Life after children...???

Fittle

More and more, I feel like my own life stopped when I had my child, 9 years ago. I loved life so much back then that going to sleep at night made me feel like I was missing out on something.

Perhaps it is because I parent alone and am quite restricted in 'living' my own life, independent of him.

I must stress that I love him more than life itself, and in reference to a previous post in AH, I would absolutely die for him, so this isn't anything to do with the child or my relationship with him.

But it's been 9 years - and I have definitely lost myself (to coin an american phrase) somewhere along the way. I hardly know what I enjoy these days - I can't remember the last time I went to a movie I genuinely wanted to see (unless it was a Pixar movie), nothing makes sense to me anymore having put childcare (if I want to get out) or his 'wants' way above and beyond my own.

Is this normal?
Did previous generations do the same?
I am thinking of my own mother here, who had ten kids and gave up her own life to mother us all...

So my question to humanities is...Is it right that your life 'stalls' to parent your children and at what point to you 'find yourself' (without meaning to sound like Oprah) again, if ever?

I'd appreciate honest opinions please, thanks.

Giselle

Fittle wrote: »

More and more, I feel like my own life stopped when I had my child, 9 years ago. I loved life so much back then that going to sleep at night made me feel like I was missing out on something.

Perhaps it is because I parent alone and am quite restricted in 'living' my own life, independent of him.

I must stress that I love him more than life itself, and in reference to a previous post in AH, I would absolutely die for him, so this isn't anything to do with the child or my relationship with him.

But it's been 9 years - and I have definitely lost myself (to coin an american phrase) somewhere along the way. I hardly know what I enjoy these days - I can't remember the last time I went to a movie I genuinely wanted to see (unless it was a Pixar movie), nothing makes sense to me anymore having put childcare (if I want to get out) or his 'wants' way above and beyond my own.

Is this normal?
Did previous generations do the same?
I am thinking of my own mother here, who had ten kids and gave up her own life to mother us all...

So my question to humanities is...Is it right that your life 'stalls' to parent your children and at what point to you 'find yourself' (without meaning to sound like Oprah) again, if ever?

I'd appreciate honest opinions please, thanks.

You need to have something outside your child. I've no children but it sounds like your life is taken up 24/7 with your kid and that would stifle even the most loving parent. Start making plans to start living again. In a few years he'll be gone and you need to be left with something.

the_syco

Maybe pop over to the Ladies Lounge or Parenting (Parenting would be probably best) and see if there are other single mummies that having been what you've gone through, that have tips on how to get out of the rut you're in now?

Fittle

This isn't a PI necessarily. Nor is it a parenting issue - both of which forums I frequent.

I just wonder, if, as humans, our own lives stall when we give life to others - and if that's the way it should be?

Fittle

Giselle wrote: »

You need to have something outside your child. I've no children but it sounds like your life is taken up 24/7 with your kid and that would stifle even the most loving parent. Start making plans to start living again. In a few years he'll be gone and you need to be left with something.

My life isn't taken up with him 24/7. I work in a full-time job, I have friends, I do things outside of being a mother.

But everything I do revolves around him...and his needs first (childcare, being the primary issue at this age).

I do have a life - but rather than make this a PI, I just wanted to explore if, as parents, or human beings who procreate, 'stalling' our own lives is the norm.

Morag

it's not stalled, it's just changed, as it is meant to, if you were not making your child your top pirorty then you'd be doing it wrong.

stupidusername

I know there's many people that would point out many ways this would be wrong, but for things like this I tend to compare humans to any other animal, and what they do.

Most animals will have young, feed it, teach it to feed itself, teach it to defend itself, but push it to get independent as soon as they're able for it. They would do almost anything to preserve that life, but as soon as it's able, it will be left to fend for itself.

Humans are essentially made to be the same. We take longer (Because we're bigger / bigger brains) to develop mentally and physically to the point where we can fend for ourselves, and so we're talking in terms of years rather than weeks or months for most animals. I suppose around early teens you could say that if pushed they could fend for themselves, but that's not the way we do it now (with school etc). I think that for that time period where you're still helping to shape your child mentally more than anything else, this turns more to an in between place, where you're still heavily involved in their growth but you're also getting more time to go back to your own life as such.

As the child needs less care physically you should ideally be getting back to 'normal'. I think a major problem with this happening though is that to get to the point where humans are able to take care of themselves takes so long (years) the parents will have been changed themselves and so you often hear people saying they don't know what to do with themselves.

So yeah stalling your own life for much of it is the norm, as is with most other animals, but with us it just goes on for so long that you forget what your own life was.

Giselle

Fittle wrote: »

My life isn't taken up with him 24/7. I work in a full-time job, I have friends, I do things outside of being a mother.

But everything I do revolves around him...and his needs first (childcare, being the primary issue at this age).

I do have a life - but rather than make this a PI, I just wanted to explore if, as parents, or human beings who procreate, 'stalling' our own lives is the norm.

Ah, I'm sorry Fittle. I didn't mean to imply you have no life, just that if you were in a rut of being 'on duty' 24/7 you might need to expand your social horizons. Thats obviously not the case so I apologise for getting your point wrong.

