10 comments

  • adverbly 41 minutes ago
    It's not the actual sleep.

    It's that parenting is exhausting.

    I could do physical labor for hours. Code straight for hours.

    But when I have to look after the 2 kids for 3 hours solo I'm totally exhausted. And I don't mean sit them in front of a TV - but actually try and feed them, change diapers, clean up after their messes, keep them entertained...

    Weekends are suddenly way more exhausting than weekdays.

    And then that compounds over weeks.

    It's totally exhausting. The modern model is totally unsustainable/not scalable, but I'm not sure what the alternative should be.

    • pizzafeelsright 22 minutes ago
      You got two 'village' responses which I fully disagree with because a dozen reasons. The village is not going to help you change diapers, feed the children, or do anything except have the children play together.

      I do not find parenting that difficult because I parent differently.

      The alternative: Teach them to entertain themselves. They clean up their own messes. I have the kiddos do tasks with me. Babies are easy enough, toddlers need limited stuff to do as it is all about novelty. Kids 5+ can learn to entertain themselves with their talents, siblings, neighbors.

      • conception 5 minutes ago
        Historically, the village 100% changed diaper, feed your children, nursed and generally helped out. Aunts, cousins, parents, friends all pitched in in the community to care for children.
      • bethekidyouwant 5 minutes ago
        I’m not even sure the premise is correct, what other complaint is socially acceptable wrt kids than “im tired” its just what one says when parenting is feeling like a drag. Honesty when the kids are laughing and everything is going smoothly, no one is “tired”
    • glitchc 17 minutes ago
      I feel your pain. Parenting is exhausting, especially the first two years or so. Hang in there, it gets a lot better. Lowering standards also helps (Does the house really need to be that clean? Does the toddler need a bath every day?)
      • gsinclair 8 minutes ago
        Our doctor told us not to give the baby/toddler a bath every day. Didn’t need to tell me twice.

        (Every second day is fine, and better for their skin.)

    • gchamonlive 21 minutes ago
      > The modern model is totally unsustainable/not scalable, but I'm not sure what the alternative should be.

      It's by design. Kids don't produce capital for the elites. We peasants aren't supposed to have kids, just waste away grinding so that those in power can accumulate more power, because they can pay others and have as many kids as they want, but we from the middle class will struggle with one or two.

      • doix 10 minutes ago
        > Kids don't produce capital for the elites.

        Kids eventually grow up and "start producing capital". It's definitely beneficial for the "elite" in the long term for people to have kids.

        • gchamonlive 7 minutes ago
          Maternity leave is 4 months where I live, with many women afraid to express their desire to have kids in their jobs fearing they would be fired. Daycare is prohibitively expensive. A good education too.

          Sure they grow up to join the workforce eventually, but 16-18 years doesn't show up in the quarterly reports, so the elites don't like it. I could be wrong, most likely am, but that's what I see and that's what these hostile practices represent.

    • lotsofpulp 36 minutes ago
      >but I'm not sure what the alternative should be.

      A village where trusted neighbors and family members and a chain of kids in increasing ages can help look after each other.

      • binary132 12 minutes ago
        I mean, we COULD just yield our kids to be raised by the state in pens by minimum-wage strangers and/or robots, I guess…
        • 6AA4FD 0 minutes ago
          We been doin that
        • remexre 2 minutes ago
          I can't tell if you're hyperbolizing the idea of community, or describing schooling.
    • temp0826 35 minutes ago
      "It takes a village"
  • pedalpete 1 hour ago
    This completely misses a few large points.

    1) Though they are comparing parents specifically, without the baseline of what the hunter-gatherer groups sleep was like without children, are they comparing hunter-gatherer group to industrialized people? Or are they comparing parenting?

    50% of people rate their sleep as an F, and another 21% a D grade [1]. That feels likely everyone is failing at sleep, not just parents.

    2) specifically in mothers, as motherhood has shifted later in life, the early years with young children are now often overlapping with perimenopause, so mothers are hit with the double whammy of sleep disruption. I blogged about this a few months ago [2]

    The study is still mostly focused on the antiquated idea that sleep duration is a predictor of sleep quality. The latest research shows sleep regularity is a better predictor of morbidity than sleep duration. I wrote about hot the Neural Function of Sleep dictates this [3]. Studies in shift workers (I can never find the link) shows regularity trumps duration for both subjective sleepiness and cognitive performance.

