Only child having only children?

This weekend my husband and I were having the discussion of whether to
have another child and his view was no. His points were that

bizby40...

My mom once told me she wished she'd only had one child. As the
second child, I took umbrage, but then she said, "I never said *which*
child!" Now I understand what she means. I love both of my children.
But we have, I think, more than average sibling rivalry in this house.
The next door neighbor kid even asked me, "Do they *always* fight with
each other?" My answer, "Pretty much."

dragonlady...

Have you read Faber and Maslich's (spelled wrong...) "Siblings Without
Rivalry"? Though it didn't eliminate the fighting, I found employing
their suggestions helped cut down on it quite a bit.

bizby40...

Yes. They didn't have to deal with my DD.

dragonlady...

Some kids (and sibling relationships) are just like that.

Sorry I don't have any other suggestions.

bizby40...

That's okay, I wasn't looking for any. We manage. But like I said,
there are definitely times....

Ericka Kammerer...

If it makes you feel any better, my older two
squabble like fishwives. Drives me nuts. When it gets
bad enough, I just put one on one floor, one on another,
and me in the middle floor so they can't sneak back and
forth to fight ;-)

Banty...

So, does this Siblings Without Rivalry recommend living in a three-story house?
;)

Ericka Kammerer...

Nope, but I find it very effective when all else
fails! ;-)

bizby40...

I don't get so specific -- I usually just say, "You have to be *away*
from each other, NOW!" And then one will go upstairs to the playroom
and the other will stay down here. Sometimes they both go up to their
rooms, and then in a few minutes I hear them whispering and giggling
with each other. If it's forbidden, then they *want* to be together!

Sue...

We started taking sister priviledges away there for a while. When the
fighting got to be really bad, we would tell them that they are not allowed
to play with each other, talk with each other, or touch each other. There
were times this had to go on all day because it was so bad. We haven't had

Banty...

It will.

Joy...

Not to mention what it'll do for your car insurance bill!

to do that in a while, but they still bicker up a storm.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Sue...

LOL, your daughter sounds like my youngest. No book has ever worked for her.
I never have the problems that are so easy to solve in the books.

So, I love both of my children. I can't imagine not having either one
of them. But sometimes I wish I had them each *separately* somehow,
as having them both at the same time can be very wearing.

dragonlady...

I'll drink to that.

And, as they went through their teens, I swear they were meeting at
night to figure out how to make sure at least ONE of them was ALWAYS in
crisis!

financially, its tough; emotionally, its hard to split the love and
attention and all that baloney; and socially, our son can make friends
to keep himself happy and why does he need a bro/sis to do that.

Penny Gaines...

[snip]

OTOH, a sibling may get less attention from their parents, but they get
make up for it with love and attention from their siblings.

Is your son sociable? A shy/quiet kid may find it hard to make friends
"to keep himself happy", and yet want to have playmates. While I'd
never suggest that siblings will always be friends or anything like
that, having a companion there will mean that their is someone around to
play with.

This will become more important as you get old. If you get to the point
where you rely on others to look after you, it will be a huge burdan for
your son to do it on his own. Having a second opinion/back-up person
will make life easier for him.

Chookie...

After reading the thread, I agree that it's the young baby blues talking. In
your situation, a second child would not be financially difficult; the tenth
child would. Of course we don't split our love: we multiply it. Attention
does decrease, but frankly, I think that's a good thing. My feeling is that
if you have one child, you tend to over-focus on the child -- instead of
caring for them, you run around after them, interfere in their friendships,
entertain them a lot, etc. And you don't realise you are doing it until the
second child arrives...

Two children entertain themselves and play together, and are therefore less
dependent on adult company.

Personally, I'd like to have another child, but I have no come backs to
give him. He is an only child and I had a brother. The only other
person I know that was an only child had two children because she was
miserable growing up. My husband was happy growing up.

Are there any benefits that I can pose to him to convince him that
another child is a good thing??

Irrational Number...

In the end, it doesn't matter about money, love,
benefits, how many siblings you and your DH had
growing up. Nothing matters. All that matters is:
for Thanksgiving in 20 years, how many people do
you want home for dinner? You then try to match
that.

cjrohr31...

LOL! Good idea, except when you don't live near family. My 20+ person
Thanksgiving meals are usually made up of all non-related friends.

Friends are the family you get to choose ;-)

Please don't flame me...its my husband with these views.

cjrohr31...

