Thank you for your thoughtful entry. I too have only one child and wonder if I really want another. Your words have given me much to think about. Thanks.

wow, what a great guest blog. I suspect, that if you had another child, your love, patience and endurance would expand and you would cope just fine, but there is NO reason to have another child if you don't want to.

Ignore the critics. If they didn't have your one child to comment on, they would find something else to complain about!!

Only children are not the exception any more. They seem to turn out just fine.

Yesterday continues... I thought one was enough for me and if we never got the second one, it certainly would have. I wasn't prepared to love DD as much as I did, so I'm eagerly anticipating what #2 is going to do to my heart. The time management and budget will follow.
To borrow from yesterday's thread, saw no reason to buy a maternity bathing suit. A bikini works just fine. Rock hard "abs" here and it gives the kids at the pool a thrill to know there's a baby in there and see it move. Big as I am, there are men, women and children who have bigger bellies. But none more glorious, according to Stroller Daddy.

You are most certainly, most definitely, NOT being selfish. To the contrary--you are being incredibly UNselfish by doing what you know is best for your family. You have recongnized your limitations/wants and know what will and will not make you the best mom you can be. You sound like a fantastic mom to me and I applaud and admire your decision and your confidence in sticking with it!

Good for you and your husband for knowing what you want and not caving into pressure!

You aren't in this world to satisfy or make everyone else happy. You and your husband have chosen what lifestyle is best for you. I applaud your honesty - and common sense.

I have two brothers, who I'm close with and couldn't imagine life without them. My daughter, however, is an only child. Her father left when she was four, and we divorced the following year. I didn't remarry until my daughter in in her late twenties so a sibling was way way out of the question.

I know of only children who are spoiled and obnoxious. I also know many more "only" children who are content, well adjusted, and have good self-esteem.

Raising a child is not easy, as you're learning. Raising more than one - whew! It must be exhausting. We know it's costly.

Good luck to you. And congrats on making a choice as a couple and not listening to everyone around you.

Wow, this must be baby week. I also have one child. Although my husband and I go back and forth on the decision, it looks like we will always be raising one child. I think there are a lot of benefits to having one child. Like you, we both work and at the end of the day, it is nice to focus on our one child and each other. DD was a horrible sleeper. In fact, she was just diagnosed with a sleep disorder. So things should improve. But 3 1/2 years of no sleep is really hard for any family. I can't imagine, if I had to do it again. I also don't have a problem with the financial stability part. Some people criticize parents of only children because we want financial stability. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with wanting a modest home, to pay your bills, and save for college and retirement. Good for you for listening to your heart and deciding what is right for your family.

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. We are also only having one child, and I was just told yesterday I was depriving of my two year old son of the greatest gift I could give him, a sibling. What a crock! Just b/c they are siblings doe not mean they will get a long. Only having one child is perfectly reasonable, and some people can't have any more children. I'm so sick of the only child negtive perception.

Good for you. I have no idea why people worry so much about what others might think when it comes to extremely important personal decisions. The working mothers vs. stay at home mothers debate being my least favorite media plaything. Do you know how few people even have that CHOICE? I have one daughter and thought about having another child (since my pregnancy and her early years were relatively easy). But my husband slipped into alcoholism and I made the difficult choice to divorce him. The last few years have been difficult financially with one child, 2 would have meant living in poverty. He then passed away, leaving me truly single with a mourning 12 year old. We are a strong team and will survive. But I'm not sure I could have been as good a mom, or "single" mom, to two. You just have to decide for yourself, as best you can, without polling your neighbors, friends and coworkers for their opinions on your life.

Good for you. I have no idea why people worry so much about what others might think when it comes to extremely important personal decisions. The working mothers vs. stay at home mothers debate being my least favorite media plaything. Do you know how few people even have that CHOICE? I have one daughter and thought about having another child (since my pregnancy and her early years were relatively easy). But my husband slipped into alcoholism and I made the difficult choice to divorce him. The last few years have been difficult financially with one child, 2 would have meant living in poverty. He then passed away, leaving me truly single with a mourning 12 year old. We are a strong team and will survive. But I'm not sure I could have been as good a mom, or "single" mom, to two. You just have to decide for yourself, as best you can, without polling your neighbors, friends and coworkers for their opinions on your life.

I completely understand this - Please don't listen to critics.

The only thing that a child truly needs is loving parents.

Good for you! My husband is an only child and he is a wonderful person. I know people who have several siblings who are the most paranoid, selfish people in the world. I see pregnant women dragging around three, four, five kids, like a set of steps, ready to keel over and I think of the woman in Houston who drowned her five kids. Those folks who call themselves "pro-life" work for Satan because they not only are not thinking about their wives, daughters, sisters, nieces, etc. they are against contraceptives and reproductive health for women. Moreover, taxpayers are paying for the unwed mothers, including those public schools, because of their stance on abstinence only. The Devil!

Hear, hear!

*Standing Ovation for the Poster.*

Great guest blog and a lot of food for thought. :)

Your reasons for only having one are my reasons for having none. Thank you for your insightful entry and thank you for deciding how many children you could happily parent. If only everyone made that calculated decision, we would have far fewer unloved children in the world!

And I was "punished" for not having a THIRD child....... one was exhausting.. two were more exhausting... why was it fair to me or the kids to have a third if I couldn't stay home from work and raise that child - in a non - poverty situation.... Or for their dad to help me out more with the kids.... I tried to be responsible and was punished. My husband left for a younger woman and had that third child... I hope they have two or three more - Let them experience all the work children are and the strain on your marriage. But I'm sure the new younger wife is a much better person than I and it will all work out good.

Have the number of kids you can take care of comfortably. There is no rule book.

Seriously, ANOTHER blog entry about the number of kids you choose to have? You know, there's a parenting blog, too. Maybe it's hard to get someone without kids to post here, after the attacks launched on the last one, but parents aren't the only ones with balance issues.

Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing. That's a lot to do on your own. Additionally, since you were older when you had him he will likely be in the early years of his family and career on the rise when you begin to fail.

My wife was an only child who was adopted after her parents could not conceive naturally, and she said initially that if we had children, she would want two so they would not be lonely as she was growing up.

That was over 20 years ago. Now that we've (finally) decided to start a family, we're thinking that one child will be just fine...

"Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing. That's a lot to do on your own. Additionally, since you were older when you had him he will likely be in the early years of his family and career on the rise when you begin to fail."

------------------------------------------

Unless, of course, the kid doesn't want to. Kids aren't some legal guarantee of a caretaker in old age. They may not want to do so. They may not be able to do so.

Trying to ensure that someone is there to wipe the drool off your chin is a stupid reason to have kids, or to have more than one kid.

8:18, because they're only having one child, they can save more money for retirement and end-of-life costs. Which is a bigger burden: Having one child and being able to pay for your own care or having 6 kids and no savings so your kids are forced to pay for your care?

"Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing."

I SO knew this comment was coming. And just so YOU know, anon poster, having siblings in that situation means absolutely nothing. I don't know why people assume (other than blatant stupidity) that more kids means more people to take care of you when you're old. Please. It just means more siblings to try to 'pass the buck to.'

