Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm also an only child who was never lonely. I loved my childhood. I love my life now, and I never wanted siblings.
You constantly talk about the bias. But you never elaborate on details. Do you plan to have any children of your own? Did people constantly hate you for being an only child? Of course you don't want siblings. I am not surprised. I read in a separate thread that your father came from a large family. You're ignoring the fact that many only children do go on to have 2+ kids. In contrast, all the onlies I knew wanted more. 2+ or 0. While some did enjoy it as you mentioned, they bore a desire to raise more children. There do exist only children who are lonely.
I agree the concept does not work out well unless you can get along with your sibling(s). All of my cousins have at least 1 sibling. I don't know why no one thought of raising an only in our fam. My big cousin has an older brother and sister. They were all very close in age, just a year apart. Actually, I would think she got annoyed. But she told me she loves how emotionally close/supportive/whatever they are of each other. Finally, my cousin says she wouldn't have it any other way. Note that they did fight quite often. Every single way you could think of in childhood.
I used to tell my big sister that I should have been an only, though I'm thankful for my experiences with her now. There was a news article about Natalie Portman enjoying her only child upbringing. She always said that her mom was able to come to every appointment as needed for her. With siblings, she'd be "envied" and have competition. Even went so far as to note her parents would have never let her become famous if she they did have more than 1 child. However, according to her she does want kids. Commentators also noted that Jackson 5 (10 kids) along with Donna Summers (8 kids) were successful despite coming from such large families. One even said she would have never known how life would be with siblings anyway and while she was born an only, she just gave birth to her second child. She always hoped to produce multiple children. Our mom always said while she wanted another kid, she didn't want to do it again and again. And my big sis was grateful for less expectations on her. I helped her cook and clean.
Also, one of my managers at work is a father of 4. All are that close in age. He stated he wanted more kids, but his wife disagreed. Messiness? Violence? Fights? Lack of parental attention? "No, they behaved. I prefer them to be close together". Similarly, one woman in an advice column I read noted that "family just wasn't complete for me until I had 4 children".
But in contrast, a childfree woman in Michigan who has been married for 30+ years mentioned on her blog that onlies do have perks: they save money, never fight with sibling(s), and tend to score higher on test results. She would never have kids. Instead, the blogger wrote a post contemplating how while we can't expect everyone to be CF, we can expect onlies. One of my friends was raised with 5 siblings. She and her younger sister only wanted 1 child. Also, not fun when the mom is pregnant and has to bring up a kid at the same time. As for future generations? Not the same as being entirely CF? Immaturity? "Yeah, that's why a lot of people don't want to do it. But I do want to try raising 1." Exact same thing another friend brought up about being oldest of 3: "Nah, I wouldn't be happy with just 1. I'd like 2."
My friend with a younger brother: "It's a lot better when you can raise kids that are not the same gender. It's easier to have 1 kid, but I love my brother. I wouldn't want to be an only."
With that being said, there is a great lens on onlies you might want to check out at squidoo.com/only_children. One of the posters pointed out that she also raised 14 kids. All of these reasons are the exact opposite for her; she uses them to add more siblings.
Not sure how this post grew so long, but the reasons listed on this site are quite weak. For what it's worth, this isn't something people talk about on a daily basis anyway.
Last edited by Cora Janette; 03-07-2013 at 11:01 AM..
I'm really shocked at the amount of hate/disrespect towards only children. Some claim that an only child is spoiled, selfish, lonely, weird etc. However, there are plenty of people with siblings who fit these traits as well. Why pick on only children?
Haven't encountered this attitude out there - certainly not in our extra PC times.
Heck, even children with lots of siblings nowadays are "spoiled, selfish, lonely and weird".
When you're raised self-absorbed, an army of siblings won't save you from the above traits.
Haven't encountered this attitude out there - certainly not in our extra PC times.
Heck, even children with lots of siblings nowadays are "spoiled, selfish, lonely and weird".
When you're raised self-absorbed, an army of siblings won't save you from the above traits.
Exactly, right? The paternal uncle was raised as the youngest of 8 surviving kids (they had more but passed away tragically early). He's more spoiled than anybody else in the family. My mom's big brother is selfish/weird.