    The article does mention the increase in prolactin during breastfeeding, but the tiredness of parenting doesn't only last through the first year (apparently the average of breastfeeding in Australia is 6 months). The hunter-gatherer societies I'm sure breastfeed for longer periods.

    I work in neurotech/sleeptech as the co-founder of affectablesleep.com and we have a keen focus on parents of young children and specifically enhancing the Neural Function of Sleep, not sleep duration which everyone obsesses over [4].

    [1] https://www.thensf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/NSF_SIA_20...

    [2] https://blog.affectablesleep.com/p/when-childrearing-meets-m...

    [3] https://blog.affectablesleep.com/p/the-hidden-work-of-sleep-...

    [4] https://blog.affectablesleep.com/p/try-telling-new-parents-t...

    • swores 29 minutes ago
      > "That feels likely everyone is failing at sleep, not just parents."

      This doesn't really mean anything for comparing parents with non-parents, since it's self-reported so "failing" could mean "missing several hours of needed sleep each night" to one person and "failing to hit higher-than-needed sleep target twice a week" to another.

    • bethekidyouwant 30 minutes ago
      No reason for “parents” to be tacked on to this at all i reckon.
  • brid 5 minutes ago
    Because modern parents don't live near their extended family
  • ctxc 2 hours ago
    They report an hour less than average sleep time the first 3 months?!

    How did get so lucky?

    • porknubbins 3 minutes ago
      That’s probably about how much I lost taking care of ours. She generally woke up twice to drink milk but I was still up for the first one. Loss of an hour sleep can still be brutal if its like 6.5 to 5.5 hours.
  • jleyank 29 minutes ago
    I didn’t see ages mentioned, but in the past, parents were probably 16-22 while today’s parents could be as old as 40+. The pieces work way better at those earlier ages, and aside from nutrition the ancient times let to more physically fit individuals. Hell, the average age of parents today might be the average lifespan of people back then.
    • tetromino_ 14 minutes ago
      Mothers in the ancient past started at age 16-22 (note that fathers' ages at first child were extremely variable depending on the ancient culture in question) but then kept going giving birth every few years until age 40+. (Or until they died from childbirth complications, famine, disease, etc.)

      Please take a look at the very thorough demographic analysis of the ancient peasant class at https://acoup.blog/2025/08/08/collections-life-work-death-an...

  • blindriver 43 minutes ago
    Is this a real question?

    Until the advent of electricity, when it was nighttime, it was mostly pitch black dark, and there was nothing you can really do except go to sleep. These days you're up a lot longer and there are more distractions like work and social media to keep you up well into the night. If you ever go camping with no cell phone signal, you'll go to sleep much earlier as well and get a lot more sleep than modern living.

  • binary132 1 hour ago
    Speaking as a working father and stay at home mom couple, our lives completely revolve around the baby’s needs for many months after birth. I can’t imagine how challenging it would be to try to support both a newborn and each other as a dual-earning family. But I do think our arrangement, including cosleeping, and her not needing to be at work early, has helped immensely overall with our sleep.
  • jonplackett 1 hour ago
    > One study, for example, found that first-time mothers in Germany on average get an hour less of sleep per night in the first three months after their baby is born than they did pre-pregnancy. Fathers lose a third of an hour.

    Yeah but how many times were they woken up in the night?

    With a baby you might still get 8 hours total but you’re woken up 4 times a night which makes that sleep way less effective.

    • rahidz 1 hour ago
      According to the article:

      "It's not that modern parents are waking up more often. Work by Samson and others has found that people in hunter-gatherer societies usually wake more frequently through the night than we do."

      But I think there's a difference between waking up at night because your baby is crying, calming them down, going back to sleep, etc etc. when you have a 9-to-5 job, versus if you're a hunter-gatherer.

      • zhivota 1 hour ago
        I spend a lot of time in the rural Philippines and I notice that locals out here don't sleep that well and it doesn't seem to bother them. They get up extremely early with the sun, roosters are crowing even before that, cats are fighting randomly through the night, storms kick up many nights in the area through the year, and then they sometimes stay up late singing karaoke, though most of the time they are in bed early.

        In compensation I noticed they nap frequently in the day time, often in the hottest part of the day when it's unpleasant to work.

