Why do so many mums ditch their childfree friends?

[Sishirunak70]

Especially when those friends are accommodating, take an interest in your child/children and willing to work around you?
Why do you now only associate with other Mums and think that they 'just won't get it?'

Why do you let them disappear from your life since you became a mother? Whilst I understand it's hard, it's not impossible.
There are far too many martyrs around who believe they're the only person to have ever given birth, everything must now revolve around them and that nobody else can ever be tired or busy, except for them.

Yours might not (and neither does mine), but hers certainly does. I didn’t say she has one Mum friend on social media, I said by the looks of her social media she only has one Mum friend.

Shes always posting Facebook status’ and resharing passive aggressive memes about having one friend and tagging her friend in it. I’ve had to mute her because of it. I’ve just had a nosey and she’s posted 6 status’ today already. It’s sad because she was never like this but I imagine she’s made herself quite lonely and her world very small.

Right, that's why I said "with a carer 100% of the time". That was kind of the whole point.

If that's your partner, you both need to be free and not working.

Family need to be free.

Child are needs to be paid for.

100% of the time, you at the very least need to have organised their care. Except for a elderly relative with dementia, there's no other responsibility I can think of that requires so much input.

I've been childfree in a high flying career, I've been travelling, I've been responsible for family care. None of them are quite the same as the 100% requirement of a child.

But not 100% of the time with the mother. And certainly not100% of the time for18 years

But you are still responsible for their care and wellbeing up to 18, no you aren't with them 100% of the time but you are responsible for them 100% of the time.

See another parent of young children wouldn’t make a big deal out of this. As they could fully empathise (perhaps not with the fact they had eaten already).

So it’s a good example why these friendships drift.

So is their father. And I don't know anyone who arranged cars for their 17 years old so they can go out and socialize

Point to the bit where I said that and I'll apologise, but I have not said that in either post.

You can stop suggesting that I did now. Feel free to respond to the point I actually made though.

Id have never invited them again pulling that stunt. ( Mother of 3 kids)

Me either. (3 kids here too).

“That poster” was me. I was trying to point out the difference between childless, child free and not yet having kids/decided to have kids. I really don’t want to get into semantics, but there is a difference when using that term. It’s not about putting a label on you, it’s more about circumstances being understood without saying too much. Sorry, I’m probably not explaining myself very well ! I’m not trying to label you, but I am trying to explain why the two terms are helpful and distinctive. It can (granted, not always) be a very easy way of understanding circumstances without someone having to go into any detail.

My children are slightly older now (12 and 9) but we have stayed friends with most of our child free friends. It wasn’t always easy at times- mine were breastfed and clingy meaning child free meet ups were stressful at times and then a badly timed pandemic meant we didn’t get quality time together for a few years.

It’s fine now apart from I still sometimes have to drag my children to see my school friends if I’m visiting my hometown without my husband but that’s more to do with my own mums health and not leaving the children with her (even though they can be left in my own house alone for an hour or so).

I think it’s important to have child free time with all your friends, as then you get to be yourself with them and not just mum.

Exactly. I mean everyone is "childless" before they have kids aren't they?Rendering the term completely meaningless if that's how a PP is using it. You're not wrong for pointing it out.

Childless: Often used to describe individuals or couples who wanted children but could not have them due to infertility, medical reasons, loss, or life circumstances (sometimes called being "childless not by choice").

OP. as a single mum, the workload is relentless with no backup, no money for eating out or going on lovely trips. My weekdays ran as follows with no variations, no exceptions during term time.

7am - shower, dress,
7.30 - get ds up, washed, dressed, fed
8.20 - school run
8.40 - drive to work
9-5.30 - work
5.50 - collect ds from ASC
6.10 - put supper on
6.30 - help with home work
7.00 - eat, clear away & tidy kitchen
7.30 - have half hour down time with ds
8.00 - bath, story, bed
9.00 - check kit for next day for both of us, log in, do any work related essentials, life admin.
10.00 go to bed.

