What do you think of a woman who elects to have only one child?

1. 83

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   There is a steady rise in the numbers of 1-child families in America in the postmodern 21st century.  There is no longer a stigma in having an only child.  In fact, studies have proven that there is considerably less stress in 1-child families than there is in multichild famlies.  There is freer allocation of monies beyond the bare necessities.  Only children have myriad opportunities such as attending better schools, participating in various cultural and educational activities.  They also have more opportunities to pursue higher education.   It goes without saying, that only children do not have to compete for parental resources or attention.  1-child families also give women more freedom to pursue their own particular interests.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As with most of your posts, this one is about money and assumes that the most important thing a child can have is large sums of money (or what it buys, such as "better" schools or playing little league).  This is patently untrue; love, including love from family and siblings, is far more important.
      
      It DOES give parents (not just women) more time of their own; if their interests do not include loving children then they may pursue those interests to a greater degree than if they are tied to their duties as parents.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Parents do LOVE their only children.  That is why they elect to have one child so they can give them the best that life has to offer beyond a bare, rudimentary and struggling existence.  Small families ensures a better quality of life.  Children DON'T need siblings to be happy or to thrive, thank you kindly.  In fact, sibings are often the cause of contention, rife, and stress in many families.  The competition, favoritism from parents, and general sibling upmanship. 
         
         Siblings are the first members to abuse other children.  More children endure abuse from siblings than they do from other children.  It is not unusual for siblings to hit, punch, kick, or bully each other.  Also, the larger the family, the higher level of impoverishment there is.  In 1-child families, parents have MORE time to spend with their child and to give him/her the individualized attention the child needs.  Furthermore, only children have MORE  ACCESS to their parents than children in multichild families.  Parents usually have LESS stress and strain raising an only child than they do multiple children.  Women have more opportunities to develop themselves, further their education, and career in 1-child families than they do in multichild families where they are more tied down with children
         
         There is also more monies to send 1 child to college than there is to send multiple children to college.  In multiple child families, it is a strong likelihood that ALL won't be attending college or even finish high school.  Someone will have to work to support the family.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Children do not need siblings to survive, no, any more than they need high dollar educations, craft camps and little league. 
            
            But all of those pale in importance next to a siblings love and companionship.  People that have no siblings have no concept of just how close two people can be when they grow up together in the same household.
            
            In my experience, one child parents have more time...to spend in their own interests, not with their child.
            
            Finally, not all children need college, and parents need not foot the bill for their children's education.  To help is great, but the child can and should shoulder the brunt of the load themselves.
            
            Money is just the be-all and end-all that you portray it to be.  Few families today lack the basic necessities of life and next comes love.  Not cell phones, TV's, higher education or summer camp.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Nothing is wrong with giving children the better things of life.  It is called civilization and not living a struggling existence at the LOWEST, MOST  PRIMTIVE denominator. Children need things beyond the rudiments.  Little league is great for young boys to develop sportsmanship.   It is so sad to live life at a rudimentary, primitive existence of constant struggling.  It lowers one's expectation.
               
               Well Wilderness, it is so good to spar with you.  Agree to disagree.  Well, continue the discussion.   I am DONE, first to rest. Been up all night reading and revamping hubs.  Have a Blessed Day!

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  "Nothing is wrong with giving children the better things of life"
                  
                  Very true.  But those "better things in life" cannot be purchased with money, regardless of how important you think wealth is.  I understand we disagree here, and don't think either of us will change our stance, so yes, agree to disagree.
                  
                  Have a good sleep, GM

                  replyreport
   2. 59

      Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Environmentally aware or not it would be a great idea for all women (and their partners) who are considering having children to have as little as possible, we are fast approaching ridiculous levels of over population.
      I applaud any woman who decided to be socially responsible.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         AMEN, in total agreement.  Nothing's wrong with having a single child.  Larger families were fine in more agrarian times when hands were need to WORK those farms.  People had larger families when they were uneducated and did not know any better in addition to not having advanced contraception.  It was a hit and miss.  However, in these postmodern times with advanced contraceptive technologies, it is totally illogical to have larger families.   With advanced and more sophisticated social networks, one child suffices.   
         
