@anotherdayanotherpathlesstravelled
@AlwaysMunching
@NCFT0922
@Ifyouknowyouknowyouknow
No intention at all to be smug - apologies if it came across that way - and I don’t mean to imply that parents of multiple children can’t be organised, or offer them plenty of opportunities; of course they can do those things, and many clearly do. There is no ‘right answer’ when it comes to family size, and there’s obviously no inherent moral superiority in having one.
It’s also true to say, though, that in my own circle (which, to answer your question @NCFT0922, is fairly privileged middle class) the parents themselves are often citing their multiple children, especially younger ones, as the reason they’re not taking them swimming, or out to dinner, or on day trips, or having holidays. It’s the expense, or the hassle, or the prospect of them potentially bickering once they finally reach the museum/restaurant/wherever. Fair enough; I’d probably feel it was all too much like hard work too, but as it stands DD genuinely has travelled more extensively and had more extra-curricular opportunities than her peers, and our friends have been very open in citing additional siblings as a significant factor in not doing this stuff. Many of them, for example, won’t take 2 or more DC out alone, so everything has to be crammed into weekends and holidays when both parents are on hand.
Same in our nursery and Reception WhatsApp groups - parents of multiple kids complaining that they can’t find 3 costumes for World Book Day, or they’re late because logistics of drop-off/pick-up are too difficult with kids in different classes, or saying they accidentally sent their son to school with their daughter’s reading book. Of course the parents aren’t uncaring or feckless, just frazzled, and it’s not unreasonable to suggest that there might be less stress, last-minute flapping and potential mix-ups with just the one child. It’s also not being ‘smug’ to state that there’s quite a body of evidence that only children often outperform those with multiple siblings in school - it’s just citing the research that’s available.
I’ve acknowledged there are pros and cons to having one child, and one-child families do face specific challenges, but my issue with threads like these is that it’s difficult to come on to state the positives of having an only child without posters inevitably coming on to negate it all by claiming that things like more money, less stress, easier planning for the future, higher academic achievement, environmental awareness, more focused parental attention etc are all trivial and ultimately cancelled out by some vague idea of ‘loneliness’ and the imperative to give an existing child a sibling. Or that any pros of having one are purely selfish and only benefit the mother.
There’s no right answer, and there is no ‘ideal’ childhood. It is not inherently morally superior to have one, but neither is it necessarily optimal to have more. And there is nothing wrong with making choices that benefit the mother or the wider family - happier, calmer, less exhausted parents are a good thing, and mothers have every right to focus on themselves and foster their own identity, rather than martyring themselves to additional children they’re not sure they want for the sake of giving an existing child a sibling.