Besides, the poster sounds like one smart cookie. I'm going to go ahead and assume her and her husband have already thought about 'when they get old' and have their financial needs in order so that their child won't have to bear the whole brunt of it.

Also, know that when your child marries, if it is to a person with a larger family, your child and any grandchildren will likely end up spending a lot more time with the in-laws and lots less time with your side. There will be more birthdays and occasions to celebrate with more siblings, more cousins for your grandchildren on the other side, etc. Your child will be very alone in the world when he is an adult. And left to care for both of you when you are old all alone on top of it. If you're lucky.

"Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing. That's a lot to do on your own. Additionally, since you were older when you had him he will likely be in the early years of his family and career on the rise when you begin to fail."

And if they'd had their child when they were first married, he would likely be starting to get elderly himself by the time his parents were beginning to fail. I've seen many obituaries for folks in their 70s who were survived by a parent -- even one for an 81-year-old woman who was survived by her 104-year-old mother!

8:18, because they're only having one child, they can save more money for retirement and end-of-life costs. Which is a bigger burden: Having one child and being able to pay for your own care or having 6 kids and no savings so your kids are forced to pay for your care?

I'd rather rely on someone related to me to care for me than on some facility employee who makes $10 an hour or at least have people who love me around me so that they can ensure that the facility is providing the proper kind of care. I'm not trying to be snarky, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin.

These anonymous posts are really full of it, IMO. You do not have children to "take care of you" once you're old; there's no guarantee that even if you had four or five kids that ANY of them would "take care of you".

Kids aren't some kind of retirement plan; in fact, they're probably the anti-retirement plan, at least on my part. When we do have a child I can see myself working right up to my 60's to pay for her!

We have also chosen to have only one child for the same reasons, our age, our finances and our personalities. More than one is more than we can handle. I had an ideal pregnancy, a tubal with my delivery, a healthy baby who also nursed for just over a year and my mantra has always been, enjoy this one chance and we are. We have a happy child in part, because we are happy parents.

"Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing"

Yes, and since most of you claim to be raising future doctors, Nobel Prize winners, and the shapers of World Peace, your kids will be too busy and important to change your diapers in the old folks' home.

Are you raising your kids to be your personal nursing home attendants?

Its not just about the financial burden which is apparently all the people here think about, but the emotional burden. Who is going to sit with mom in the evenings, who will take dad to his rehab appointment. There is a lot more than money involved in caring for an ailing parent and some things that you just can't or shouldn't just pay someone else to do.

Also, know that when your child marries, if it is to a person with a larger family, your child and any grandchildren will likely end up spending a lot more time with the in-laws and lots less time with your side. There will be more birthdays and occasions to celebrate with more siblings, more cousins for your grandchildren on the other side, etc.

Or maybe they'll consider you part of their family and invite you to their celebrations!

Are you raising your kids to be your personal nursing home attendants?

Posted by: Born Free | June 5, 2007 08:31 AM

Usually it's mainly the daughters and daughters-in-law.

Kids aren't some kind of retirement plan; in fact, they're probably the anti-retirement plan, at least on my part. When we do have a child I can see myself working right up to my 60's to pay for her!

OOOh, working up to your 60's what a sacrifice. In my family we have always taken care of those who have gone before us. I don't know what kind of family you come from. It is not a retirement plan, it is what you do when you love people.

Seriously, ANOTHER blog entry about the number of kids you choose to have? You know, there's a parenting blog, too. Maybe it's hard to get someone without kids to post here, after the attacks launched on the last one, but parents aren't the only ones with balance issues.

We have been over this before. Leslie wrote a book called the mommy wars and this blog is about working mothers. We love our non-parents here, but this blog will never just be about non-parent balance.

"Its not just about the financial burden which is apparently all the people here think about, but the emotional burden. Who is going to sit with mom in the evenings, who will take dad to his rehab appointment. There is a lot more than money involved in caring for an ailing parent and some things that you just can't or shouldn't just pay someone else to do."

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 08:32 AM

Well, thank god you're here. Clearly today's poster is incapable of long-term thinking and hadn't considered anything of the sort. Nor would she and her husband pay the slightest heed to the difficulties she had with pregnancy one, and the advice she was probably given not to chance it again.

But we have you, anonymous poster, to point out the deficiencies inherent in making a personal decision, one that the parents feel capable of handling; but no, they're wrong. In fact, we have you to tell her she should have had children when she was younger and neither of them were emotionally OR financially ready to raise a child!

Rachel, hurry it up and crank out another one! If it kills you in the process, well, at least your husband will have a guarantee of two children to care for him in his old age. We all know that nothing bad happens to anybody who has two or more children.

There's a crazy thread about this topic going on on the DC Urban Moms message board. Someone inquired about what to do when people ask when they are having a second child (and don't plan to). I am amazed at the self-righteousness and vitriol this topic brings. Why can't people mind their own business?

Maryland Mother - let's call this the affirmation blog then where people will say what they are doing and we will all say how good and smart it is! If there is no debate or discussion of the issue at hand, what is the point.

OOOh, working up to your 60's what a sacrifice.

Well, some people are unlucky enough to be experiencing poor health by that age, even through no fault of their own. Some have jobs involving back-breaking labor. Others are just plain worn-out or burned-out by then. Still others are in fields where retirement is a bona fide work requirement, like police, firefighters and pilots.

Yeah, having kids just to create a blood related home health care worker is pretty lame.

You have kids so that you can love them and have them pass that love on to the others around them. The author is not selfish at all. There are alot of people who have children for the wrong reasons (i.e. as natural born insurance when infirm?? c'mon!) and who don't know themselves well enough to know what they are capable of providing for a child. Thank goodness there are people out there that procreate with care instead of with reckless abandon.

I come from a large family (grandmother had 12 children) and yes, the siblings did take care of my grandmother, but the only ones willing to do it were her 2 "favorites". She provided the bare necessities b/c there were so many of them, but she loved babies alot. Once they got older and not so cute, not so much then. So there were alot of unloved children and unhappiness when they were growing up.

"Leslie wrote a book called the mommy wars and this blog is about working mothers"

It started that way, but has long since expanded over the last 15 months.

This is a question for all the single child only or I'll be damned to unsufferable agony for the rest of my miserable life type of people.

What if you found yourself pregnant with twins?

Abort, give one up for adoption, or simply commit suicide after your sonagram detects 2 heartbeats?

We all know that nothing bad happens to anybody who has two or more children.

Posted by: Maryland Mother | June 5, 2007 08:40 AM

Except that lots of people ask them when they're going to have a third child. Especially if both children are of the same gender.

What if you found yourself pregnant with twins?

We're talking about a single PREGNANCY here, not strictly one child. It's just that most births are singles.

All this talk of having kids to help you when you are old just cracks me up. Seriously, that is just the dumbest reason to have children. In the span of the 30 years or so between when you give birth to the babies and when you need them to take care of you in old age, don't you think that about a million or so things could happen to prevent them from actually taking care of you? They could die a premature death. They could end up hating you. They could become incapaciated from an accident and need taking care of themselves. They could become drug addicts or alcoholics and be incapable of taking care of you. They could just become crappy people and not want to take care of you. They could move across the country and not be there to take care of you. The list is endless. Seems like a really faulty retirement plan to me. I think I'd rather rely on my 401(k) investments and long-term health insurance!