Dad used to always laugh at me for being spoiled, too. Me and my cousins barely even talk to each other after we went to middle school. If we're not lonely/weird people, I don't know who is.
We've also got fam friends who juggled the best of both worlds. Waited 'til Junior was 7-15. POOF, another one. So now they basically have two onlies. My big sis was just saying that "Yeah, by then the kids are too far apart. No fighting or etc.!"
Maybe I'm just fortunate to not have encountered such an attitude. Over here, no one cares if you're CF or raising # of kid(s).
Exactly, right? The paternal uncle I have was raised as the youngest of 8 surviving kids (they had more but passed away tragically early). He's more spoiled than anybody else in the family. My mom's big brother is selfish/weird.
Dad used to always laugh at me for being spoiled, too. Me and my cousins barely even talk to each other after we went to middle school. If we're not lonely/weird people, I don't know who is.
Maybe I'm just fortunate to not have encountered such an attitude. Over here, no one cares if you're CF or raising # of kid(s).
I really think this "only child" thing is a non-issue.
Nowadays, many children are raised in very individualistic, self-centered ways anyway - with or without siblings. Today's average siblings no longer experience the sense of togetherness, complicity, closeness and "tribal" fuzzy-warmy feelings that siblings of the past were experiencing - because parents no longer raise them like that. Thye're in "me, myself, and I" land and that's how they raise their children too.
I had two because I hoped and continue to hope that I will be able to encourage them to have this old-fashioned sibling bond and have each other forever, long after we're gone. They seem to be developing it and I hope it lasts. It goes well beyond just "doing things together as a family". We talk a whole lot more about "us, as a family" than about "me, myself and I"...I try to always draw their attention to the needs, feelings and overall existence of their sibling, as well as to how much the sibling cares for them and helps them (and they do care a lot about each other).
I am doing my best but I know I am swimming against the current of the times - which is "self" oriented.
I just see a ton of kids with siblings out there who act just as self-absorbed as the "only-child prototype" is believed to do (let alone that many of the relatively few only-children of the past were way more connected to those around them than lots of the children with siblings today).
I had two because I hoped and continue to hope that I will be able to encourage them to have this old-fashioned sibling bond and have each other forever, long after we're gone. They seem to be developing it and I hope it lasts. It goes well beyond just "doing things together as a family". We talk a whole lot more about "us, as a family" than about "me, myself and I"...I try to always draw their attention to the needs, feelings and overall existence of their sibling, as well as to how much the sibling cares for them and helps them (and they do care a lot about each other).
I am doing my best but I know I am swimming against the current of the times - which is "self" oriented.
I just see a ton of kids with siblings out there who act just as self-absorbed as the "only-child prototype" is believed to do (let alone that many of the relatively few only-children of the past were way more connected to those around them than lots of the children with siblings today).
I'm not sure if this was supported but having sibling(s) does seem to make you "wake up" in a certain way. It feels more like a family. Also, I even heard boys with sister(s) are more considerate towards the other women in their lives. Girls tend to be more considerate and "My sister's friends were all that way as well. 'Like her, the first one was a girl. But then they had a son.' I told my dad, I'd rather have it the other way around, though". All of our cousins and family friends seem to be that way except us.
"I'd rather have a sister, so she can help me dress".
"Not really, it's better to have kids that are the same gender. Because they can wear the same clothes and talk. Traditionally Chinese people prefer to have sons but I don't really care," my dad always told me. "And I agree with your mom, at least I don't have 4 kids. Your sis runs errands for you when we're not there, helps you sign forms and takes packages."
And my cousin was just, "All I can say is that I completely disagree with all these onlies. Love having this many kids that close together. We worked well as a family, helped each other and were emotionally supportive." On the other hand another was the youngest of 4 (2 sons, 2 daughters even). There is an issue because his mom moved to the US from Asia when he was only 4 years old, yet his older brother and sister were already in HS. The kids don't get along due to the age difference and the fact that their personalities are bizarrely varied. The brother is really angry. His 2 sisters are mellow. They see him as the steel foot no one wants because he's more Americanized. I even told my dad that wouldn't have happened if his sister stopped at just 1 or 2 and he was: "Yeah, I have no idea WTH she was thinking. 4 is still too many."