        It put my own sleep issues in perspective, I realized I had been a little too precious about it and I can indeed do fine on more fractured sleep. Often I form a judgment in the morning about my sleep and if I feel bad about it, I carry that through the day. I'm more convinced now it's a psychosomatic thing, I'm convincing myself I should be tired! So I try not to do that now and think of the people out here who live every day like this.

        • pitched 43 minutes ago
          On studies showing napping increases lifespan and all the good things, a common complaint is that presence of naps is also an indicator of high socioeconomic status. This anecdote is a good counter to that!
      • MarkSweep 1 hour ago
        To put a name to it, “biphasic sleep” used to be more common:

        https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieva...

      • lumost 1 hour ago
        The 9-5 is doing a major part of that comment. Irregular sleep isn’t the end of the world if you can sleep in and recover. Modern parents don’t get a chance to recover.
        • magicalhippo 1 hour ago
          Or take a nap during the day while some of the others watch your kid...

          When I work from home and have a bad night, a 20-30 minute power nap during the day does wonders.

        • binary132 22 minutes ago
          To be fair, if you have other kids you don’t exactly get to just sleep in and recover either.
  • irishcoffee 2 hours ago
    All the single-working parents I know don’t have this complaint. The dual-working couples do. Seems pretty straightforward.

    Clearly my anecdotes do not apply to the rest of globe, just my observation.

    • aprilthird2021 1 hour ago
      Sure, likewise, if you live in a multi generational household, raising kids is a lot easier on average.

      But most people cannot have those things in modern Euromerican nations

      • 627467 43 minutes ago
        > multi generational household

        > most people cannot

        I dont know if "cannot" is the right verb here. I bet if you asked enough euromericans if they'd choose to live with extended family the answer would be "only in extreme and deprived circumstances".

        Isn't a common excuse for not having children that couples can't afford their own home?

        • crooked-v 32 minutes ago
          Sure, but consider the economic factors that go into it. How many extended families would be perfectly happy to live together, but are unable to even consider it in the first place because of what the costs for that sort of multigenerational housing would look like?
    • b40d-48b2-979e 2 hours ago
      [flagged]
  • wiseowise 1 hour ago
    > Although sleep duration increased after an all-time low at three months, neither parent had fully recovered their pre-pregnancy sleep after six years.

    Another reason to not have kids.

    > Our ancestors may have simply had less practical need to sleep deeply in one continuous stretch. "They would not have had the pressure of having to work a nine-to-five or an eight-to-five job that required them to get a certain amount of sleep during the night to be able to function the next day and to function safely," Ball says. "They weren't driving cars. They weren't operating heavy machinery. The kinds of things that matter to us just simply wouldn't have been issues."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Fut...

    • protocolture 21 minutes ago
      > Although sleep duration increased after an all-time low at three months, neither parent had fully recovered their pre-pregnancy sleep after six years.

      Another reason to not have kids.

      I was working nights before my kiddo came along, and I cant tell whether it was working in another timezone that ruined my sleep or he did. Either way, its not likely to ever come back.

    • andrepd 1 hour ago
      > On average, the German study, which looked at nearly 40,000 people in total, found that parents who had at least one child under six years old reported sleeping about seven hours per night. Non-parents received just 10 minutes more sleep per night, for women, and 14 minutes more per night, for men.

      I'll trade 15 minutes of sleep for a lifetime of joy, thank you :)

      • phoronixrly 1 hour ago
        A person's definition of a 'lifetime of joy' may exclude caring for children.
        • pitched 17 minutes ago
          A lifetime is a long time. Much longer than children are children.
      • wiseowise 1 hour ago
        > on average

        Not sure where are those lucky ones, but I've met half a dozen parents that became literal zombies during the first years because of a lack of sleep. From what they've reported, 2 hours is a lucky night. It does get better later on, after 2(!) years.

        • cullumsmith 1 hour ago
          I have five children and find this very difficult to believe. Even the "worst" of it (age 0-3 months) was never anything close to that bad.
          • magicalhippo 52 minutes ago
            My neighbors' first kid had colic and they said the baby slept for at most 20 minutes at a time the first year.

            So yea I imagine that'll turn you into a zombie.

            They also said after a year they got a tip about a chiropractor (IIRC), went there and after 5 minutes the colic was gone. A real mix of emotions they said...