Anon poster - Just so YOU know, siblings are no guarantee of help when a parent's health, whether mental, physical, or both - goes south. I have four younger siblings, and only one of them is responsible (but lives far away). Having more children just to take care of you when you're old is no guarantee that they will, or that they will be capable of doing so, especially financially. We plan to have only one child, in part because of the financial burden placed on us caring for failing parents who did not save for retirement. Don't think about your kids caring for you later in life, just please save for those eventualities and look into long term care insurance. Living through this now, I know I will NEVER place that burden on any child of mine.

Oh, please, Please. I didn't suggest it should be ALL about non-parent balance, just that it shouldn't be all about parent balance. And frankly, this entry and the previous one on the same darn topic have very little to do with work-life balance or working mothers.

1) Having multiple children does not guarantee care in your old age. I look at my parents and my grandparents. My grandfather had 3 daughters. And his second wife had 4 daughters. None of the adult children were needed (financially or physically) to take care of them. My step grandmother out lived my grandfather by 10 years. She took care of him and he was only very sick for one month before he died. My grandmother has great health care and long term elder care. She went into an assisted living facility at 90 years of age and died 2 years later. All 7 daughters visited as much as possible but none of them were needed for daily care. Being financially solvent helped them. Plus having the good luck of living long and healthy lives and short illnesses. As far as my parents go, my father married a younger women after the divorce. She most likely will out live my father and will take care of him, if necessary. My mother lives next door to my mother. My mother survived my step father. She took care of him for the two years that he was ill. My middle brother and his wife will take care of my mother. In return, for the work needed to take care of my mother, my brother and his family will get her house (completely paid for). BTW, my brother and his wife wanted to take care of my mother. My mother always had the option of moving to my home or my older brother's house but my mother did not want to move to where we live. So even though my parents had three children, only one of them will care for my mother in her old age. Both of my parents have enough money to support themselves in their old age. If they did not, we would chip in the money necessary to take care of our mother.
2)I don't know what kind of families that you are married into but my in laws and my brothers in laws would invite the parents of their in laws to celebrations. Also it isn't about the number of visits that you make as much as the time spent with your extended family. Even though you may go to more birthdays or celebrations with your in laws doesn't mean that a monthly dinner with your side of the family won't be just as meaningful. Besides if your not wasting half your weekends on celebrations, you might get to enjoy doing regular things with your other side of the family. Not to mention, your kids could move far away from you anyway. So you may not see them all the time, regardless of the size of the family of the inlaws.

I'm not talking about having children to take care of you, but if you do a decent job it is highly likely that they will want to take care of you and if you only have one child they will be forced to do that job by themselves. Of course all kinds of things could happen, but if you have one that ends up loving you, you guarantee they will have to do it on their own.

Love this guest blog. I started out thinking I'd have a big family but things changed. I have two and that works for us. I completely agree that you do not have another child to give the other one the "gift" of a sibling. You do it because you as the mom/dad want it. It sounds like you have great balance and are comfortable with your decision - good for you!

And, to the poster who wrote about how her one child will be saddled with her elder care - PLEASE! My parents are in the position of dealing with that for their parents now and the sibling cooperation is not happening. The best gift you can give your kids is socking money away in your 401K and getting long-term care insurance.

It's your choice to have one child, of course, and you should feel good about your decision. However, I am the youngest of three boys, and can't imagine how different growing up would have been without my brothers. We helped each other grow up, and they got me through alot of tight spots (and vice versa).

Not everything is about finances. There can be an incrediblre amount of love in a larger family.

I meant to say my mother lives next door to my brother.

"There is a lot more than money involved in caring for an ailing parent and some things that you just can't or shouldn't just pay someone else to do."

"It is not a retirement plan, it is what you do when you love people."

Well, then why would the only child have a problem with it? I shouldn't want anyone else to care for my parents (regardless of health needs, apparently) because it's what I do when I love them.

So what does it matter if there's only one kid? He or she should be thrilled to do it!

You're contradicting yourself.

My mother lives next door to my mother.

WTF?

I am not contradicting myself Meesh, what I am saying is that if you are the only one who can sit with mom or dad then you will likely do it all the time to the detriment of your health and family life. If you split that with another child who also loves them, then maybe you can get some rest. You are a very very simple woman who just loves to fight. No wonder you don't count on someone else to care for you. Who would?

I was with you until that second to last paragraph where you seem to criticize those who do choose to have more than one. Then you seem defensive.

Not everything is about finances. There can be an incrediblre amount of love in a larger family.

Posted by: philly | June 5, 2007 08:51 AM

But it doesn't pay the nursing home bills, unless you can live with the idea of mom or dad in a crappy one, or them staying at your house after they're too ill for you to be able to care for them properly.

meant to say my mother lives next door to my brother.

Posted by: foamgnome | June 5, 2007 08:51 AM

My mother lives next door to my mother.

WTF?
Huh? I corrected myself right before your post.
Posted by: Huh? | June 5, 2007 08:53 AM

"You are a very very simple woman who just loves to fight. No wonder you don't count on someone else to care for you. Who would?"

LOL! Wow, you've got me pegged. Yup, I'm the only one disagreeing with you. Well, it's clear that you've won this arguement through your stellar reasoning and logic. Congrats on not being able to have an intelligent conversation.

I'm not talking about having children to take care of you, but if you do a decent job it is highly likely that they will want to take care of you and if you only have one child they will be forced to do that job by themselves. Of course all kinds of things could happen, but if you have one that ends up loving you, you guarantee they will have to do it on their own.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 08:50 AM

Just so you know, your child will have the exclusive responsibility of caring for you and your husband when you are old and failing. That's a lot to do on your own. Additionally, since you were older when you had him he will likely be in the early years of his family and career on the rise when you begin to fail.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 08:18 AM

Yes, you are saying to have children as some sort of default insurance policy.

Here's a thought. Plan on getting older, even very old, and doing something to have a degree of financial security. In other words, be responsible for yourself.

There is no guarantee that any child will survive and thrive.

Well, here's one question my husband and I have been batting about a bit lately -- As children, we were both encouraged to be independent in the sense of going to college far away, pursuing career and job interests in other cities and so forth. None of my siblings lives within 1000 miles of my parents. (In my case, I grew up in a very small town and moving 'home' after college would have left with me very few career prospects.)

But lately my husband and I have been talking about how much we still want to be part of our children's lives as adults -- we wouldn't mind helping with grandchildren, seeing relatives on weekends and so forth. I suppose the problem is how you encourage a close family without being clingy and needy? IN other words, I don't want my kids to feel like they can't pursue any career because they have to spend their whole lives living close to their parents.

But i DO selfishly hope that maybe one of my three kids will still live near us when they're older. I think I'd have a really hard time with this as the parent of an only child -- what if that child wanted to join the foreign service or the air force or move to Africa to do research on immunology? It would be hard not to cling -- as least for me.