Maybe its just a truism that you're never the most important thing in your own life once you have a child. Maybe thats a good thing.

I'll review that opinion when I have kids and let you know!

Blisterman

I think it's always been the case that mothers dedicate their lives to their children. In previous generations, women tended not to have much opportunity beyond having a family, so I suppose it would have been easier in a way, as there wouldn't have been the sense of "missing out".

Morag

I think in previous generations family were closer and people minded each others kids more in the community/neighbourhood, so women did get out to the bingo or of what ever was going on. For the last few generations families are smaller there are few aunts/uncles/cousins to help babysit and even if you have them they can be to far away.

Even if it's just two parents at home there is a chance that can get out for one or two evening a week, be it to the gym for a run or to have a coffee with someone, which a parent going it alone doesn't have that support or a break.

LittleBook

Blisterman wrote: »

I think it's always been the case that mothers dedicate their lives to their children. In previous generations, women tended not to have much opportunity beyond having a family, so I suppose it would have been easier in a way, as there wouldn't have been the sense of "missing out".

I would have said the opposite.

For the most part, working class women worked and the extended family helped with childcare. Upper class women handed their children over to nannies and/or boarding schools. Middle class would have been between the two stools maybe but my impression is that the wives who didn't work or weren't rich enough to hand over the children to someone else prioritised running the household.

Even my generation were put out onto the street to play all day when we weren't working our asses off around the house or for school while our mothers did ... well, whatever it was they did.

In fact, I'm beginning to think this idea that parents lives tend to revolve completely around their children is relatively new.

Blisterman

Fair point. Maybe "household" would have been more accurate than "children".

But either way, the point I was making was that pretty much all women lived their lives without much independence, such were the societal pressures of the time. So since everybody was in the same boat, expectations were lower, as they wouldn't really have seen other women living independent lives.

BostonB

It works out very differently for everyone. I don't think there is one rule fits all.

It doesn't even work out the same for each child, some are much harder than others.

I would have said in the past kids had to fit around their parents lifes, especially work. Its probably reverting back to that for a lot of people now.

Maga

Hi Fiddle, very interesting post and very brave too – it seems like a lot of mothers feel like they have to lie and say everything is 100% perfect in motherhood, otherwise they are not good mothers – nothing is 100%, hardly 70%, so it’s a huge pressure on women.

“In fact, I'm beginning to think this idea that parents lives tend to revolve completely around their children is relatively new.”

I totally agree with that. Not only I think it is a very new idea, but essentially a Westernised one. Its true there is a shift in parental care. Biologists define two types of parental care in nature: 1) Huge offspring and little parental care (rodents, for example), so that quantity is quality here; and 2) Small offspring and intense parental care (monkeys, humans, elephants etc), where one or two babies get lots of attention/resources from their parents.

So with families now being smaller, I can see why one or two kids would receive more resource – ie, parents support them for longer, pay for piano lessons, sports, gap years, college, etc. This is all good, as this extra investment will help the kids to achieve more (as a generalisation)

Now what I don’t understand is exactly what you said in your question: what is the story with this obsession, that the child needs to be the centre of the family, of the parents’ life, of everything? Children first?

Mind it, of course the needs of the child must be met (health/feeding/clothing/education), but where do we draw the line?

I see families where parents are zombies, they gave up on their personality, dreams, will, just to provide endlessly to their children – because “children come first”. But I see two huge problems with this approach:

1) this leaves the parents as ghosts, it kills their relationship, it kills any ambition they might have. Do parents really need to give up on themselves to give neverending attention to their kids?

2) And is it healthy?? So a child grows up seeing that he/she will overrule their parents when it comes to needs – parents won’t go out and have fun, so the child has a new toy. Parents will give up their adult / “me” time so the child doesn’t feel lonely. Parents will give up finding a new partner (in case of single parents) because the child might not like the new partner. Estranged mother and father who hate each other have to pretend all is good for the child so the child doesn’t go through “hardship”.

Ok. And then the child grows up. And applies for a job, but is not good enough to get it. Wants a new car, but cannot pay for it. Is wrongly accused of doing something. Is unfairly hurt by a partner. Etc etc etc. How in the world will a child who grew up used to being the centre of everything learn to deal with hardship, if they never felt it before? How will they learn to deal with loneliness and boredom, if they are constantly entertained by overwhelmed parents?

Again I agree with you, Fiddle, my grandfather says he went alone to enrolled himself in school when he was 7yo, and that his siblings and him would be playing on the street all day as the mother was too busy with the household. They grew into perfect adults.

Is it fair, and is it wise, to the parents as well as to the kids, to keep this mentality of “children come first”??

looksee

Some very interesting answers there. My own feeling is that there isn't an answer that applies totally to everyone, as everyone is different.

However I think most parents would say that you never cease to be a parent. No matter how independent your children grow up to be, you will always, somewhere at the back of your mind, be aware of them and what they are doing.

