I haven't figured out how people raise children in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though we chose to have two children, some people only want one. Whoever keeps dragging up that argument about having more just needs to deal with it.

If you are so caught up in other people's family dynamics, life is obviously very, very hard for you. I suspect you are overwhelmed with how ever many you have and are taking out on others. Either way you really need to get a life.

Uh . . . sure. Except this is a forum about parenting and the choices and trade offs people make. The purpose is to discuss family dynamics with other people. If you find that too intrusive, then don't participate. This excessive defensiveness about choosing to have one or more children is unwarranted. I find it interesting that none of those carping on about how their choice to have a single child was best for them, their lives, their preferences, etc. have not spoken to whether they considered whether it is also best for the child. I suspect that's what most of the heavy pushback is about.

Look, the time is past when women were expected to stay home and crank out kids. Unless you're expected to produce an heir to the throne, no one realy gives a toss about how many kids you have. So stop carrying on as if the very idea of questioning why someone would have only one child is an attack.

There are a few rude comments on this thread about people who chose to have one child. I'm not one of those people, so not being defensive, but simply calling someone else out for being an ass. You are right that people have can post anything they want on a discussion forum, just as I can call them out for their weird hang-ups. Sorry, but there is no sane reason for harping on families who chose to have one child. There could be medical, financial, or just "one and done" reasoning. It's no one else's business and acting like it is, or acting like it's appropriate to criticize them for it, is crazy. It's just very clear that people who can't accept that some people don't want they want is their hang up. It's inappropriate, and yes, weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There are a few rude comments on this thread about people who chose to have one child. I'm not one of those people, so not being defensive, but simply calling someone else out for being an ass. You are right that people have can post anything they want on a discussion forum, just as I can call them out for their weird hang-ups. Sorry, but there is no sane reason for harping on families who chose to have one child. There could be medical, financial, or just "one and done" reasoning. It's no one else's business and acting like it is, or acting like it's appropriate to criticize them for it, is crazy. It's just very clear that people who can't accept that some people don't want they want is their hang up. It's inappropriate, and yes, weird.

Oh come on already! You're the one being an ass. People who don't have kids don't get bent out of shape when asked why they don't want them. My brother simply says he's happy pursuing his life goals and doesn't have time for or interest in kids. I have college friends who've made the same choice. Do I think they're missing out on a rewarding part of life? Yes. Does it follow that I "can't accept" their choice? No. Are they defensive and irritable if I ask if they ever regret not having kids? No, just as I'm not when they ask how I can possibly be happy living in a cul de sac in suburbia. If you're content with your life choices, you aren't defensive when discussing them.

Apparently it's OK to ask why people don't have kids. And it's acceptable to ask why people do have kids. It's also acceptable to ask why someone has an unusually large number of kids; people ask that question all the time at my office and my co-worker (who has five boys) doesn't fly off the handle about people judging him. But apparently, it's not acceptable to ask why someone chooses to have only one kid. Why should that question be treated as a taboo or provoke such a furious response and a bunch of juvenile name calling? It's silly. The question is not an attack on anyone's lifestyle or an inability to accept their choices. Seems to me the only reason you get unprovoked hostility in response to that question is because people feel defensive about it. Now why might that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are a few rude comments on this thread about people who chose to have one child. I'm not one of those people, so not being defensive, but simply calling someone else out for being an ass. You are right that people have can post anything they want on a discussion forum, just as I can call them out for their weird hang-ups. Sorry, but there is no sane reason for harping on families who chose to have one child. There could be medical, financial, or just "one and done" reasoning. It's no one else's business and acting like it is, or acting like it's appropriate to criticize them for it, is crazy. It's just very clear that people who can't accept that some people don't want they want is their hang up. It's inappropriate, and yes, weird.

Oh come on already! You're the one being an ass. People who don't have kids don't get bent out of shape when asked why they don't want them. My brother simply says he's happy pursuing his life goals and doesn't have time for or interest in kids. I have college friends who've made the same choice. Do I think they're missing out on a rewarding part of life? Yes. Does it follow that I "can't accept" their choice? No. Are they defensive and irritable if I ask if they ever regret not having kids? No, just as I'm not when they ask how I can possibly be happy living in a cul de sac in suburbia. If you're content with your life choices, you aren't defensive when discussing them.