         Children nowadays find companionship with playmates and friends.  Siblings are totally unnecessary and are extra baggage.   One must applaud women who elect to have 1-child. At least, they aren't selfish and irresponsible.  They believe in planning for the well-being of their child's future and only want to give THE BEST emotionally, financially, and psychologically to their child.  This should be lauded and praised.

         replyreport
2. 62

   Nouveau Skepticposted 10 years ago

   I think nothing at all.  How many kids a person chooses to have is their business.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      However the smaller the family, the better quality of life the child has. There is more money allocated per child in small, particularly 1-child families.  Only children have more opportunities in terms of higher quality of education from better schools and more opportunity to attend college and graduate school. 
      
      There is also more money for the child to indulge in the arts and other cultural activities.  He/she has more opportunity to travel.  Children growing up in multichild families DON'T have such opportunities.
      
      Forget about children in large families where there is hardly any monies for the necessities, let alone anything else.  It is common for children from large families to consume inferior quality food, have no medical/health, dental care; if there were no school programs, many children from large famlies wouldn't have a decent meal.  Furthermore, the average large family receives some type of outside aid/assistance through relatives, charities, churches, and the government. Just saying.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Nouveau Skepticposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         That is a demographic statement. Every individual is a separate case.  There will be kids raised in packs who do better than some kids raised alone.  There is be some kids raise alone who miss out on peer socialization. 
         
         If the parents make an informed choice, I have no business deciding whether or not I personally "approve". No more than they get to decide whether they "approve" of me having no kids at all.  My life, my decision.
         
         If you feel free to judge, you open yourself to being judged.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Only children do not miss out on peer socialization.  That's an OUTMODED MYTH.  Only children, as opposed to children in multichild families, have more access to cultural and educational activities, including travel, when they meet and interact with children, particularly children from different cultures.  This is why only children particularly are more universalistic regarding relationships.  Being an only child makes a child reach out beyond the so-called familial circle to establish peer relationships.   
            
            It is the children from multichild families(I LIKE the way you put raised in PACKS-ooouch, so true) who stay among their siblings, seldom venturing out to associate, mingle, and/or interact with other children. Children with siblings tend to be more insular in outlook and relationships than children without siblings.  There are children with siblings who DON'T have friends, somewhat of an emotional incest.

            replyreport
         2. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Only children do not miss out on peer socialization.  That's an OUTMODED MYTH.  Only children, as opposed to children in multichild families, have more access to cultural and educational activities, including travel, when they meet and interact with children, particularly children from different cultures.  This is why only children particularly are more universalistic regarding relationships.  Being an only child makes a child reach out beyond the so-called familial circle to establish peer relationships.   
            
            It is the children from multichild families(I LIKE the way you put raised in packs- this so TRUE) who stay among their siblings, seldom venturing out to associate, mingle, and/or interact with other children. Children with siblings tend to be more insular in outlook and relationships than children without siblings.  There are children with siblings who DON'T have friends, somewhat of an emotional incest.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Nouveau Skepticposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               It's true for the children it is true for.  Every family is different.

               replyreport
3. 0

   SageCantonposted 10 years ago

   I happen to have two children, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with having one. In fact I'm confused as to why this is even up for discussion. What matters is that the children who are born are loved and properly cared for.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sage, you are right. However, only children in the past were stigmatized, marginalized, and see as outsiders and the other in the sibling society.  Only children were considered the odd person out, especially in the era where larger famlies were emulated and praised.  Only children were viewed as selfish, maladjusted, and other negative associations.   Of course, these things aren't found to be true in the least.
      
      Furthermore, only children now comprise about 20% of the population.  Dr. Susan Newman, author of several books on only children, have vehemently dismissed the aforementioned negative stereotypes of only children.  Dr. Newman contend that only children are happier because they do not have to compete with siblings for parental resources, time, and attention.  Only children have a high sense of self and are independent as they are comfortable playing and being alone.  They also know how to entertain themselves.    Thank you for adding and contributing positive points regarding the only child.

      replyreport
4. 0

   SageCantonposted 10 years ago

   I just think that there are pros and cons either way. It's like anything else in life... there are no perfect scenarios.
   
   I was an only child until I was 8, and my daughter got her brother at the age of 19 months. As a result our early years were vastly different, and we have both benefited in different ways. My kids have a cousin who is an only child with an uncle who is an only child and they're both thriving and wonderful. My kids also have cousins with siblings and they are equally well adjusted.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Zelkiiroposted 10 years ago

   A.) I still find that one too many, and B.) keep it to yourself and leave me out of it.

   replyreport