Also, it would be hard NOT to have some expectations of that one child. For example, what if you only child never married? I'd probably one of those annoying people who started pressuring for grandchildren. What if your one child doesn't want to go to college? Would that make you sad? Or do you just assume that with only one you have more control over the outcome? Just wondering?

The end of life care arguments are absurd. I am sure we can all think of numerous cases where people with siblings were the sole caretakers for aging relatives. My own parents who each had a sibling ended up caring for their parents without sibling support. My father's brother tragically died before either parent and my mother's sister chose not to participate. And my parents coped. Often my mother stated not having to come to a family consensus on all decisions was great for her. Clearly, my father was sad not to have his brother to help but because he misses his brother not becuase he wanted help. End of life care can be long and hard and drives wedges between lots of siblings. Perhaps, it will be less stressful for these singleton kids to care for their parents.

"I wanted to be able to focus completely on one child and give all that I could give to him or her."

I can't think of a better strategy to raise an entitle kid. :-)

Huh? I corrected myself right before your post.

So you did! Our posts crossed in the email.

Not everything is about finances. There can be an incrediblre amount of love in a larger family.

Posted by: philly | June 5, 2007 08:51 AM
I don't think anyone is doubting there may be a lot of love in larger families. I am sure there are in most larger families. But if it is not what they want, then that is all that matters. Also there are some large families where there is not a lot of love. One of my close friends who is one of 10 children said it sucked. She said there was never enough time, attention or money. Her parents wanted a lot of kids but they did not seem to want to take care of them. Her dad left her mother with 10 kids to support by herself and never paid a dime of child support. So yes, most large families are probably really great families. But not all large families are good ones. I am sure there are good and bad families of all different sizes.
To the poster who asked about twins. I think this is sort of silly. I doubt most people who want only one child would abort or give a child up for adoption just because their original dream was to have one child. I know lots of people who had gender preference. When they had a child of a different gender, they did not give the child up for adoption. You learn to adjust. Most naturally conceived pregnancies are single births. It is not a huge risk to assume you can choose to have one child.

The poster who pointed out that the only child will be alone in the world as an adult is right. I'm an only child, didn't have to take care of my parents as they aged (one died prematurely), and have always hated being alone. I had two children & wish I'd had more--not so that they can take care of me when I'm old but because family love is a special love to be cherished. The best part of my life has been having family dinners, taking family trips, and so on. We are there for each other, and I don't want my kids ever to feel the sort of aloneness I have felt for much of my life. I know other only children feel differently, so this is not a criticism of the guest writer's decision, but given the tone of the posts so far, my voice needs to be heard also.

Armchair Mom --

I'm an only child, and my mom especially fits most of what you described. I moved back to the area after college. She and Dad had the good sense to move soon after because she "couldn't move away once there were grandchildren." She can only be so overbearing and overinvolved 5 hours away, so we all (including her and my wife) get along great. Sure, I don't get the frequent free babysitting from a grandparent, but we these relationships are balanced and healthy!

I was with you until that second to last paragraph where you seem to criticize those who do choose to have more than one. Then you seem defensive.

Posted by: Arlington Dad | June 5, 2007 08:54 AM

Completely agree, seems a bit judgemental. The "I have to laugh...." comment was unnecessary.

Also, is Rachel Powell the only mother that has ever had a difficult baby? Believe me, there are parents that have had it much worse with their first child and gone on to have more children, less money but a happy family.

What's with all the anonymous posters today? It just seems worse than usual...

Arlington -- I'm an only child too, and I completely agree with what you said. It was -- and to some degree still is -- lonely for me as an only child. It makes me so happy to hear my older two chatting and playing together in the morning before we all get up.

Maybe we'll bump into each other on the Arlington playground sometime!

What's with all the anonymous posters today? It just seems worse than usual. It also makes it harder to interpret (or distinguish) who's responding to whom or to what.

As a sidenote related to that, why is it Washingtonpost.com can't attached poster's ID (like when we were allowed to comment on stories before, apparently, the comments got too ugly)?

Arlington

"I don't want my kids ever to feel the sort of aloneness I have felt for much of my life"

There MILLIONS of people from large families who are desperately lonely. A large family guarantees nothing.

Also, is Rachel Powell the only mother that has ever had a difficult baby? Believe me, there are parents that have had it much worse with their first child and gone on to have more children, less money but a happy family.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 09:07 AM

For crying out loud, stop trying to force more children out of her womb, or anyone else's. If you want them, have them. But your arguments in favor of more children in someone else's life and household are not persuasive.

Unless you are giving away huge amounts of legal tender. Are you?

I too respect the author's decision and her honesty. I will say that I did not enjoy being an only child and have always wished for siblings. We have one now and want at least one more. To me, based on my childhood, it's important that my son realize the world does not revolve around him and he learns how to share and live with other people. I also want lots of laughter and activity in my house, which I didn't have growing up. These are all things I have struggled with. Doesn't mean that yours will, but should be thought about...

Armchair Mom:

I think you and my parents are of the same mind. They raised all of us to be independent and to go for what we want, but long for all of us to move back home. Even though they wish for it though, there has never been any overt pressure. Three of us either stayed of have moved back and there's been talk of the other three doing the same. The lack of pressure, closeness we grew up with and the fact we all grew up not knowing any of our cousins if definitely an influence. It also helps that cost of living is about half in the Midwest vs. DC and Boston.

I think if you're honest with your kids and don't exert alot of pressure on them, you could get your wish.

But i DO selfishly hope that maybe one of my three kids will still live near us when they're older. I think I'd have a really hard time with this as the parent of an only child -- what if that child wanted to join the foreign service or the air force or move to Africa to do research on immunology? It would be hard not to cling -- as least for me.

Also, it would be hard NOT to have some expectations of that one child. For example, what if you only child never married? I'd probably one of those annoying people who started pressuring for grandchildren. What if your one child doesn't want to go to college? Would that make you sad? Or do you just assume that with only one you have more control over the outcome? Just wondering?

Posted by: Armchair MOm | June 5, 2007 09:00 AM

To answer your questions.
1) Even if I had more then one child, I would hope my adult children would live out their own dreams and expectations of their own family. If any of my children wanted to travel abroad or live in a different country, I would support their decision. That is their live. Although I would miss them terribly, I don't want to hold them back from their dreams. I would use my money and vacation time, to go visit them.
2) As far as college, I don't think having multiple children will guarantee that any one of them will go to college. My daughter may not be capable of going to college. Although this makes me a sad and worried for her, I don't think having another child who goes to college will elevate how I feel about my daughter's life prospects. Having one child gives us the financial freedom to help set my daughter up if she is uncapable of going to college. If she can't go to college, we will provide her with some sort of technical school as well as a down payment on a house. I don't know if I could do that for three or more kids. We could probably do that for two but not three or more.
3) Grandchildren. That is a tough one. But having multiple kids do not guarantee that either. I know several families of two or more kids and none of them had children of their own. Either infertility or the desire not to parent has prevented grand children. Plus I have 5 nieces and nephews. My statistical guess is that at least one will provide a future relative. I would just love and spoil their children. I would not want to pressure my daughter into providing us with a grand child but I do think I would love being a grand mother one day.
4) you don't have more control over the outcome of your children. They become the people they were meant to be and want to be. But you may have more money and time to aid in different ways.

