Yesterday you could read about the doubts that arise, more and more frequent, when thinking about having a second child. I say that they are becoming more frequent because the socioeconomic situation is becoming more complicated and the support for couples to try to increase birth rates is nil.
The majority of couples would have more than one child, however there are many who end up having only one, without ever taking the step for the second, and there is always the question of what happens if in the end a couple stays with only one child, which is what we are going to talk about today.
"Woman, having only one is selfish"
I have heard it many times, although I have never been told because after the first came the second and after the second, the third. Many couples, many women, receive one of those unsolicited opinions when they say they probably stay with only one child: "Woman, having only one is selfish".
Selfish, I suppose that because the couple, with all the doubts (or some) of those commented yesterday, ends up deciding to have only one child, when they could be supportive or altruistic (the opposite of selfish) and bring another child into the world. Solidarity with that second child, perhaps, although I don't know how you can be supportive of someone who doesn't even exist. They may refer to being with the world in general, with the population, but I don't see why a person has to think before in society than in himself, or in his family unit.
All this to say that neither selfish nor supportive, madrassa nor madrassa. Every couple has to have the children you want to have, those you feel you can raise and educate and those who make you happy. A son gives a lot of work, he is madly loved, but he gives a lot of work. Two children give much more, logically, and three I don't even tell you (and more than three, imagine). That is why each couple must decide how many to have and nobody should make any judgment about it.
What does it mean to have only one child
Having only one child means spending a few years dedicating yourself body and soul to him and then, after 3 or 4 years, see that you are recovering your life, your hobbies and your time. All this as the child takes autonomy, and as he begins to do activities outside the home, such as school, sports, some extracurricular, etc.
With only one child left enough time to share with him, to look for activities to do with him and with the couple, since he can quickly adapt to the rhythm of the parents and in general it means that in the medium or long term, life does not change so much for the family unit.
As Miriam, my wife, and I often comment, if we only had Jon, how many things we would do and how easy it would be. Because Jon is now 7 years old, he goes to school, sports, is polite, you can talk with him perfectly, you can explain things to him and he is always willing to learn and does not have too many problems with spending only long periods (although it is a consequence that in house there are two brothers smaller than him).
What does it mean for the child not to have siblings
"What a pity, you don't give him a little brother," says the very mania phrase. Well, it may be a shame or it may not be, depending on how parents approach education. Having a brother is positive for children because the relationship between parents and children is different than the relationship between siblings. Parents make decisions that concern their children, sometimes without their consent, denying them things we believe they cannot have or doing, and allowing them things we believe they can have or do.
A brother does not exercise that power of control over the brothers (it could happen, if the older brother becomes too responsible for the care of the child, but is not constant, and in fact not recommended to assume that role), in which he decides when the another may or may not do something, and in the same way, a brother does not have to give in to the same things that parents do, since they can get to move for a common interest and compete with each other.
In other words, having a brother helps to socialize because two brothers create bonds of trust, but they also create discussions, compete with each other, share moments, joys, sorrows, fight, reconcile, leave things, take them away, etc. All these things will hardly be done by adults, basically because we are at another level. We deny and allow otherwise. We would never compete with our children (beyond a game, of course) or fight with them to play with what they have in their hands and, probably, we would yield more throughout the day than what a brother gives.
However, if the parents are aware of this, if they take into account that at home there is only the child (and girl) and that by not interacting more than with adults, there is a risk that they are too accustomed to getting the things of a child way too easy, They can look for activities to share time with other children, in parks, pointing to some sport, extracurricular, in the same school or, also with parents, going to campsites or places like this where children are free to meet and share time.
With a conscious education in this regard, and leading a parenting style based on communication, respect and trust (to avoid falling into permissiveness, that can make the one who ends up saying what is done and what is not done in home is the child), a child can be as or more sociable and as or more balanced than other children with siblings. In fact, we already mentioned this a while ago, based on a study that showed that being an only child does not affect sociability.
Are you still having doubts?
It is very possible that despite all the doubts remain there, installed in the head, without finding a reason that gives weight to one of the sides of the balance to make the final decision. You are not alone, you are not alone. We have all doubted on more than one occasion before expanding the family.
I commented yesterday in a comment from the other entry, but I take this opportunity to comment here too, and not to do the same as me, but to see simply how we came to decide that we would have the third child. Miriam, my wife, and I, we talk so many times about having a third child or not, we imagine so many times with him, growing up being five, and without him, growing up being four, that a few days was yes and other days it was no. The head fumed and in the end we decided by pure logic: "If we doubt so much, we have to have it, because of having a child you will never regret it, but of not having it maybe yes". And from that moment on we decided that yes, we would have a third child.