There was one model called Bettie Page. It's a widely known fact that she was able to achieve her polished signature physical appearances because she practiced with her sisters. Being the second of six, she would later complain her mom made her another mom to the sibs BUT she knew how to sew and cook perfectly.
LMAO! On IMDB, a poster kept proudly jumping around on the board proclaiming "I don't care how much research has been done on onlies [Wikipedia article cites there isn't much difference from 1 and 2+ personalities thanks to research/studies]. Only children are self-centered, spoiled and bratty!"
Another replied, "Hey lady, do you live in the woods? They aren't like that at all... there's virtually no difference from kids with/without siblings". Yeah umm, that has never been the case for me. I do not see a difference. But I did think when I was younger how weird it must be to only live with your parents. Vice versa though, because they've never experienced life with siblings. I asked a barista from Korea about it, she does have aunts and uncles but is an only. She pointed out that they don't really see the difference since "you tend to forget that they have siblings".
The other barista with a big sis and younger bro: "I need to have a son and then a daughter."
"Yeah, that's what I told my dad when I was younger. It's still even, though." In return, her mom still ended up with a third although he's a good 10 years younger than her.
Last edited by Cora Janette; 03-07-2013 at 12:02 PM..
And my cousin was just, "All I can say is that I completely disagree with all these onlies. Love having this many kids that close together. We worked well as a family, helped each other and were emotionally supportive." On the other hand another was the youngest of 4 (2 sons, 2 daughters even). There is an issue because his mom moved to the US from Asia when he was only 4 years old, yet his older brother and sister were already in HS. The kids don't get along due to the age difference and the fact that their personalities are bizarrely varied. The brother is really angry. His 2 sisters are mellow. They see him as the steel foot no one wants because he's more Americanized. I even told my dad that wouldn't have happened if his sister stopped at just 1 or 2 and he was: "Yeah, I have no idea WTH she was thinking. 4 is still too many."
I really do believe the species, in its infinite wisdom, is starting to respond to over-population, over-consumption and extreme individualism.
You see this response in a variety of trends including the global decline in birth rates and implicitly the rise of the onlies, the increase in the number of childless-by-choice individuals, the increase in people who choose not to get married (unless they find the PERFECT partner...and not even then), the fuss around the right to be gay. After all the historical/Biblical shaming of "being gay" did have to do with not wasting precious seed for population increase purposes.
Time ares changing, there are LOTS of us on this Earth and not any kind of "lots" but the kind with huge consumption appetites...and the wealth is NOT infinite, no matter how badly the right wing wants us to believe otherwise.
The species knows better and I think it wants to slow down exactly so it can survive as opposed to suffocate itself to death; but it might have "caught on" too late.
I really think this "only child" thing is a non-issue.
Nowadays, many children are raised in very individualistic, self-centered ways anyway - with or without siblings. Today's average siblings no longer experience the sense of togetherness, complicity, closeness and "tribal" fuzzy-warmy feelings that siblings of the past were experiencing - because parents no longer raise them like that. Thye're in "me, myself, and I" land and that's how they raise their children too.
I had two because I hoped and continue to hope that I will be able to encourage them to have this old-fashioned sibling bond and have each other forever, long after we're gone. They seem to be developing it and I hope it lasts. It goes well beyond just "doing things together as a family". We talk a whole lot more about "us, as a family" than about "me, myself and I"...I try to always draw their attention to the needs, feelings and overall existence of their sibling, as well as to how much the sibling cares for them and helps them (and they do care a lot about each other).
I am doing my best but I know I am swimming against the current of the times - which is "self" oriented.
I just see a ton of kids with siblings out there who act just as self-absorbed as the "only-child prototype" is believed to do (let alone that many of the relatively few only-children of the past were way more connected to those around them than lots of the children with siblings today).
My neice has three children. The oldest two are identical twins, born preemies and another daughter a couple of years younger no doctor would have said she should risk. She has a blood condition which was undiagnosed before the twins. All are precious to her and each their own being. She has never dressed them the same, nor expected them to be the same. Now in school, one girl wanted to cut her hair and the other kept hers long. They are very connected as siblings, and twins, but it isn't the clone identity that parents once encouraged. Parents today choose to have multiple children, not spin the dial and see if they do. They have the option of NOT having more than one, or two or three.