Armchair Mom:

I think you and my parents are of the same mind. They raised all of us to be independent and to go for what we want, but long for all of us to move back home. Even though they wish for it though, there has never been any overt pressure. Three of us either stayed of have moved back and there's been talk of the other three doing the same. The lack of pressure, closeness we grew up with and the fact we all grew up not knowing any of our cousins is definitely an influence. It also helps that cost of living is about half in the Midwest vs. DC and Boston.

I think if you're honest with your kids and don't exert alot of pressure on them, you could get your wish.

Also, is Rachel Powell the only mother that has ever had a difficult baby?

She also had a difficult pregnancy which threatened at minimum her health. Another pregnancy could easily have threatened her life. Then her kid would've run the risk of not having a mother.

I was cringing when I saw this blog. We have one child, and after reading Rachel's guest blog I paused for a second and thought, "should I open this up and read the replies, or not." And through the first big batch of posts, I was glad I did. It reaffirmed our families choice to have an only...and we're very happy with our family of 3.

To the person further down who was saying that we'll be old and lonely because our child will be with his spouse's family, I don't think that's necessarily true.

My brother married an only child. We always include her parents in all of our family celebrations. So, I don't think her parents are upset that my brother has a sib, and she doesn't. We're just all one big happy family!

I know a couple who stopped at one child for much the same reason as Rachel Powell. It was a 36-hour labor and a difficult delivery and the mother decided, "Never Again!"

Their daughter has turned out to be a real sweetheart, a good soul with a Ph.D and prospects of soon getting married herself. Then she and her husband will get to decide how many children to have.

My brother married an only child. We always include her parents in all of our family celebrations. So, I don't think her parents are upset that my brother has a sib, and she doesn't. We're just all one big happy family!

Posted by: kattoo | June 5, 2007 09:16 AM

Good point. Assuming everyone's a reasonably nice person (OK, so that's a leap for some folks), what sort of family would exclude their inlaws?

We all know that nothing bad happens to anybody who has two or more children.

Posted by: Maryland Mother | June 5, 2007 08:40 AM

Except that lots of people ask them when they're going to have a third child. Especially if both children are of the same gender.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 08:45 AM

I was being facetious.

"What's with all the anonymous posters today? It just seems worse than usual. It also makes it harder to interpret (or distinguish) who's responding to whom or to what."

What's with your hangup about anonymous posters?

"My husband and I were so sleep deprived that first year that we both felt like we might die."

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

Armchair Mom, i understand what you are saying, but i plan to be the "Stalker Grandma" that moves to wherever her grandchildren live. Africa, foreign service-- none of these would keep Stalker Grandma from being with her beloved family! If I have several sets of grandchildren (G-d willing) I will move around the world to be with them. OF course, I would only do this with the approval of my children-- if they want to live near me, that would be even better, but I really want my children to fulfill THEIR dreams (where ever they take them) but I also want to be close to them-- and this plan seems the best way to resolve it.

This is all way down the road though!

As for college-- I really don't care. I just want my children to contribute to society as their abilities allow and TO BE HAPPY!

Marriage-- I confess that the only thing I wish for when I blow out my birthday candles is that my child(ren) find good spouses. I figure you can handle anything life throws out you as long as you have a strong partner at your side, but if you have a bad marriage, nothing can fix it.

PS--I'm sure gay marriage will be legally recognized by the time they are of age. So I don't fear homosexuality in my children-- Mary Cheney is proof that you don't need to be hetero to be a parent.

Don't assume that in-laws come with intact marriages, which makes including them in family celebrations much simpler. When parents with only children divorce and remarry, they will be much less likely to spend time with their children as one family, leaving the only child with a particularly fragmented set of issues to deal with.

"My husband and I were so sleep deprived that first year that we both felt like we might die."

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

Posted by: Father of 4 | June 5, 2007 09:22 AM
No, my daughter was just diagnosed with a sleep disorder. For years (3 ), we listened to veteran parents telling us that this was normal. All parents are sleep deprieved. Sometimes, there is a real problem and people try to make it out like your some kind of wimp. Her son may have had a serious sleep disorder. It may be a medical condition that needs to be addressed.

"My husband and I were so sleep deprived that first year that we both felt like we might die."

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

+ + +

Isn't sleep deprivation one of those things that the longer ago it was, the less you remember how awful it was?

I was being facetious.

Posted by: Maryland Mother | June 5, 2007 09:20 AM

Me, too. My only point was that self-appointed experts hassle folks of child-bearing age no matter what they decide.

Don't assume that in-laws come with intact marriages, which makes including them in family celebrations much simpler. When parents with only children divorce and remarry, they will be much less likely to spend time with their children as one family, leaving the only child with a particularly fragmented set of issues to deal with.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 09:24 AM
From my experience with my husband, divorce actually increases the visits. Because we end up visiting both of his parents equally. I think divorce, in general, has a way of fragmenting families, regardless of how many children are involved.

Don't assume that in-laws come with intact marriages, which makes including them in family celebrations much simpler. When parents with only children divorce and remarry, they will be much less likely to spend time with their children as one family, leaving the only child with a particularly fragmented set of issues to deal with.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 09:24 AM

It's not any better when there are multiple children.

While my wife said she would have liked another sibling while she was growing up, that was mainly because her parents were so paranoid about anything happening to her. She always felt if there had been another child that she would have had someone to talk to and share experiences with, instead of being told what to do/think by her mom.

My wife was smart enough and strong enough to break free of this kind of controlling influence, and eventually her mom began treating her as an adult and not as a dressup doll to show off to everyone, but it took many years of separation to accomplish this.

Also, is Rachel Powell the only mother that has ever had a difficult baby?

She also had a difficult pregnancy which threatened at minimum her health. Another pregnancy could easily have threatened her life. Then her kid would've run the risk of not having a mother.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 09:14 AM

How do you know there was a threat to her life with another pregnancy? There were not many details. I know plenty of women that had difficult, even life threatening pregnancies, and gone on to have more children.

Rachel elaborated on the lack of sleep and sickly baby not the "threat to her life." I can sympathize, I didn't sleep for years either. Our first was a preemie that had problems in infancy and it was very hard. My second pregnancy was life threatening and was planned, we made that decision. I just don't mock people that make the decision not to have another child, like Rachel did, with those that made the opposite decision. Again, the "I have to laugh" comment was snotty, it served no purpose but to make herself feel better.

Why on earth would it bother someone if a person only has one child? That seems bizarre. Not being given "the greatest gift" of a sibling is hardly abuse. Big families aren't for everyone. Same goes for couples who choose not to have kids. How does this cause society to breakdown, exactly? My sister does not have kids and won't be having any, and she's an awesome aunt. She loves it that way. It's what I imagine being a grandpartent is like: all the fun and none (or very little )of the work.

