I don't know..I'm a working mom, in a PT degree program with 1. I am his go-to playmate. You end up needing to entertain the kid when he needs company, and that becomes difficult to manage when you are trying to get work done. But I am sure your organizing duties are way harder.

It depends how hard the kids is

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do we need to "rank" parenthood? I'm not sure this is universally true. Neighbors down the street have two kids but full-time care and the mom works from home with a completely flexible job. Nanny drives their kids and often makes dinner, mom is always telling me about her mid-day appointments. DH and I have one child but work in unflexible jobs and often don't get off before 6pm, when DD needs to get to activities. We knew this going in, which is why we have an only. But whose life is "easier"? If you have two kids but don't work, is that life still "harder"? Parenting is hard no matter what.

Well yes but I think people on this thread are assuming all other things being equal.

I mean, I know single moms who technically have it "easier" that two-parent households in the way you are talking about -- lots of resources for child-care, family support and help, etc., that plenty of married parents don't have. But if you control for all that stuff, raising a child with a partner (assuming a good partner who actually helps) is easier than raising one alone.

+1. It’s not about ranking, it’s a very simple question. When you control for variables (jobs, family support, partners, income), does it take more time and energy to raise additional children. I think that’s a very common sense yes.

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.

Again, it is great that you feel that your kid's live are rich and that their sibling relationship are worthwhile. But that does not mean their lives are "richer" than if they were only children. For one, an only child might have stronger and closer relationship with parents and grandparents because of less divided attention. That would enrich their lives. And only child might simply be the kind of person who enjoys spending time alone and has a very rich inner life. The idea that the only way for a child to have an enriching childhood is if they share it with siblings is just a very narrow assumption that you are making largely to validate your own choices. You shouldn't need to do this. You made good choices for your kids. There are other choices you could have made that would also be good.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept. There's no one way. There's no best way.

FFS, I didn't make it a competition. Having siblings is a specific kind of enriching. So are extra close parent relationships, or tons of extracurriculars, or whatever, including this specific to being an only child (or having no children at all!). I never said that having siblings is the ONLY way for kids to have an enriching childhood. Please, read before you insult.

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.

Do we need to "rank" parenthood? I'm not sure this is universally true. Neighbors down the street have two kids but full-time care and the mom works from home with a completely flexible job. Nanny drives their kids and often makes dinner, mom is always telling me about her mid-day appointments. DH and I have one child but work in unflexible jobs and often don't get off before 6pm, when DD needs to get to activities. We knew this going in, which is why we have an only. But whose life is "easier"? If you have two kids but don't work, is that life still "harder"? Parenting is hard no matter what.

Well yes but I think people on this thread are assuming all other things being equal.

I mean, I know single moms who technically have it "easier" that two-parent households in the way you are talking about -- lots of resources for child-care, family support and help, etc., that plenty of married parents don't have. But if you control for all that stuff, raising a child with a partner (assuming a good partner who actually helps) is easier than raising one alone.

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.

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.

Do we need to "rank" parenthood? I'm not sure this is universally true. Neighbors down the street have two kids but full-time care and the mom works from home with a completely flexible job. Nanny drives their kids and often makes dinner, mom is always telling me about her mid-day appointments. DH and I have one child but work in unflexible jobs and often don't get off before 6pm, when DD needs to get to activities. We knew this going in, which is why we have an only. But whose life is "easier"? If you have two kids but don't work, is that life still "harder"? Parenting is hard no matter what.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I have an only and scant free time. I’m sure there is less chaos as we’re not coordinating multiple kid’s activities, but it’s not all zen here.

Adding a lot of it is time management. It’s so easy to overwhelmed with the day to day. I have a spouse who travels often and I work weekends. It’s a lot of juggling. It’s less complicated than with multiples, but no pottery so far. My partner and I do try to give one another breaks but it’s not settled enough to make pottery classes possible so far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have some full time working moms with only 1 child, and their daily life seem to be so easy & smooth. They sign their only child with weekly activities (academic enrichment or sport or musical instrument) and they have time for themselves to take swimming class or ice skating class (either with the child or go by themselves) or go to gym on a weekly basis. [/b]They learn and grow together with their child and seem to have all positive energy/influence.[b]

I am the odd full time working mom with 2 children (the oldest is the same age as them like age 7/8, and the youngest is 3 years younger). I don't have time for myself at all to take classes that I like (e.g. drawing, pottery or musical instrument). I could not find time and I have been transporting and managing both kids activities after school or on weekends. They have parties and playdates sometime.

I am wondering if it is me that I am suck at managing/organizing to make it work for me, or is it true that mom with 1 kid have more time/energy to do things for herself because 1 kid is a lot easier to manage?

Yeah, this is really a key part that others haven't commented on yet. My only child and I DO STUFF together. We (including dad) are a team and DD loves her positive, collaborative childhood. Because I have one child, I have the bandwidth to have a career, have my own hobbies, AND be the mom that does all of the things. Soccer coach, scout leader, classroom parent, summer camp volunteer. It gives us (and her dad, he splits volunteering time with me on some activities) a ton of quality time together and I wouldn't trade it for the world. It also helps that DD has always been naturally independent and a total bookworm, so she really doesn't need or want an in-home playmate. She'll sit and read a book after dinner while I complete some online certification course for one volunteer role or another. One child wasn't our plan (thank you, lousy egg reserve), but it's brought our lives so much richness and closeness that it's hard to imagine being in the "normal" parenting grind like our friends and family.

