And most of you don't have the experience of having one kid for more than a short while, so you actually can't compare, though you might think you can. There's a difference between having only one for 2/4/whatever years, and then having two-- and having just one for 18 years. I don't think those people can say they've had one and they've had two, and X is harder. These are kind of unanswerable questions.

Anonymous wrote:Oof.

All things being equal*, having an only is easier.

It's not AS MUCH easier as often imagined, because it's not just "less parenting," it's different parenting.

And it's not half the parenting of 2, or one third the parenting of 3 or whatever.

The main issue is that there are some efficiencies of scale when having more than one. There are a lot of basic things a parent has to do regardless of family size. Some of them increase time/money/energy expenditure quite a bit with each additional kid, or even more than double. But many of those increase only very slightly with each additional kid, and occasionally not at all.

So you have to manage sibling relationships-- that adds a lot of work (IMO)! And you may be pulled in literal different directions with additional doctor's appointments, sports, recitals.

But then, often having more than one reduces your need to engage directly, if they can get along for any length of time. It may also be true that you can schedule fewer playdates and paid or unpaid "activities." Yes, not all siblings get along, so see above. But it's probably mostly true that parents of 2+ get at least periods in their children's lives where they can spend some less-supervised time together.

On the other hand, the more kids you have, you don't spend that exact multiple on clothing (hand-me-downs can cover a big chunk!), babysitting or necessarily hotel rooms, or even private school tuition (I wouldn't know, but I think there's usually at least a 5% sibling discount). In terms of time, you can book a camp for 2 kids often as quickly and easily as you can for one-- or it takes 10 additional minutes to fill in one more form-- etc.

There's also some psychic investment time that isn't doubled with two kids, especially since you've hopefully learned something from having the first one. Yes, you might need a different method of feeding or discipline or potty training for the second or third kid, for example. But you don't have to learn again what potty training entails, and maybe you can correct mistakes you made with the first one.

And then sometimes that's actually not true-- sometimes scaling up adds more than would be expected. If you have more than 2 kids, and especially more than 3, maybe now you have to buy a minivan or something, reserve tables for 6 (even if you're just 5 people) instead of for 4, and so on.

So it's... different. And I think, all things being equal, less work with an only. But not, say, half the work of two.

And most of you don't have the experience of having one kid for more than a short while, so you actually can't compare, though you might think you can. There's a difference between having only one for 2/4/whatever years, and then having two-- and having just one for 18 years. I don't think those people can say they've had one and they've had two, and X is harder. These are kind of unanswerable questions.

Signed,
Mom of one who knows she couldn't handle two (or could I have?)


*Get out of here w/your "I have an only, but my only has a billion health/mental health problems." I mean, I'm sorry, but no sh--. We're talking about all things being equal, and you know it-- or you should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? Isn’t that obvious? I have 3 because that’s what I wanted for my family but was at no point under the impression that it would be as easy as having an only

Again with the sentiment that having an only is the “easy” way out of parenting

DP but no. That’s you seeing criticism where it was probably not intended.

Generally, moms with one kid have more time and energy for themselves than moms with more than one kid. That’s it. That’s all. It’s not a value judgment on your decision to have one child. It’s really, really not.

You are ignoring so many factors it's honestly laughable. But ok, go on with yourself.

Anonymous wrote:"I am the odd full time working mom with 2 children" was when I stopped reading the OP.

OP, you need to get out more. I would say the average working mom around here has 2 kids, not one.

Anonymous wrote:The job you have (and how flexible it is), the kids you have (and how difficult they are), and the spacing of the kids make much more difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right? Isn’t that obvious? I have 3 because that’s what I wanted for my family but was at no point under the impression that it would be as easy as having an only

Again with the sentiment that having an only is the “easy” way out of parenting

DP but no. That’s you seeing criticism where it was probably not intended.

Generally, moms with one kid have more time and energy for themselves than moms with more than one kid. That’s it. That’s all. It’s not a value judgment on your decision to have one child. It’s really, really not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:working full time with no help and a bunch of kids makes no sense in this county and i am not sympathetic for the people who decide to live that life.

As a PP with three kids and who works FT, I don’t want or need your sympathy. I chose this life. Just don’t tell me I must be a shitty mother because I work and have three kids. That’s all.

NP. So angry! And too bad, we can say whatever we want. You do sound like a s****y mother because you’re so annoying and hypocritical.

LOL - a little projection early on a Saturday, huh?

Right? So from this thread I’ve gathered:

You’re a shitty mom if you work, have a “bunch of kids” and have no help. But you’re also a shitty mom if you have a nanny because “Nannie’s are not a replacement” for a parent. Also if you have multiple kids, you’ll be financially poor because they’re so expensive. But also your multiple children will fight over your estate (what estate? You’re poor) in 40 years. Also your kids won’t be close as adults, despite the fact that you know lots of adults who are close with their siblings, because some guy’s wife hates her sister so all siblings in the world must really hate their siblings, they just don’t share that with you.

+1. This is great! I would add that parents of onlies have the best life because they have more time and money for their child and their ice skating and pottery lessons, but are also closer to their mid because they can focus all of their time (when not ice skating) on their 1 child.

You’re not wrong though.

Then why do the ones on this thread spend so much time telling us parents of more than one what selfish, shitty parents they were? Or is that part of living your best life?

I agree people on this thread have been very hard on the parents of more than one for some reason. I don't think it's necessary.

However, IRL I find it's the reverse -- people tend to be very critical of people with only children and will openly just tell you that having one kid is going to mess them up. I have an only not-by-choice (secondary infertility) and I can't even count the number of times friends, parents, teachers at my kids school, etc., have said some version of "yes, your child will struggle because they don't have a sibling."

I think perhaps parents of only children get defensive because we hear this stuff so much and that might account for some of the unkindness on this thread. When you've been told for years that you're selfish for only having one, and that it will result in a weird, lonely child, you might spend some time working up arguments for why that's false. And it is false! There are happy only children and there are unhappy kids with siblings. And vice versa. Number of kids is really not the critical choice people make it out to be. As someone who didn't really have much say in how many kids I had, I can assure you that it turns out you can be very happy even if it doesn't work out as planned. I'm not religious but I sometimes find myself thinking that my inability to have a second was a blessing because I am so happy with my only now. I'm guessing there are lots of parents of "oops" children who feel the same. Turns out family size is what you make of it.