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

Posted by: Father of 4 | June 5, 2007 09:22 AM

Our family is small. We like it that way. The gift I give my child every day is the best one any parent, whether you have one or 21 children, can give: all the love I have.

Based upon Rachel's writing, no. She sounds as though she is being honest and open. Being a parent isn't a stroll in the park. Not only is it not easy, sometimes it is horribly hard.

I almost broke my hand one day punching a plexiglass window rather than my very difficult younger child, who had decided to give me 3 hours of unrelenting crap and topped it off with kicking me in the shin and announcing that life would be better if I were dead. This child is not a teenager, we're years away from that. (And yes, you may rest assured I am on top of the issues [therapy is our hobby when it's not a job].)

This was in response to being told that there was no way in the world I was going to BRIBE the child to do school homework. You EARN rewards for DOING homework. You should bear witness to the Kumon wars.

I'm no martyr, but I am not going to sing the praises of parenthood either. It's a crap shoot. You do the best you can. You rarely know if you did a "good" job of it until much further down the pike.

Let's just say that this child would never have done well on the delayed gratification test that the older one took at the age of 5. I don't know how well the kid would do now, either. I don't think the child is dangerously impulsive, but definitely leans towards that end of the behavioural spectrum.

How do you know there was a threat to her life with another pregnancy?

Maybe the pre-eclampsia with the first labor was a clue.

wow, an intelligent woman, how different, if we omly had 100 million more we could solve the over population problem.

About holidays - my brother also married an only child (of an only child). We now include her mom and stepfather in our family's celebrations and it's lovely.

As far as who's going to take care of parents - we're wrestling with that in regard to my mother-in-law who turns 80 this year and is starting to have some health problems. One of her 4 sons lives near her and will probably be saddled with the most responsibility until things get serious enough to start using the long-term care insurance (which we all share in paying for her).

I am fortunate to get along well with my brother, but we detested each other when we were growing up.

"But lately my husband and I have been talking about how much we still want to be part of our children's lives as adults -- we wouldn't mind helping with grandchildren, seeing relatives on weekends and so forth. I suppose the problem is how you encourage a close family without being clingy and needy? IN other words, I don't want my kids to feel like they can't pursue any career because they have to spend their whole lives living close to their parents."

My parents also encouraged us to follow our career interests and desires to live in different places. As a result by the time were were all in our late 20s I live in VA, my brother in Nebraska, and my sister in Northern California while my parents were near Los Angeles (where we grew up). We are all pretty settled with no plans to move elsewhere. So when it came time for my parents to retire they considered all the locations where we kids live and chose the one that was the best fit for them for their retirement -- near my sister since the lack of harsh weather was important to them. They also bought their retirement home in a great community with a lake, pools, golf course, etc. So it's a great vacation destination for the out-of-state kids. They come to VA to visit several times a year and we make a yearly 2 week trip to visit them. My brother (only one who is single/no kids) tries to coordinate his visits with mine to CA or with my parents to VA so we can all see each other more.

My sister and BIL benefit from lots of childcare help from my parents -- she works FT, BIL works FT odd hours, and she's in grad school which wouldn't be possible w/out my parents' childcare help. Sometimes I feel a little jealous of that but realize that it will balance out in the long term since my sister will end up bearing the brunt of their care in later years. My parents are well provided for with lots of savings plus long-term care insurance. However, there still needs to be someone to help navigate the complexities of the healthcare system and various care options. Since my sister is a nurse with lots of experience in geriatric care it's probably for the best that she will end up being the point-person for that.

I would hope that my kids will stay in the DC area near us, but if they move away I would strongly consider following my parents' choice and moving near one of them when we retire.

Father of 4

"Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?"

Not sure about the martyr thing, but it's a safe bet her kid will get ice skating lessons!

I just wanted to support Arlington who posted at 9:05, that she had her kids for family love, not a retirement plan or for society.

Is there a study out there that looks at how many kids adult onlies have relative to adults with siblings? My guess is that it would be statistically indistinguishable from adults with siblings, but I thought I'd ask.

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

****************

You have GOT to be kidding. Why so hateful, Father of Four? You're the one who, upthread, made some obnoxious comment about entitlement too, right?

I have an only, and my husband and I are very happy with our decision to stick with on. DD is a great kid. She shares better, quite frankly, than most kids with siblings I know. She knows we love her and value her - if that makes for an entitled kid, well, flame away.

BTW, my child has also had major sleep issues - none resulting in a diagnosis - but the early years of her life have been exhausting.

I seriously cannot believe (okay, well, I've read your posts before, Fo4, so maybe I can) that you would take someone's honest statement about why having one child is right for her and decide that (1) she likes to play the martyr and (2) because she spends quality time with her son, lets him know he's loved, etc - she's raising someone "entitled."

Yep, that's right, giving one's child lots of quality time is a GREAT reason to attack her.

Hey Mimi,

Having one child is fine, for those who have more than one child doesn't necessarily follow that we are unhappy with our decision. One decision does not negate the other. If you agree with the decision to have one child why must you demonize the situation of having more than one? "paranoid" - what is that all about?
Your husband may be fine, but you sound unstable.

ArlingtonMom: The few studies that I have seen mentioned say that only children actually fare better then children with siblings. Particularly better then children who were NOT first born. The theory is that the time, money and attention that only children get equip them to be better students, professionals, and leaders. They do score similar on measurements of loneliness, social skills, cooperation and sharing. Of course we all know cases of the spoiled only child. We also all know cases of spoiled children in multiple kid families. I also know some wonderful only children. My best friend is an only child and she is the LEAST spoiled person I know. She also admits to have never wanted a sibling. She actually doesn't even understand the joy that comes from a sibling relationship. But her husband has one brother who he seems to hate. So she doesn't get to see many great sibling relationships. That is the only major draw back that I see to onlies. It seems that they have a hard time understanding the love that siblings may bring to your life. Of course it is hard to understand something that you never have experienced.

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?

__________________

Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that you can be a jerk?

Not all sibling relationships are wonderful. Some are terrible to start with, and only get worse in adulthood.

How do you know there was a threat to her life with another pregnancy?

Maybe the pre-eclampsia with the first labor was a clue.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 09:34 AM

Sorry, she never mentioned pre-eclampsia. If you are talking about spiked blood pressure apparently is happened on her due date. She was "monitored" during her pregancy because she was 35. She joined the club of 10's of millions of other women over 35 giving birth.

Women that have 3, 4, 5 even 6 children have varied and difficult pregnancies. And yes, labor sucks. Again, Rachel can join the 10's of millions that have had difficult and horrible labors and pregnancies.

Suzanne it sounds like the ideal situation! Is that what you are thinking you will do when you reach retirement-- long, long down the road, I'm sure!

Wow, people can't win. People either scream that people who can't afford it shouldn't have kids. But when someone actually chooses not to have a kid to maintain financial responsibility, she is attacked. I don't know why people would attack a person for making a financially responsible decision.