Interesting theory. I came from a family of 8, and there's no way in
hell I'd want 8 kids, even if I had started at 21 (like my mom) rather
than 36 (which is making it kind of impossible, or at least
biologically unlikely). Of the 7 of us who survived (one died before
having kids):
Brother - has 10 kids, wife is one of 3.
Sister - has 3, would probably have had 4 if her husband (one of 6)
agreed, but no more
Sister - has 2, never wanted any, nor did her husband, but they changed
their minds and are ok with 2. husband is one of 3.
Brother - has 3, would have liked as many as 8, but wife said no way
(and she's older as well making it difficult), wife is one of 3.
sister - has 2 bio kids and 2 older step kids, would have had maybe 1
more bio kid if circumstances were different
myself - ideal world would be 4 max, DH is one of 2 and desperately
wants 4. Not sure that will happen
sister - has 2, would have had 4 max,husband one of 2 maxed out at 2.

Parents - Dad is one of 11, mom is one of 3. Both just wanted "a big
family" and had 8.

So, we're all over the map. I'd say we had a happy childhood, but none
of my sisters are keen to produce as many offspring as my parents did.
However my 2 surviving brothers both wanted that many.....maybe there
are some gender issues?

For the OP, not sure I can offer much by way of advice. either you want
more or you don't, really..... all the arguements for can be used
against. My mom always said how sad she felt for only children, but
I've known plenty who grew up happy as can be. Similarly, though I
think none of us sibs would wish to be an only child and grew up happy
in a big family, I have known kids of big families who were not happy.
I've known people with one sibling who wished for more, and those happy
with what they had.

I think you both have valid feelings, and there's no rational argument
on either side. Would you feel less fulfilled as a parent with only
one? Will he feel overwhelmed with more than one?

Just me :)...

I admit I have not yet read ALL the responses to this post, but I only
have 2 things I'd say about the subject (being I'm no expert;) )

1st- I'm an only child and I LOVED it! I've never wished for
siblings (other than when I was little and wanted someone else to blame
for stuff). I've also never hated the idea of them, just kinda like
my family the way it was. I turned out great, lots of friends and

PattyMomVA...

I agree that open discussion is the best way to solve the issue, but,
ultimately, the person who does not want more kids should have the veto
power. How can you being a child into the world when one parent doesn't
want to be a parent (again)? BTW, I'm not saying that exercising a veto is
conducive to a healthy relationship. But, really, I think that not wanting
a child has to override the partner's desire to have one.

Banty...

I understand, and that's a common viewoint, and I think a very reasonable one, I
might add.

I've considered that viewpoint, and pretty much concluded against it for several
reasons. Now, I think differently for someone really wanting *no* children vs.
the other wanting children - there are very different motivations for that and
point to very different orientations in life and what that shared life is
supposed to be about. I think for that case the only real answer is prevention
of the situation (TALK about these things!), the alternative being divorce.
Even divorce is not a veto, mind, and there aren't existing children involved.

But when the couple have already had children, they're in for a child-rearing
lifestyle already, and splitting up isn't an option (at least not one that
woulnd't hurt an innocent, the child). Except perhaps for a case where a
partner really has discovered that he or she *hates* parenting (in which case
divorce *may* be the best option even for the child), this decision is more
about family and lifestyle priorities and future plans than whether or not to
parent at all. And I don't really see a reason in that case that either part of
the couple has some a priori better reason than the other. First of all, it's a
lousy way to start a negotiation about any family or marital relationship issue
(the one wanting more kids is a beggar from the get go) and really dismisses the
depth and intensity of the one who wants to parent more children. To me it
stands more with, do we retire to Florida or stay close to the grandkids,
whether or not to transfer for the career benefit of whose job, and any number
of other possible marital decisions that are either-or by nature and would
really deny something to the 'loser'.

Ericka Kammerer...

I think there are some overlooked issues in this
reasoning, though. It presumes that there isn't a huge
difference between parenting one child and parenting two,
such that anyone who can manage one child shouldn't have
any "real" issues with two children. I don't think that's
necessarily so for every person. I think it's possible to
be on board with parenting one child, and yet be really
opposed to parenting a second to the extent that one would
not be a good enough parent to the second child. I do think

Banty...

I certainly agree with that! I myself embarked on adopting a second child, then
decided against it for reasons along those lines.

there is the significant possibility of injury to the innocent
second child of bringing another child into the world with
an unwilling parent.

Banty...

But I also think that there is a significant possibility of injury to the whole
family and marriage, including the existing child, and even the existing child
directly, if the other parent is not allowed to parent the family they feel a
strong need to parent. Unhappy people parent less effectively (I also know that
from personal experience as the child!), and an unhappy marriage hurts the child
whether there's divorce or not. Consider also that more expectations may heap
upon the existing child.

I just don't think this argument stacks to one side. When I first heard it, it
made some level of sense. But when I consider that it kinda assumes a accepting
'loser' in the decision for it to be really true that the best case is to give
veto to the naysayer, I think that's where it fails to make sense.

