To wonder why some on MN insist on othering only children

[JaneBirkenstocks]

As though they are peculiar. When they're just regular humans who happen not to have a sibling/s.

Since I joined MN when DD (now 18) was a toddler there have been numerous threads asking if onlies are lonely, selfish or bored. More difficult to parent, to teach to share, to socialise.

I've never come across a thread asking what it's like to be the 3rd child in a family of 4. It was fine in case anyone's wondering.

I think it's just like the interest in twins. It's a fairly uncommon family dynamic to grow up in so attracts peoples interest. (Albeit both more common now than they used to be)

I have six, and have all the opposite 'othering' how they must never have one on one time, everything must be a struggle, why didn't we buy a telly etc.

It's just talk, I like my decisions

Agree

@Ducksurprise I have 6 too. I get the TV thing all the time. It bugs my partner because he's not my children's dad so I think it forces him to think of my ex husband and I having sex.

I do think it's worth remembering that having any children, even just the one, is one of the most selfish things you can do, and bad for the planet. (I did it myself - I am a mom to one and lost one other wanted pregnancy - but I make no denial it was selfish. My daughter is the best thing in my life by a million miles. But she at least doubles my lifetime carbon footprint if you think about it - and that's before she even thinks about having kids herself...

So perhaps, rather than asking adults why they have chosen no children or only one, in time we will become more used to asking, why did you decide to have children? Or why did you have more than one? Seeing these as the more questionable choices. Which they are, ethically speaking, on an already over-crowded planet.

That isn't a dig at anyone - I wouldn't criticise anyone for having a lot of kids any more than I would criticise them for driving or eating meat, or any other of the things we all do that are slowly destroying the planet.

But also I have total respect for all of those who selflessly forgo these pleasures for the good of others.

I think because a lot of us had experiences when our DCs were younger with “selfish” and very inconsiderate behaviour from only children which shocked us into thinking they can’t possibly ever learn

I doubt it. I think you had just as many unpleasant encounters with children with siblings.

A SAHP with 3 dc might have more time than a full time WFH parent.

Quite possibly. But that’s not the point is it? That same SAHP would have a lot more time for each child than s/he does for three. However rich or poor you are, you will have fewer resources per child if you have more children. This may not be something that turns out to be significant (diminishing marginal utility and all that), but it is the fact of the matter. Same with elderly parents. Someone’s siblings may or may not help them; the parents may or may not need care. But the fact of the matter is that that burden was destined to be mine if it arose just because of the fact that I have no siblings.

Absolutely - you can’t guarantee that siblings will have a great sibling relationship. You can’t guarantee that your sibling will step up to take an equal share of parental care. But - as an only child myself - I am guaranteed not to have that help or those relationships. That’s a certainty.

But it doesn't "other" you. And that was the point of the thread.

<off to Google diminishing marginal utility>

Sorry - my DH is an economist, so it’s something we throw around a lot (wasn’t trying to be an arse 🤣). I suppose I do feel “othered” if I think about on those terms; people do assume a wider family and so that quite often requires an explanation, even at my age. Anything that sets you up as being out of the ordinary or different “others” you, surely?

No! I didn't think you were being an arse 🙂It's a term I've never come across before and was eager to look it up.

To be fair I don't think Mumsnet is particularly bad for this... there are indeed lots of threads on here about this but most of the posters seem to recognise it's a stupid premise that only children are all lonely/selfish/badly behaved.

It's definitely a widely-held prejudice in wider society though (which MN broadly reflects). I think a lot of it is just a hangover from a pre contraception era where more children died in infancy, religion was more dominant and there was a general assumption that women would have as many children as they can afford.

Only children were unusual in these days and therefore people would question the rationale for stopping at one.

I've never seen any credible data to suggest that only children are automatically more lonely or badly behaved or anything else than children who have siblings. I think it's a combination of people being naturally prurient and nosy and imposing silly old wives tales onto this. With a nice big helping of anecdata, usually.

I think any blanket assumption that children are anything purely based on the number of siblings in the family or their position in the sequence is moronic and I treat it with the contempt it deserves.

If I was to say that having six kids (and adding three steps to the mix) was spectacularly selfish and irresponsible, making your children significantly worse off than you were because financial and parental resources are spread much thinner you probably wouldn’t like it.

If I was to say that having six kids (and adding three steps to the mix) was spectacularly selfish and irresponsible, making your children significantly worse off than you were because financial and parental resources are spread much thinner you probably wouldn’t like it.

This... you come on a thread and cheerfully admit you have six children and three step children and have the front to say you find only children selfish and annoying.

The lack of self-awareness would be hilarious if it wasn't so bigoted.

I'm an only child. My mother was an only child.

My mother's parents wanted her and sadly could have no more after a birth that nearly killed my grandmother in 1936. My mother was adored and was indulged materially. My mother even at 87 can be a spoilt brat.

I was an accident. My mother didn't want any children. I was indulged materially but certainly not adored.

My family has money. We'd have been materially indulged whether we had siblings or not. Neither of us are selfish and both are generous.

DH is one of three. Money was tight. I'd say his sisters were jolly spoilt, one whinges a lot and neither like work.

It used to worry me that I'd bear sole responsibility for my mother as an only and this was one of the principle reasons I wanted more than one child (and also because the sparky comment ts about being an only used to hurt me). In actual fact, my DH does too because his sisters live abroad and wouldn't put themselves out for their mother - well one not much and one not a bit. That was an eye opener.

Fortunately dd and ds are quite close.

We have 5. People make all sorts of assumptions- that we must be skint, that we must be in benefits, that we must never have time for them all, that I must be overwhelmed.

nothing could be further from the truth.

People spend most of their time on mumsnet (or anywhere on the internet really) justifying their life choices as it makes them feel better about themselves. I’ve done this at times!

People like to feel they’ve done ‘the right thing’ and will fight to the death to defend their choice - in this case, the choice to have more than one child.

Parents of only kids are just as nutty if it helps. There was a thread here recently about parents stopping at one to give them a good life and help them with their driving lessons. Everyone kept going on about driving lessons. It was wild.