Apparently it's OK to ask why people don't have kids. And it's acceptable to ask why people do have kids. It's also acceptable to ask why someone has an unusually large number of kids; people ask that question all the time at my office and my co-worker (who has five boys) doesn't fly off the handle about people judging him. But apparently, it's not acceptable to ask why someone chooses to have only one kid. Why should that question be treated as a taboo or provoke such a furious response and a bunch of juvenile name calling? It's silly. The question is not an attack on anyone's lifestyle or an inability to accept their choices. Seems to me the only reason you get unprovoked hostility in response to that question is because people feel defensive about it. Now why might that be?

I'm going to requote the person I was thinking of, who called it shameful that people "limit" themselves to one child. This is has nothing to do with whatever point you are making about your brother. If you accept his choice, great for you, I have a few friends who have chosen not to have kids and they get shit for ALL THE TIME. They've been called "selfish" to their face. Again, it's people being hung up on other's life choices for no reason. Sure, there are people who don't care, which I think is healthy. My point is that there are clearly people who are assholes about it. And many people have called them out on this thread, and every time this topic comes up on DCUM, which is often.

"I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though we chose to have two children, some people only want one. Whoever keeps dragging up that argument about having more just needs to deal with it.

If you are so caught up in other people's family dynamics, life is obviously very, very hard for you. I suspect you are overwhelmed with how ever many you have and are taking out on others. Either way you really need to get a life.

Uh . . . sure. Except this is a forum about parenting and the choices and trade offs people make. The purpose is to discuss family dynamics with other people. If you find that too intrusive, then don't participate. This excessive defensiveness about choosing to have one or more children is unwarranted. I find it interesting that none of those carping on about how their choice to have a single child was best for them, their lives, their preferences, etc. have not spoken to whether they considered whether it is also best for the child. I suspect that's what most of the heavy pushback is about.

Look, the time is past when women were expected to stay home and crank out kids. Unless you're expected to produce an heir to the throne, no one realy gives a toss about how many kids you have. So stop carrying on as if the very idea of questioning why someone would have only one child is an attack.

For me, it is not defensiveness. It is annoyance with the forehead-smacking obstinacy of the sibling argument. It is not always better for children to have siblings. It is just not. Not all of us love our siblings and feel they contributed something meaningful to our lives. The kind of relationship your adult children are going to have is unpredictable. So having another child that a parent cannot financially and/or emotionally afford so the first can have a playmate or a friend when he is older is ridiculous.

And for every argument you like to make about the joys of multiple parenting, I could argue the other side: emotional, financial, and time resources are stretched thinner for each additional child. Siblings do not get the same kind of attention they would as singletons and they suffer from first, youngest, and middle child syndromes--after all, birth order has been shown to have sometimes negative psychological impacts. I COULD say all that, but I wouldn't, because I recognize that there is no right answer to how many children each family should have.

You, on the other hand, seem to feel that parents are choosing their own lives and happiness over the lives of their child by not providing an on demand play mate for their only children. You seem to believe that parents haven't considered what is best for their children because they did not make the same decision as you did or would.

My only has a great network of friends and family--cousins, close friends of over 20 years and their children, and access to a superb city and ALL of my financial and emotional resources.

So how is that NOT best for my children? Believe it or not, your child can have a very happy life outside of some far flung suburb with a cul de sac and multiple siblings.

Why do you insist on this ridiculous meme?

I so agree with this post. And we have more than one, but debated whether to continue for all these very valid reasons.

[Anonymous]

Well ... the reason I made my classification was to point out that "raising kids in the DC area" can mean one of a number of things.

Even "raising children in DC (proper)" can refer to raising a kid in Georgetown/Dupont, or to Palisades/Kent, or to Brookland/Shepherd Park, or to Columbia Heights, or to Fairfax Gardens/Anacostia. I don't think anyone would pretend those are similar.

Moving further out, I live a block away from Old Town Leesburg. Am I doing things the same way (or even have the same priorities) as someone in a half-finished Ashburn development?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm going to requote the person I was thinking of, who called it shameful that people "limit" themselves to one child. This is has nothing to do with whatever point you are making about your brother. If you accept his choice, great for you, I have a few friends who have chosen not to have kids and they get shit for ALL THE TIME. They've been called "selfish" to their face. Again, it's people being hung up on other's life choices for no reason. Sure, there are people who don't care, which I think is healthy. My point is that there are clearly people who are assholes about it. And many people have called them out on this thread, and every time this topic comes up on DCUM, which is often.

Hmmmm. Could that be because this is a forum for people who have kids? Do you honestly think the tone wouldn't be the reverse if this were a forum for people who were single and loving it? I wonder why you insist that people have to be hung up on other peoples' choices just because they want to discuss them?

