Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

At what age does it become 'easier' with kids?

129 replies

VoluptuaGoodshag · 05/01/2007 15:33

You're all going to say it doesn't aren't you . But with DD aged 3 and DS aged almost 2, I'm just fed up having to fend for other people. Yes I know they are my kids and they can't help it but I'm bored and cranky. They've had colds for what seems like weeks. Weather been wretched. Hardly been out but TBH it's easier to stay in and have everything to hand as I just seem to get in a flap if I go anywhere with them.
I look a mess, permanently covered in bits of them, I'm tired all the time, hugely resentful of DH for not having to deal with my day etc. etc.
Oh for when they can dress themselves and put on their seatbelts and follow instructions to the letter.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

roseylea · 05/01/2007 17:32

My take on it is that when dcs are under 5 they need much more help and time physically (changing nappies, teaching them to dress themselves etc etc) but as they get older esp. as they hit the teens, they start needing a lot more time and help emotionally (esp. girls). Having taught hundreds of teens I'd say that girls are much more complicated than boys at that age.

It also depends on the child. My dd (4yo) is generally higher-maintenance than my ds (nearly 3). It doesn't help that dd has multiple food allergies and severe excema but emotionally she's much more rollercoaster than ds. So it's not always the case that the older they get, the 'easier' they become. I think to a degree you can try to make things as easy for your dcs as possible to be happy but if they're difficult by nature I'm not sure that's always in the parent's control.

Sorry that's not very cheery!

Original poster

VoluptuaGoodshag · 05/01/2007 17:33

Not going to turn this thread into that age old arguement .

Just curious to draw on others' experience. Have a feeling I'm going to be one of those 'caught in the headlights' mothers for the rest of my life.

OP posts:

Original poster

VoluptuaGoodshag · 05/01/2007 17:34

I also cannot spell anymore! Meant to say argument.

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

nutcracker · 05/01/2007 17:36

I have felt that this lot of school hols was so much better this time, and I'm sure thats because Ds is now old enough to occupy himself or play with his sisters for an hour whilst I snooze. Plus going out has been easier.

Dc's are 9, 7 and 4.

Notanotter · 05/01/2007 17:36

teenagers are great ( I only have one but he is fab) between 5-10 I find the least rewarding bit

Toddlers are fab but wearing

babies ok!

poppiesinaline · 05/01/2007 17:39

I would say about aged 4 too.

TheBlonde · 05/01/2007 17:42

My mother reckons about 30

juuule · 05/01/2007 17:48

I would agree that teenagers are fab and I've got 4 of them. If I'd only had my eldest ds I would have said it was a doddle. Then came ds2 and boy, does he give us a run for our money. Dd1 has had her moments and ds3 up to now is same as ds1 - no trouble at all. And they are all fantastic young people but they can test you to the limits at times. Mainly I suspect because they are becoming independant and have their own ideas about things.

Notanotter · 05/01/2007 18:08

Yes juule ...Ds1 dream boat - an absolute delight, dd ...hmmm can be great - can be not, ds2 Phew - he is a slightly more shall we say 'trying' individual than his brother....ds 3 and 4 dont know yet!

roseylea · 05/01/2007 18:13

Is that an old chestnut then? Oh well..!

Saturn74 · 05/01/2007 18:17

Re: "I could barely stand a day at home with under 5 and could not have survived if I hadn't worked full time whatever the cost, even if I was doing it at a huge loss".
Xenia, I worked when my children were little, but I never saw it as an escape route from them. Would you really have worked even if it meant you made a huge financial loss?
My two children are quite close in age, and they are both the same sex, so I've been lucky that they usually get on really well and have similar interests.
Things got a lot easier when the little one got to 4 or 5 - so not long to go, Voluptua!
They're now 10 and 9, and both really easy going.

tinkerbellie · 05/01/2007 18:22

i'd say when they start nursery because you have that little bit of time to yourself to do whatever in peace!!

juuule · 05/01/2007 18:28

Notanotter - Hmmm Is there a pattern there? Beware of ds2s maybe

Judy1234 · 05/01/2007 18:51

HC, yes, very much so and the first post proves to me that Voluptua would probably feel a lot happier about life if she were working full time too. Not every one is suited to being a stay at home mother and it's very judgmental to suggest we all are. Sometimes the obvious solution - like separate yourself from the children you fin ddifficult for the working day just doesn't come into your head when you're dealing with children daily but it can be the perfect answer and by the way when I first worked yes the cost of child care was more than one of our salaries but that loss was worth it I'm afraid. I love all 5 children but do not enjoy long days with under 5s and have no problem with saying so. They did a lot better with a loving daily nanny and of course working parents spend loads of time with their chidlren anyway just not every day.