This is really well put. I also found myself one and done due to poor egg reserve, and while it wasn't our initial plan to have only one kid I really started seeing the benefits for all of us. I ended up getting unexpectedly pregnant so we did ultimately have a second kid. I love our younger one but those years of learning to embrace the reality of having just one kid brought me 110% into the perspective of people who had one child by choice.

I have an only and scant free time. I’m sure there is less chaos as we’re not coordinating multiple kid’s activities, but it’s not all zen here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have some full time working moms with only 1 child, and their daily life seem to be so easy & smooth. They sign their only child with weekly activities (academic enrichment or sport or musical instrument) and they have time for themselves to take swimming class or ice skating class (either with the child or go by themselves) or go to gym on a weekly basis. [/b]They learn and grow together with their child and seem to have all positive energy/influence.[b]

I am the odd full time working mom with 2 children (the oldest is the same age as them like age 7/8, and the youngest is 3 years younger). I don't have time for myself at all to take classes that I like (e.g. drawing, pottery or musical instrument). I could not find time and I have been transporting and managing both kids activities after school or on weekends. They have parties and playdates sometime.

I am wondering if it is me that I am suck at managing/organizing to make it work for me, or is it true that mom with 1 kid have more time/energy to do things for herself because 1 kid is a lot easier to manage?

Yeah, this is really a key part that others haven't commented on yet. My only child and I DO STUFF together. We (including dad) are a team and DD loves her positive, collaborative childhood. Because I have one child, I have the bandwidth to have a career, have my own hobbies, AND be the mom that does all of the things. Soccer coach, scout leader, classroom parent, summer camp volunteer. It gives us (and her dad, he splits volunteering time with me on some activities) a ton of quality time together and I wouldn't trade it for the world. It also helps that DD has always been naturally independent and a total bookworm, so she really doesn't need or want an in-home playmate. She'll sit and read a book after dinner while I complete some online certification course for one volunteer role or another. One child wasn't our plan (thank you, lousy egg reserve), but it's brought our lives so much richness and closeness that it's hard to imagine being in the "normal" parenting grind like our friends and family.

+1 my favorite thing about having an only is not that it means more time to myself (though I do like that) but I just really like the effortless vibe of our three person family. I'm sure many people with multiples feel the same way about how their 2+ kids create a harmonious family environment. But we hit on that with one kid and it's worked out great. There was definitely a time when we were thinking about a second but it didn't work out and when we discussed pursuing intervention to make it happen, we realized that we were just really happy with how our family felt at the time and didn't feel like it was in need of another member. We are a very happy unit as is.

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.

Again, it is great that you feel that your kid's live are rich and that their sibling relationship are worthwhile. But that does not mean their lives are "richer" than if they were only children. For one, an only child might have stronger and closer relationship with parents and grandparents because of less divided attention. That would enrich their lives. And only child might simply be the kind of person who enjoys spending time alone and has a very rich inner life. The idea that the only way for a child to have an enriching childhood is if they share it with siblings is just a very narrow assumption that you are making largely to validate your own choices. You shouldn't need to do this. You made good choices for your kids. There are other choices you could have made that would also be good.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept. There's no one way. There's no best way.

It depends on the personalities of the children and how much driving and accompaniment you're willing to do.

A lot of working parents I know have their kids in aftercare, then one activity each on the weekend. They can't do anything else.

Anonymous wrote:I have some full time working moms with only 1 child, and their daily life seem to be so easy & smooth. They sign their only child with weekly activities (academic enrichment or sport or musical instrument) and they have time for themselves to take swimming class or ice skating class (either with the child or go by themselves) or go to gym on a weekly basis. [/b]They learn and grow together with their child and seem to have all positive energy/influence.[b]

I am the odd full time working mom with 2 children (the oldest is the same age as them like age 7/8, and the youngest is 3 years younger). I don't have time for myself at all to take classes that I like (e.g. drawing, pottery or musical instrument). I could not find time and I have been transporting and managing both kids activities after school or on weekends. They have parties and playdates sometime.

I am wondering if it is me that I am suck at managing/organizing to make it work for me, or is it true that mom with 1 kid have more time/energy to do things for herself because 1 kid is a lot easier to manage?

Yeah, this is really a key part that others haven't commented on yet. My only child and I DO STUFF together. We (including dad) are a team and DD loves her positive, collaborative childhood. Because I have one child, I have the bandwidth to have a career, have my own hobbies, AND be the mom that does all of the things. Soccer coach, scout leader, classroom parent, summer camp volunteer. It gives us (and her dad, he splits volunteering time with me on some activities) a ton of quality time together and I wouldn't trade it for the world. It also helps that DD has always been naturally independent and a total bookworm, so she really doesn't need or want an in-home playmate. She'll sit and read a book after dinner while I complete some online certification course for one volunteer role or another. One child wasn't our plan (thank you, lousy egg reserve), but it's brought our lives so much richness and closeness that it's hard to imagine being in the "normal" parenting grind like our friends and family.