My dad was the youngest boy of eleven kids. His mother didn't get to choose, and they lived on a farm. He was closer to his younger sister, but his older brothers already were married when he was born. But with a farm and eleven kids, his mother had her hands full. She didn't have time to give each their individual attention. The younger children were largly raised by the older ones. His childhood was largely the norm if you lived on a farm. Parents generally saw their kids as moldable to their own expectations. The preception of an independent child would have been very different than even in the fifties.
I think a lot of kids in the fifties were valued more in personal ways because for most parents there was a large hole in life from the War and if they were doing well, those who grew up during the Great Depression wanted to do more. But they were still tied into the old standards. My generation was not raised to be clones, but there was this sense that the rebels who were different were somehow both attractive and strange. Dobie Gillis was the one most felt like was them, but Manyard was the one you paid attention to. And it opened a door.
If you were an only child, you were still the great exception. But I also grew up with very close contact with family. My cousin, a year younger, was much more than a cousin and we spent the night at each others houses frequently. I'm not sure with the mobility of familities today if that is all that common.
I was lucky, too, because Mom was clearly introverted and we'd lay on her bed together and listen to old raido shows, not speaking a word, one of my most cherished memories of her over the times there was Girl Scouts and assorted activities. My parents never made it wrong to be me. For me, being an only kid was ideal.
I wouldn't say it made me more a loner, but instead that it gave me the opportunity to accept myself. I always knew I was pretending when I got to be an adult and worked in an office and couldn't wait to get away from them. Maybe I did/do come off as 'selfish', or whatever, but in reality it is simply that I am quite happy without the social world. I think a few generations back I would not be given that chance.
I really do believe the species, in its infinite wisdom, is starting to respond to over-population, over-consumption and extreme individualism.
You see this response in a variety of trends including the global decline in birth rates and implicitly the rise of the onlies, the increase in the number of childless-by-choice individuals, the increase in people who choose not to get married (unless they find the PERFECT partner...and not even then), the fuss around the right to be gay. After all the historical/Biblical shaming of "being gay" did have to do with not wasting precious seed for population increase purposes.
Time ares changing, there are LOTS of us on this Earth and not any kind of "lots" but the kind with huge consumption appetites...and the wealth is NOT infinite, no matter how badly the right wing wants us to believe otherwise.
The species knows better and I think it wants to slow down exactly so it can survive as opposed to suffocate itself to death; but it might have "caught on" too late.
That there is a global decline in birthrate is important. Culturally, birth rates are driven by how any individual society defines its values, but if differing cultures in differing stages react the same, then there is more than culture at work. Animal studies have shown that population itself will always balance, first by descending birth rate, and second if that fails by other more extreme means. Each major die off of population, expecially the greatest in known history, the nearly world wide black plague in the 1300's, came at a time when population and contact between cultures was a height. Today for all our knowledge, and all we understand about epidemics, we could NOT prevent a plague of that degree, even if treatable, because resources would long before run out to do so.
I think 'caught on too late' may apply very well to the human side of things. But it remains self correcting.
That there is a global decline in birthrate is important. Culturally, birth rates are driven by how any individual society defines its values, but if differing cultures in differing stages react the same, then there is more than culture at work. Animal studies have shown that population itself will always balance, first by descending birth rate, and second if that fails by other more extreme means. Each major die off of population, expecially the greatest in known history, the nearly world wide black plague in the 1300's, came at a time when population and contact between cultures was a height. Today for all our knowledge, and all we understand about epidemics, we could NOT prevent a plague of that degree, even if treatable, because resources would long before run out to do so.
I think 'caught on too late' may apply very well to the human side of things. But it remains self correcting.
I'm really shocked at the amount of hate/disrespect towards only children. Some claim that an only child is spoiled, selfish, lonely, weird etc. However, there are plenty of people with siblings who fit these traits as well. Why pick on only children?
As an only child I've never noticed this. (at 44 yrs old) But than again I guess I wouldn't since I spend 99 percent of time alone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