At 9 your child is still someone who needs a good bit of attention, but you have to start to make sure the gate is open sometimes. You still have to try and keep some discipline in his life (I don't mean punishment, I mean living an organised and productive life) while allowing freedom of decision making where appropriate.

I think these years between about 8 and 16 are the hardest childrearing years. Mainly because of the need to keep control and allow freedom at the same time, its a hard juggling act, and it is quite tiring. I think you may have to accept that your responsibilities are going to continue for a few years.

If you have a job and a social life then probably, for the moment, you are doing as well as you can expect. Gradually, as your child becomes more self reliant and old enough to take care of himself in the world you will have less of the constant total awareness that you have at the moment.

In the meantime, try and give yourself a bit of space while he is at school, or playing football or otherwise constructively engaged. Try and be aware that 'I have two, or three, or whatever, hours when I can get on with my life/job without having to actively worry about what he is doing'. You have to learn to back off too, don't feel that you are obliged to 'worry', or that that you are not a good parent if you are not thinking about him constantly - that is exhausting for you and suffocating for him.

MrPudding

Sharrow wrote: »

it's not stalled, it's just changed, as it is meant to, if you were not making your child your top pirorty then you'd be doing it wrong.

This.

It is really hard. I have four kids. Sometimes my partner and I think we only exist to to ferry them around to their various activities.

For us it is very important to do stuff with the kids, but equally we make sure we find time to do stuff for ourselves, both together and individually.

I agree that they must become the top priority but not at the cost of the parents lives. It is a fine balance, but I think that when that balance is well struck it benefits both the parent(s) and the kids.

MrP

Iwannahurl

Being a lone parent has to intensify the feeling/experience of child-rearing being a full-on role with little or no room for a 'life'.

We have two kids and I find that I have little time or energy for doing things I was happily used to doing for years.

I've had to give up on a lot of things, or curtail others, but as someone has already said this is a case of ones life not 'ending' but changing.

It's the hardest thing I've every done, but also the best. The biggest challenge for me is to gracefully, and constructively, let go of my long-established expectations regarding how I can spend my time.

Speaking of which, time to log off...

slowburner

Fittle wrote: »

More and more, I feel like my own life stopped when I had my child, 9 years ago. I loved life so much back then that going to sleep at night made me feel like I was missing out on something.

Perhaps it is because I parent alone and am quite restricted in 'living' my own life, independent of him.

I must stress that I love him more than life itself, and in reference to a previous post in AH, I would absolutely die for him, so this isn't anything to do with the child or my relationship with him.

But it's been 9 years - and I have definitely lost myself (to coin an american phrase) somewhere along the way. I hardly know what I enjoy these days - I can't remember the last time I went to a movie I genuinely wanted to see (unless it was a Pixar movie), nothing makes sense to me anymore having put childcare (if I want to get out) or his 'wants' way above and beyond my own.

Is this normal?
Did previous generations do the same?
I am thinking of my own mother here, who had ten kids and gave up her own life to mother us all...

So my question to humanities is...Is it right that your life 'stalls' to parent your children and at what point to you 'find yourself' (without meaning to sound like Oprah) again, if ever?

I'd appreciate honest opinions please, thanks.

You raise some very significant issues here which have very broad social implications.
If I can be so bold as to paraphrase your post.

Is becoming a parent today a significantly greater social transition then say, two or three generations ago? Are we less well prepared for parenthood these days?

I think so.
I suspect that we are all less well prepared for parenthood, primarily as a consequence of financial necessity.
Changes in close community or family support, have been profound in recent society. The support networks available to previous generations are less widely available.
Everyone has to work these days. Gone are the times of the single breadwinner - usually male. (I hear howls of 'Ya auld sexist b'stard!' here.)
If there was a time when the men went out to work and the mothers stayed at home, there was probably a sense of kinship amongst the women which included support, advice and probably some practical relief from the everyday duties of parenting.
Contrast this with the contemporary urban or suburban housing estate on a Monday morning.
To me, these are desolate, lonely places; mothers and fathers have gone to work, children are in school, infants are in creches.
How much of a support network exists there?

So I think the 'shock' of becoming a parent is amplified by the absence of a community structure which informs before the event, and assists afterwards.

I think another aspect of the parenting shock is that you think to yourself 'Hey, this little bundle is going to need 100% of my care 100% of my time.'
This is a sacrifice which I suppose we are all engineered to make, to varying degrees.
But the tough part, is the realisation that this time could take 18 years and then you reach a point where you come to accept that you will have changed over that period. It is the point of no return - there is no going back to the sorts of activities that you used to enjoy as an unfettered youth - but by then, those activities will probably have lost their appeal.

''Is it right that your life 'stalls'?''
Your life hasn't stalled; far from it, it has progressed.
I think life really only has five stages: birth, youth, parenthood, old age and death.
And we should be grateful for at least four of them.

Try to imagine to yourself how your life would be now, without your son. I'll bet you would prefer this life.
I think every mother and father experiences a sense of mourning over the death of their youthful life but you have to think too, of the countless numbers who mourn the absence of a child in their lives.