Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to stay with my sister for a week to help out as she just had her second child. I don’t have any kids yet, but honestly it seemed like her life is hellish. As is a lot of my friends in the same phase of life. They have high friction relationships with their partners, are trying to juggle too much on their own, and are squeezed financially.

It made me wonder if there’s something wrong with how we do the family thing America. Is there a better way? Or is this just life for a lot people with kids?

Yes! There is a better way. We need to stop expecting moms to do it all. Go to work and also be the mom from the 1950's. During WWII the government had daycares because women were needed when men went to war. They closed them when men came back.

To be fair, there are times where family life is really bad like after the birth of children so it isn't a fair snapshot of life. Like if you came over when you were puking every 20 minutes you would think life isn't worth living but, miss the sunsets.

Most mom's don't do it all if they are married. Many fathers do half or more.

American dads spend about half the time of moms doing unpaid family labor. Your assertion is not backed up by the data.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/03/14/chapter-4-how-mothers-and-fathers-spend-their-time/

Anonymous wrote:The early years are just hard. We lived in the same metro area as our parents and had a nanny rather than daycare. Both made it easier than it would have been otherwise. When the kids were 5 and 2 we moved to be within walking distance on my parents. It’s been nice. There have been seasons when we didn’t need hired childcare because of living so close and our kids have a deeper relationship with grandparents rather than a babysitter who they don’t keep in touch with. As an example, when my younger kid was in upper ES my mom would come by and spend 30-45 min with kid most mornings after I had to leave and before the ES bus came. It wasn’t burdensome for my mom and kid appreciated company but didn’t need much care. Now my parents drive my kid to activities 2 days/week after school. We never had them do full-time preschool or baby care, but it’s still made a huge difference to our family to be close by. It’s a much more enjoyable way to live IMO

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are doing it wrong. We feel like
we need to prove something by moving far from our parents and showing the world we can do it on our own! Cultures that stay close to their family and work together seem way less stressed in my experience.

Some of this is driven by American geography. I would love to live near either my family or my husband's family. At least within a couple hours. But they are both from remote areas and there are very few job opportunities. We both have siblings who live close to our parents and while their kids have more extended family support, our siblings have all had long bouts of joblessness.

If you are Japanese or French or Swedish, you are likely fairly close to your family unless you move out of your country. Even if your parents live in a rural area, you can likely see each other fairly frequently without getting on a plane. This is not true in the US. It's a big country, yet most of the jobs are concentrated in a handful of places. This puts a lot of people in a bind between staying near family or economic prosperity. Jobs are the main reason people move far from family, not some esoteric desire to "prove yourself." Just a baseline need for a solid income.

I agree with some of this, but having lived in middle of nowhere in the Midwest, I wanted to get the hell away from the small minded people. This is a common thread among those the fled small town rural America. They don’t just leave for jobs.
My parents had 8 kids, and all of us moved far away as soon as we could.
My mom told us she would never help with our kids.
My MIL said she would help, but was not available when I asked.
The boomer (my ILs) and silent generations (my parents) are selfish and greedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are doing it wrong. We feel like
we need to prove something by moving far from our parents and showing the world we can do it on our own! Cultures that stay close to their family and work together seem way less stressed in my experience.

Some of this is driven by American geography. I would love to live near either my family or my husband's family. At least within a couple hours. But they are both from remote areas and there are very few job opportunities. We both have siblings who live close to our parents and while their kids have more extended family support, our siblings have all had long bouts of joblessness.

If you are Japanese or French or Swedish, you are likely fairly close to your family unless you move out of your country. Even if your parents live in a rural area, you can likely see each other fairly frequently without getting on a plane. This is not true in the US. It's a big country, yet most of the jobs are concentrated in a handful of places. This puts a lot of people in a bind between staying near family or economic prosperity. Jobs are the main reason people move far from family, not some esoteric desire to "prove yourself." Just a baseline need for a solid income.

Anonymous wrote:Americans are doing it wrong. We feel like
we need to prove something by moving far from our parents and showing the world we can do it on our own! Cultures that stay close to their family and work together seem way less stressed in my experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

Actually babies typically cry because they are hungry, tired, bored, constipated or sick.