Teenagers - not as hard by any means but certanily a different set of problems. They seem to have a unique ability to learn how most to annoy a parent. It's part of the separation from parents process I think.

Aloha · 05/01/2007 18:58

I really love my teenage stepdaughter, who is fab and funny and glam and watches rubbish telly with me - but then I'm lucky - I'm not her mother

3 and 2 sounds really hard tbh. I had a three year gap and needed it. Actually it was like having a smaller gap in many ways as ds has mild Aspergers & dyspraxia so is slightly less cooperative and significantly less physically independent than most other children his age (ie still cannot do up own seatbelt, dress himself, follow instructions to the letter (!) He also tires very easily so can't walk far or quickly at all, or sequence things well). But they are now 5 and nearly two and I things are getting much easier as they play together and ds loves to be on the computer. Do you work at all? I do think it can help to have time off to be an adult. I work p/t and it does help.
It will get better - and sooner than you think!

Aloha · 05/01/2007 18:59

I think the small gap is wearing, tbh, as much as their age.

tallulah · 05/01/2007 19:02

I went out to work part time when mine were 4.5, 3 and 1 because I just couldn't stand being alone all day/ week with them (particularly my eldest). I've worked ever since.

We have particularly enjoyed the teenage years, except for the arguments about constant phone calls . To be able to sit and have a proper conversation with them; to play a board game and not have to 'let' them win; to enjoy a film together and hear their views on it; to go off to a meeting and not have to worry about babysitters; to have someone make you a cup of tea when you hadn't asked for one, and even to see them genuinely enjoying each others company in a way they never did when they were small, has been very rewarding.

It's just very sad when they get to a reasonable age and move out!

juuule · 05/01/2007 19:08

I've loved being at home with mine while they were/are little. I also love the fact that I have some great discussions with my teens. Each age seems to bring its own joys and problems. Despite the problems I find them fascinating most of the time.

Saturn74 · 05/01/2007 19:32

Xenia, thanks for replying. Re: "Not every one is suited to being a stay at home mother and it's very judgmental to suggest we all are". I wasn't being judgemental; I certainly didn't mean to come across like that.
I was just interested in your comment that you would rather have worked out of the home, even if it meant making a financial loss.
I worked when my children were small because I had to for financial reasons, but I would have preferred to have stayed at home with my children.
Everyone has different outlooks and needs, I suppose.
Sorry for the hijack, VGS!

nothercules · 05/01/2007 19:35

Agree with xenia here. I could not bear to stay at home all the time with my 2 kids regardless of making a loss or not.

Jimjams2 · 05/01/2007 19:40

Bloody never if you have a ds1 (7, severely autistic- gets harder to handle each year- he was a dream baby and toddler).

DS3 is coming out his extremely difficult phase into slightly less difficult stage (2 and stroppy personality), and ds2 is really quite easy (5 next week), if a little silly in a 5 year old boy type way.

controlfreaky2 · 05/01/2007 19:41

xenia... perhaps your teenagers are trying to get you attention with their annoying behaviour... perhaps they are angry at sensing you would rather have worked full time for no financial gain than be with them?? just a thought.

Tortington · 05/01/2007 19:42

age 6 - 11

before that they were draining on my very soul.

after that i want to beat them with big things.

nothercules · 05/01/2007 19:44

controlfreaky - your comment was just as bad as people saying sahms are lazy and contribute nothing.

Tortington · 05/01/2007 19:44

i too would have worked out of the home - for free!

indeed i did a stint a a charity shop.

then i went to college simply becuase it had free childcare - helping me be away from my children.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Swipe left for the next trending thread