I had an only child by choice 30 years ago. I am one of four offspring and my husband is the youngest of six. His mother would bug me about having more children and I would answer I got it right the first time. My daughter in law is also an only child. She wanted two children because she was lonely as a child. Unfortunately, health issues prevent additional children. My son thought being an only child was great and sees no problems for his son. My unscientfic survey has found women who were only children want multiple offspring. However, every women I asked had come from an unhappy home. While men were content as only children and want to repeat the experience. Perhaps because they were the prince. I would like to see an actually study to find out if there is a true difference.

"Anybody else get the sneaky feeling that Rachel's child will grow up in a 2-martyr family?"

No, I'm not a slime ball who gets sneaky feelings....

A very interesting guest blog. For me, the decision was not so clear. I am now at home with a two week old, my second child, and I have to admit that I was pretty ambivalent about getting pregnant again. But, my husband really wanted to have another child (he is an only child, and really wished he had a sibling or more). In the "con" column for me were 1) my age, 37, 2) the difficulty of the early years (did I really want to go through another pregnancy, maternity leave, breastfeeding again?), and 3) the short-term impact on my career and the long-term financial burden of 2 kids. In addition to meeting my husband's needs, in the "pro" column were the long term considerations, and doubling the joy and adventure of bringing another child into the world. I wasn't sure it was the right thing for me, but I took the leap.

In his two short weeks, our second child has brought us several unanticipated joys. I didn't know that I could love another child the way I love our first. I had a very difficult first labor, but I enjoyed this shorter and easier delivery very much. So far, baby care seems easier than with the first, perhaps because we know more what to expect. I have been taking better care of myself, using our family and friends to make our lives easier, and generally am feeling much more confident and competent this time around.

For me, there is no right or wrong about this decision. I just hope that my husband and I can rise to the additional challenges that our expanded family will bring.

"How do you know there was a threat to her life with another pregnancy?

Maybe the pre-eclampsia with the first labor was a clue."

I actually had pre-eclampsia with my first. My OB never insinuated that another pregnancy would be life-threatening. He did indicate that any pregnancy would be monitored carefully, but had no concerns that my life was in danger.

Women that have 3, 4, 5 even 6 children have varied and difficult pregnancies.

Ah, the old woman-as-brood-mare scenario.

Another only child chiming in. Some of the posters above mention having felt lonely as a child; I never experienced this, because my parents both came from large families so there were always cousins around to play with (and these days I think the kids of close friends can play that role if you don't live near your extended family). I admit that I sometimes envy the closeness my friends have with their siblings, but on the other hand I've always felt that I had a closer relationship with my parents than others might have. It's all kind of moot anyway, because the point (as is the original author's point) is that one kid was the right decision for our family - my mom is diabetic and pregnancy was high-risk for her. (Admittedly, I think she would have been happy to adopt me a sibling, but one of my very wonderful dad's few quirks is that he has a weird prejudice against adoption - dunno if that's a Polish thing or what.)

As for caring for my parents when their health starts going downhill, I know it won't always be easy alone, but I embrace that duty with open arms because of the years they devoted to caring for me. (And as others have noted, having siblings certainly DOESN'T necessarily make this any lighter a task - I saw my dad, the oldest of six, end up with most of the responsibility for caring for his father, and my mom, because she's a nurse, get the heaviest burden of caring for her mother.)

I actually had pre-eclampsia with my first. My OB never insinuated that another pregnancy would be life-threatening. He did indicate that any pregnancy would be monitored carefully, but had no concerns that my life was in danger.

Oh, well as long as it's only a woman's health at stake and not her actual life, then she has no excuse.

"No, I'm not a slime ball who gets sneaky feelings...."

I'm not a slimeball either.

However, you have to admit to being a gutless coward when you post anonymously. :-p

"Oh, well as long as it's only a woman's health at stake and not her actual life, then she has no excuse."

So, I'm supposed to have more faith in a snarky responder than my MD who is familiar with me and my health? I had that second child with no recurrence of pre-eclampsia so get over yourself.

However, you have to admit to being a gutless coward when you post anonymously. :-p

Posted by: Father of 4 | June 5, 2007 09:59 AM

Or maybe we just don't like being bullied by holier-than-thou types who don't believe in artificial birth control and considering the timing of pregnancies to be immoral.

I think the guest bloggers story was interesting and having only one is fine for anyone who chooses. Actually, one, two, ten or none is fine.

I was responding to the idea that having pre-eclampsia automatically causes the next pregnancy to be life-threatening. That is simply not true.

I agree that having one child only can be a wonderful arrangement for some families. My son has been an only child for the past 7 years, and we have been very happy that way. And I know that if we never had another, we would still be happy as a family of 3.

You don't have a second (or third or fourth or fifth....) child to care for you in your old age, or to be a companion to your existing child. You have one because you long for one. Because you think you are competent enough to handle the work involved. Because your marriage is stable and you know your spouse will help you through it. Because you think that you might just barely be able to afford it. Because you love the thought of another little person in your family. You do it knowing that you will be sleep deprived, exhausted, worn thin, and possibly broke for a few years, and with the more important knowledge that you can ride out that wave and come through it intact and happy, as a family. At least those are my reasons for going for a second child.

Father of 4

"However, you have to admit to being a gutless coward when you post anonymously. :-p"

Yes, I'll admit to being a gutless coward on the NET (WTF), but my kid got skating lessons.

I had that second child with no recurrence of pre-eclampsia so get over yourself.

Posted by: been there | June 5, 2007 10:02 AM

I'm glad you had no problems. But what about women who might have more serious problems with later pregnancies? Do you dismiss their decision not have another child?

Rachel-

Thank you for your wonderful and honest piece. Ignore the nasty people posting on here. No one has the right to second guess your family's choices.

ps. I have a 9 month old-and for a multitude of reasons, he will also be an only!

Stroller Mama - Totally agree on the bikini idea. Perfect maternity bathing suit. Much better than post-maternity. That's when we really need a special suit...

"I'm glad you had no problems. But what about women who might have more serious problems with later pregnancies? Do you dismiss their decision not have another child?"

Absolutely not. Everyone makes their own decisions about what is best for them. See my 10:06 post if you missed it.

Or maybe we just don't like being bullied by holier-than-thou types who don't believe in artificial birth control and considering the timing of pregnancies to be immoral.

But you do believe in safety in numbers, which is why gutless cowards like you attack when in groups

Am I the only one who is uncomfortable seeing pregnant women in bikinis beyond the fourth month? Not saying it's rational, but I really don't like to see it.

"Why on earth would it bother someone if a person only has one child? That seems bizarre."

Posted by: atb | June 5, 2007 09:32 AM

For television watchers: Have you ever seen a TV reporter walk up to someone's door, stick a microphone in her face, and ask, "How do you *feel* about the (crime, auto accident, IED) that just killed your (son, brother, husband)?"? You may have wondered, ¿what kind of viewers is this interviewer aiming for? Since when are *feelings* news?

The answer is that there are evidently millions of people out there whose own lives are absolutely dishwater-dull. So, they get their excitement, such as it is, vicariously, by living other people's lives for them. If someone's own life is dull and meaningless, he can break the monotony by *feeling* bothered if some other person has only one child, or has twelve children, or is suffering from Runciman's Disease or Blinkus of the Thinkus or Acute Ptomaine Ptosis of the Ptummy, or whatever.