I would agree with you that the notion that one
parent starts with veto power is an exercise in power
that is likely damaging within a marriage. However, if
one is thinking primarily of the child-to-be, there is
a real risk of harm that can't be overlooked by the parent
who wants another child and is contemplating whether to
badger the spouse into it against his or her will.
I guess I think that IF it gets to a point
where both parents are absolutely inflexible, it's
just not acceptable to bring a child into the world
with an unwilling parent married to the willing parent.
However, I also think that it should be extremely
rare that anyone finds themselves in that position.
Most people really can choose to be more flexible,
and I think there is a serious obligation to consider
the needs and wants of one's spouse.
Frankly, for the vast majority of history,
we've had little choice in how many children, and
lots of folks had "too many" or "too few" children
and managed to cope. Lots and lots of families
cope with unplanned pregnancies. I don't really
believe we're all so brittle that one child too
many or too few is going to break most people (though
obviously there are situations in which it can
be devastating). When a couple gets into that
kind of impasse, it's usually not because one
or the other truly couldn't adapt. It's usually
because they aren't communicating well and/or
someone has just decided to be stubborn and not
negotiate.

Banty...

Yep. Or don't want to explore what their reasons are. Having a perceived moral
veto power kinda sews it up for them.

When it comes down to brass tacks in the real world, it's the woman's decision.
She bears the child or doesn't bear the child. So actually it's she who has the
veto power.

I just dont' think there's a *moral* veto power. I just dont' put the desire
not to parent above the desire to parent on the moral scale. Even for a
possible child's sake.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Now of course the reasonable objection is, what about the child that only one
parent wanted? First of all, in the overwhelming majority of cases there won't
be a rejection of that child, and the inittialy reluctant parent moves into
parenting one more child. But even if he or she is very unhappy about it,
bitter even, I don't think there's a reason why the parent *denied* a larger
family wouldn't be at least as unhappy about the alternative outcome, bitter
even, and therefore that situation impacts the whole family and marriage also,
including the first born child(ren).

So it's a toughie. And I just don't think it's solved by saying one set of
desires always has to lose if it comes to an impasse.

-Patty, mom of 1+2

stuff, did not feel lonely, was good with sharing and all that stuff.
Some people think only children are weirder at that stuff, but most I
know are not.
DH is one of 6, we are NOT having 6! :) But we have not ruled out
another baby yet...

Now, please understand that this part is just my feeling, and in no way
meant as a knock at the OP, just my feelings. Really, not meant as
anything mean at all. JMHO.
I know, that for me, if I had to convince DH to have another baby I
would not. I just would not feel right about it. My own personal
feeling is emotional, and it is that if both parents are not on board
and one needs a ton of prodding then, well, it's not fair to the one
who is unsure or to the future baby should it happen. It would simply
be a baby because *I* wanted one, not because my family, (DH) feels it
would make our worlds brighter. Both our worlds, and DS's.
One more time, to the OP- this is just ME and how I feel, nothing at
all against anyone who feels/does differently. We are all different,
after all ;)

Sue...

That doesn't really hold up either. The reluctant parent could have some
very different reasons for not wanting another and it not being about loving
them at all. My husband was reluctant on the third, but we went for it and
he has no regrets. I was reluctant to have any kids, but that changed once I
became a mother.

Good luck, with whatever you choose!

-L....

The times I was really, really glad to have sibs was when my parents
died. I wouldn't have wanted to go through that alone.

cjrohr31...

That part I'd agree with - though my parents are still alive, I've lost
a brother, and having siblings around through that was a great help,
and I'm sure will be when we lose our parents. I have a good friend
who's an only child and just lost her mother, her father is also not in
great shape. The burden she had to bear in dealing with that was
extremely difficult - not just emotionally, but all the arrangements
fell to her. Not that it's a good reason to have more kids, however,
simply an observation....

Most only-children I know are self-centered and pushy - used to getting
their own way. I think the relationship you have with sibs is unlike
any other, and can't be replaced.

cjrohr31...

Um, the above mentioned only child is anything but, whereas one of my
sisters is extremely self-centered and I'd say all 5 of us sisters
rather pushy ;-) (not always used to getting our own way, but used to
fighting for it). My brothers are not though....

That sort of generalization does hold much weight. Too much depends
upon the parents, how they raise their kids, and the personality of the
kids in question.

-L....

You people are as daft as sticks. It's not a generalization - it's an
observation. YMMV and of course it does...

In the mean time, I'll be adopting a sib for DS...

dragonlady...

I know some people with siblings who are like that, too.

And some people without who are wonderful, compassionate, caring human
beings.

There is nothing wrong with having one child -- or with having MORE than
one -- and it is possible to raise them to be wonderful human beings
either way.