life throws a curveball your way. You say it is not "logistically or mathematically possible" for 2 parents to successfully parent 4 children. So under your logic, it would not be "logistically or mathematically" possible for 1 parent to successfully parent 2 children, right?

So what will you do if your spouse (heaven forbid) dies? Put your kids up for adoption so they can have 2 parents?

I know, I know. You'll say in the case of the former, the parents chose to have four kids. The latter scenario is involuntary. But the end result would be the same, no? 1 parent for 2 kids...

DP. I also hope she’s not using *gasp* aftercare or regular date night sitters or going to the gym after work or having any sort of hobby. Because her kids are already away from her during the day and she otherwise would not be truly parenting them.

Joke all you want but there are many many times that both of my kids need something at the same exact time - homework help, a ride, a shoulder to cry on, whatever, and if there were more of them, there would be less attention to go around per kid. You can keep denying it, but it’s just basic math. Obviously you are okay with each kid having less individual attention. To each his own.

How neglectful of you to have 2 children!

Your poor first child is not getting all the attention they deserve because you were too self centered to stop at 1 child.

I know! I actually do feel badly for each of my kids sometimes when they are being short-changed and why I did not have any more!

Oh mamacita. You are the SAHM with two kids in this thread? I can tell you are a great mother and are trying to give your two kids all the attention you can. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark here. I think somewhere along the way in your parenting journey, you learned that individual, one on one attention = love and care, and that anytime you are not giving your children individual, one on one attention, they are not thriving. I think this had led you to some insecurities in your own parenting, and I think you are coping with those insecurities by fixating on parents with 3+ kids. Essentially, by convincing yourself that no parent of 3+ kids can meet their children's needs, you become more confident and secure that you are meeting your own children's needs since there are only 2 of them.

I could be totally off base. But I do wonder why you decided to participate in this thread, when you have absolutely no experience raising 3, let alone 4, kids. And you seem completely unwilling to believe the parents on here (the actual parents of 3 and 4 kids) telling you that their kids are cared for and loved? I wonder if you might consider talking to someone. Your kids are at wonderful ages and I hope you can enjoy them, instead of being so concerned about meeting their every need at every second.

[Anonymous]

I'm a parent of an only child and for me, one child is the limit of what I can do given I WOH. I love the bond I have with my child. I love the smile she gets on her face when we snuggle in bed. I love being able to focus on her. My DH is very loving and involved, but we are both low energy. If I didn't suffer from fertility issues we would probably have considered having another, but in some ways I think it is fate that I physically can't.

At the same time, it's true that with two parents and one child, we're often not super efficient parents. I do catch myself trying to do too much for her. I recently had to solo parent for a few days and it was eye opening how I realized that in some ways it was easier because it helped me focus on what really needed to be done. And how much DH and I sometimes get in the way of one another.

So I don't think it's totally accurate that 4 children get half as much parenting as 2 children. I think there are efficiencies with multiple children. But it's also very common for it to be outsourced to the eldest child. My mother is the oldest of 7 and she definitely feels her parents didn't really parent her youngest siblings, they just had their oldest children do it. I am one of 2 and I don't think my mom wishes she had more.