Weekends were food shopping, cleaning, changing beds, washing, ironing, cutting the lawn, batch cooking, basic car maintenance, ds' swimming lesson, any other shopping needed - school shoes etc. Play dates or going to the park.

For eight years, from when ds was four to when he was twelve, my social life consisted of work and an occasional phonecall to my dsis if I was feeling down. I realised I had reached a new low when I enjoyed my smear test appointment because I got to lie still for a few minutes, and have a conversation about me.

Anyone who hasn't had sole care of a child full time, while working full time as a lone parent, does not understand that there is simply no spare time for socialising. No spare money either. I couldn't afford to waste £7 on a glass of wine or £4 on a coffee, with the next installment of PGL coming up. Couldn't take a day off because I need to save annual leave for school holiday cover.

Mums don't intend to abandon you, although it must feel like that and I'm sorry you feel hurt. They are simply submerged under a tidal wave of demands from elsewhere.

Strange I didn't even mention the sex of the parent responsible for the child. That's you reading into my post which wasn't there.

Because even the courts cannot force a father to parent his child if he decides he isn't going to. Fathers get to shrug their shoulders and walk away. Or not turn up when they agreed to. Or go awol for months on end. No-one prosecutes the dad for child-neglect. Only ever the mum.

And there is literally nothing the mother can do about it. She cannot abandon her child at the side of the road. There is no handy left-luggage locker for five year olds if she fancies a few hours off. And babysitters charge £15 an hour which is not normally doable.

You've taken extreme offence to this, which has made you spit out this sort of venom, such an OTT reaction.

One of the angriest posts I've read on here- purely intended to be vicious. Sad really.

I think the point the poster was making, is that if the woman with a kid is friends with another woman with a kid the same age, those two women can get together socially and have a lovely coffee and catch-up while their kids play together elsewhere in the house / park.

Whereas if it’s a woman with a kid meeting a woman without a kid, the parent is limited to doing that at a time where she can get childcare (often expensive and / or difficult to arrange), because neither friend is going to enjoy having a bored child sat with them at a cafe table listening to them talk about their new romance / kitchen refurb / IUD fitting.

Of course people without kids can be hugely busy, with any number of projects, hobbies, social commitments, volunteering responsibilities etc. I would also say that the key difference is that parents are restricted by the needs and schedule of looking after a human being for which they have legal responsibilities.
Someone without children can in most cases scale back or stop their outside-of-work activities and commitments if they choose. If you’re sick of the often gruelling daily demands of parenting, you cannot choose to pause or stop them.
And yes it is generally a woman’s choice in this country whether she has a baby or not, but before you become a mum, none of us really realises or understands what we’re getting ourselves into, and how jolly hard it’s going to be.

It doesn't read as angry at all.

Its not remotely "angry".

Are you ok?

No I understand what you're saying, and that's why I said that I know you mean well - it's clear you're saying this in good faith and out of a desire to be kind to people who don't want to go into further detail. But I'm objecting to the idea that I'm not allowed to use a word's ordinary meaning because it has been "claimed" for a different purpose. Not to derail but that's how we got into the whole chestfeeders/womb-havers malarkey. Nb I'm not arguing with you specifically; just against the concept.

You’re ‘allowed’ to use ‘childless’ to mean whatever you like, obviously. Posters are just pointing out that it has accrued connotations which will impact the way in which it’s understood by people responding to its use.

No, that's not true. I don't know why you are repeatedly saying this. The poster I was discussing with above asked people not to say that they were "childless until they had kids." There's no risk of connotations causing misunderstanding there.

I don't want to use it to mean whatever I like - I want to use it with its ordinary meaning, and I don't want people's language policed any more than necessary - I think it's really bad for a free speaking society.

Definitely not the ‘already eaten’ part but maybe I’m more empathetic to last minute mishaps when trying to leave the door! (mother of 4).