And raising kids does involve putting other's needs before your own. To the extent that you don't want to do that, then yes, you're being selfish - i.e. principally concerned with yourself and your well being. My brother says plainly that he's too selfish to have kids. However you characterize it, that's what it boils down to. I think it bears discussing because lots of attitudes flow from that. People who don't have kids are often (not always) as invested in the future. They're less likely to support the cost of paying for public services for children - like schools and libraries. They're also less likely to support child friendly work policies.

Let me be clear: many people should not be parents so it's a good thing that those who are unsuited don't have kids. But I don't think you need to appoint yourself as the advocate and defender of people who have chosen to remain childless.

[Anonymous]

Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

Well, I wholeheartedly agree that having a sibling can be a good thing for a child, but that doesn't mean parents should have more children than they want to give their child a sister or a brother. How is that fair to the new sibling?

[Anonymous]

NP here. PP, I don't believe it is mutually exclusive. You can care for two as much as you can care for one. It does seem hyper defensive to me; and clear that one child is a compromise between the parent who wanted kids and the one who did not. As long as the DC does not find out which is whcih!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm going to requote the person I was thinking of, who called it shameful that people "limit" themselves to one child. This is has nothing to do with whatever point you are making about your brother. If you accept his choice, great for you, I have a few friends who have chosen not to have kids and they get shit for ALL THE TIME. They've been called "selfish" to their face. Again, it's people being hung up on other's life choices for no reason. Sure, there are people who don't care, which I think is healthy. My point is that there are clearly people who are assholes about it. And many people have called them out on this thread, and every time this topic comes up on DCUM, which is often.

Hmmmm. Could that be because this is a forum for people who have kids? Do you honestly think the tone wouldn't be the reverse if this were a forum for people who were single and loving it? I wonder why you insist that people have to be hung up on other peoples' choices just because they want to discuss them?

And raising kids does involve putting other's needs before your own. To the extent that you don't want to do that, then yes, you're being selfish - i.e. principally concerned with yourself and your well being. My brother says plainly that he's too selfish to have kids. However you characterize it, that's what it boils down to. I think it bears discussing because lots of attitudes flow from that. People who don't have kids are often (not always) as invested in the future. They're less likely to support the cost of paying for public services for children - like schools and libraries. They're also less likely to support child friendly work policies.

Let me be clear: many people should not be parents so it's a good thing that those who are unsuited don't have kids. But I don't think you need to appoint yourself as the advocate and defender of people who have chosen to remain childless.

Based on your previous posts, I would suggest you fall into that group.

[Anonymous]

Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

[Anonymous]

Forget it. This poster, and others, are living in la la land. Take the poster above who claims that it is "clear that one child is a compromise between the parent who wanted kids and the one who did not."

An excellent illustration of breathtaking stupidity and generalization.

[Anonymous]

"As far as the school question: the "best public schools" are a function of socioeconomic class. The poor are moving out of DC; in 10-15 years it'll be a largely upper-middle class enclave. The regional school picture will be radically different by that time. These trends are self-amplifying.
"
How does that help any of us who don't work in DC and have children in elementary school now? In 10 years, I can live anywhere.

[Anonymous]

I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

[Anonymous]

"Because it sucks and a reverse commute is manageable so why not live where all the good stuff is? I'm talking about the city in case you are wondering what 'good stuff' actually denotes. Central not Chick Fil-A. "

Um, do you have older children? I'm lucky to find time for a nice meal about 5 times a year, and I can easily get to Central from Falls Church. Parenting preteens doesn't leave much time for the "good stuff," as you put it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But adopting a child can have a huge financial and emotional toll that many people aren't prepared for, and it has nothing to do with thinking bio is the only acceptable way to go. of course it is not. But adopting is not an easy feat, not by a long shot.

You continue to sound uninformed when you make statements like "There's more to consider than just whether the two parents want more than one child to optimize their own child raising experience." Even if you are correct--what is wrong with having only one child and being the best parent you can be?

Esp. since having siblings is no guarantee of the this multitude of things you promise. I have a 4 year old who is in preschool and has play dates a few times a week. He is learning plenty of conflict resolution.

I grew up with an older brother an younger sister. I am lucky if I talk to them once a year. We just are three different people who don't like each other very much.

So why should I have extra kids, make my parenting experience less, make my child's experience less, when I don't need to? Because you have some half baked idea of how great siblings ALWAYS are?

I love that my child is growing up in a great city with all it has to offer, a wonderful community, and none of the suburban baggage I grew up with.

Different strokes, folks.

You don't like your siblings. That's all you needed to say.