Many babies do just fine sleeping in a separate room from their parents.

Parents are the best people to decide what is best for their child and their family within basic safety parameters. For many, that does not involve room sharing for 12 months. Studies have shown that infants older than 4 months who room-share may experience more night wakings and shorter overall sleep stretches. Families often choose to transition the baby to their own room between 4 and 12 months for better sleep quality for both parents and baby.

The guidance from the CDC and APA on room sharing is pretty dumb IMO, but not surprising from orgs that managed to increase nut allergies in children by putting out unsupported guidance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I minored in biological anthropology in college. Reality is, human children are not meant to be raised solely by two people. We did not evolve with isolated nuclear families.

Human children are so time-intensive that we evolved to be raised by an entire village of people (alloparents). From what I remember, among hunter gatherers, the ratio of adults to children is around 4:1 and infants are held by up to 18 different people per hour.

Animals with extremely time-intensive parenting, such as birds, usually have a very short period of rearing. A baby bird is off on its own within 6-8 weeks.

Of course, there are trade-offs. Among animals, babies usually just follow their parents around while the parents go do normal life activities. However, this leads to extremely high death rates of 50-90%. Even among hunter-gatherers, childhood mortality is around 50%.

And having a village raise your child means they will alloparent in different ways from you, and you have very little say in it. There are reports of hunter-gatherers where the parents do virtually zero discipline and leave it up to other members of the group. This wouldn't fly among many parents today.

Unfortunately I don't think there's really a solution for families in the United States. We want to be independent and not live with multiple other people. Things like free daycare, free healthcare, a living wage, etc do help, though. But the reality is that life with kids is just intense. Add a capitalistic system where we're supposed to buy more things and bigger things, and nobody is happy.

This is very fascinating. thank you for this!

NP. If you are interested in biological anthropology, you might like the book "Our Babies, Ourselves" by Meredith Small.

It's about some of the odd features of our culture regarding babies. It is weird to keep them in nursery bedrooms separate from parents. That's why they cry. They aren't evolved to feel safe so far from parents. They have to get used to it/learn they are safe. Americans also bathe their babies far more than a lot of cultures.

Time savers for me included buying a condo townhouse to avoid yard work, finding a reliable decent daycare center, and keeping the baby in my room until about 12 months. I never found a village.

Anonymous wrote:Good grief. Don’t want kids, that’s fine but some of you need to call your therapist. Sorry but you sound miserable.
Life with kids can be difficult but if it is all the time, it is a you problem(exception for those with SN children- you have valid reason to complain). Just take care of what is in front of you.
I worked FT with 3 DC. It was just not that hard. Well, did I get to the gym, no. Read a book, no. Watch an adult movie in 12 years, no. But I did that through my twenties and no, mid fifties, I can go back to doing whatever I want. Putting DC before me for ~ 1/4 of my life makes me enjoy what I have now.”

Don’t have kids if it is not for you, but there are trade offs in life and I love the village I am
In.

There are so many posts like this right now I think these are trolls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: didn’t have a village and realized too late I was married to a hunter type who wanted to go off to get meat for weeks at a time. He also had some characteristics that would have probably gotten him killed off in a farm or factory accident 100 years ago, or shot dead on the frontier 150 years ago.

This will sound harsh but along with the isolation of modern life, modernity has also allowed the survival of some characteristics and genes that otherwise wouldn’t make it to reproduction and family life and caregiving duties even a couple generations ago. Only in a society focused on academic achievement and computer-based white collar work could my exDH have made it to the point of meeting me, let alone marrying and having a child.

I think back to my grandparents cousin’s and some random great uncles when I was very small and they were kind of off in their own exile and always had been, and no one expected much from them. Back then there was room for these types to just do their thing and survive at a low-level pensioned job or in a cottage on the back acres of a small family farm. Now there’s a lot more pressure to play along to find a place on society even if it’s a bad fit. (And obviously some don’t and become homeless or addicts or otherwise never find their role)

Wow! I thought I had written this and this thread has been resurrected, but, wow, someone else has the exact same thoughts and experiences today.