I suspect that it was in response to such people that the language coined the phrase, "Get a life!"

"Blinkus of the Thinkus"

Good one :-)))))))))))

"Blinkus of the Thinkus"

Good one :-)))))))))))

Posted by: To Matt | June 5, 2007 10:20 AM

I hear there's a lot of that going around lately.

Umm, isn't this just more of the same from yesterday?

Umm, isn't this just more of the same from yesterday?

Posted by: pATRICK | June 5, 2007 10:22 AM
I think yesterday was talking about having children later in life and deciding when to quit after having one initially. Today is focus on only children. I would like to see a large family represented. Especially talking about how to manage and find balance with a large family. BTW, to the childless poster, we have already had two days of why some people choose to be childless.

Just a note of reassurance for the poster and other moms of one -- for every only child you hear that says they were lonely or now want a big family, I think you could find another only (like me!) who was perfectly happy growing up that way, and just as inclined to have only one child themselves. People are varied, and there's no clear way to extrapolate from any one person's experience to what makes sense for another. I'm really close to my parents, they have always encouraged my independence, and I love my husband's sibs without ever wishing I had any of my own.

Are we there yet?

I put the over/under on when this blog goes completely off topic at 12:30 est.

I always planned to have at least two children, since I had been so lonely growing up as an only child. And then...I became a parent I'm young now, so I could definitely have another child. However, childbirth is not something I want to go through again. Neither is teething, neither are sleepless nights and exhaustion, or taking a whole month to read one novel. The poster finishes by explaining how she is not choosing to have only one child so that she and her husband can be well-off and afford "luxury" items. Why is that justification necessary? My husband and I anxiously await the day when we will be able to afford international vacations, a "luxury". Yes, that has indirect benefits for our child, who will have interesting experiences when/if he comes with us. But we would want to do it regardless. Why does becoming a parent seem to signify to so many people that your personal desires/wants have to be sacrificedif they aren't directly tied to child-rearing? What is the effect of that attitude on the children? What kind of role-model are they seeing?

I always planned to have at least two children, since I had been so lonely growing up as an only child. And then...I became a parent I'm young now, so I could definitely have another child. However, childbirth is not something I want to go through again. Neither is teething, neither are sleepless nights and exhaustion, or taking a whole month to read one novel. The poster finishes by explaining how she is not choosing to have only one child so that she and her husband can be well-off and afford "luxury" items. Why is that justification necessary? My husband and I anxiously await the day when we will be able to afford international vacations, a "luxury". Yes, that has indirect benefits for our child, who will have interesting experiences when/if he comes with us. But we would want to do it regardless. Why does becoming a parent seem to signify to so many people that your personal desires/wants have to be sacrificedif they aren't directly tied to child-rearing? What is the effect of that attitude on the children? What kind of role-model are they seeing?

After reading some of the terrible posts about the fate that befalls only children, I felt compelled to comment. My husband and I are both only children, and I would like to think that we are both happy, well-adjusted adults. We have great friends, love our parents dearly, and are by no means lonely adults. The fact that we are both onlies has actually made our relationship work in ways that earlier relationships did not. We understand the need and desire for alone time, we are able to entertain ourselves, and we have very similar attitudes about respecting each others space.

As for being forced to bear the burden of caring for elderly parents, fortunately we are not quite there yet, but it is something that I have discussed with parents. We do not live in the same city and my parents understand that I will not move back to the small town where I was raised and they still live. There is an understanding that I will provide what support (financially and emotionally) I can, but they do not expect me to take care of them. They raised me to be independent and live my own life and have no expectation that I will some day drop everything I've worked so hard for to come care for them. I hope that doesn't sound cold or uncaring.

"Or maybe we just don't like being bullied..."

Just because you are such a whimp that you are afraid to put a name behind your thoughts and ideas doesn't make me a bully.

it does, however, make you a gutless coward.

And of all posters, you shouldn't be afraid of me. I'm quite harmless, really.

Maybe you could invite your parents to move near you in their old age. Just a thought. I agree you should not have to drop everything but if they need help, it might be a solution that works well for everyone.

I always thought only children were sad. Never really kids, because they were around grown ups who really are boring and not interested in kid stuff. My daughter and son live in their kid world. Every time we go to an only kid's house, they seem like someone let out of jail. they want to play until they drop.

One is also my happy number. I am happy to be in the age of wonder but also happy to be done with diapers.

DD age 5 1/2 says she likes being an only child. She wants two daughters for herself but I will not hold her to that statement.

I am having lunch with DD in about an hour. She and I decided to wear pink today and we were quire noticeable on the metro.

One is also my happy number. I am happy to be in the age of wonder but also happy to be done with diapers.

DD age 5 1/2 says she likes being an only child. She wants two daughters for herself but I will not hold her to that statement.

I am having lunch with DD in about an hour. She and I decided to wear pink today and we were quire noticeable on the metro.

"Why does becoming a parent seem to signify to so many people that your personal desires/wants have to be sacrificedif they aren't directly tied to child-rearing? What is the effect of that attitude on the children? What kind of role-model are they seeing?"

I do think that when you have a child, you have to give some things up. Perhaps not forever, and perhaps not everything, but you cannot expect to live the exact same life you lived before. In fact, I think that if what you want is an exact replica of your childfree life, it is best to remain childfree. It is hard to travel the world with a baby or a toddler. It might be fun when the child is older, but you are going to have to tailor your activities to the interests of the child also. And if you want more than one child, you will have to give up more. Raising children is a hard and demanding job. If you aren't willing to give something up, then it is best not to undertake that particular endeavor.

My feeling is that when people have kids, they willingly give up some things they had before, because they are seeking a different kind of gratification with their children. As the kids grow and become more independent, the parents probably go back to some of their hobbies and interests, but the dynamics are different with children. I don't see it as a martyr thing. I see it as a choice that parents willingly make.

"Blinkus of the Thinkus"

Good one :-)))))))))))

Posted by: To Matt | June 5, 2007 10:20 AM

I hear there's a lot of that going around lately.

Posted by: | June 5, 2007 10:21 AM

Blinkus of the Thinkus: A mild form of amnesia, brought on by stress. See "Back to the Klondike" (Carl Barks, 1953).

Runciman's Disease: An AIDS-like plague that kills most of its victims. Those who survive are horribly disfigured by pock marks. See "The War in 2020" (Ralph Peters, 1991).

Acute Ptomaine Ptosis of the Ptummy: A type of food poisoning that incapacitates its victims and turns them green. Brought on by eating hundred-year-old square eggs. See "Lost in the Andes" (Carl Barks, 1949)

Thanks,Rachel for the lovely article.
It is nice to see such honesty. Some have pointed out the drawbacks to having one child on the child. I would like to point out the drawbacks on the children when parents of multiple children are overwhelmed. The children may be neglected because their parents simply don't have the wherehithal (energy-wise, financially, emotionally) to really bond with and work with each child. This does not make them "bad parents" just individual people who are doing their best which is perhaps not quite enough. Hats off to Rachel and her husband for having