We're happy here, but I haven't read 23 pages worth of responses to find out whether we are the exception or the rule. I grew up in this area too so maybe I'm just used to it. It is a bit abnormal in the sense that a disproportionate number of people are highly educated, highly motivated, highly competitive, but I think this area has a lot to offer including a great variety of jobs in diverse fields, lower unemployment than a lot of the country, lots of cultural and natural opportunities, and, depending where you live, high-quality public education.

We work 40 hour weeks (my DH sometimes longer hours than mine, although used to be the reverse!) and we both commute about 20-25 minutes (although mine is 45 minutes in the afternoon when I pick up 2 kids from different locations). We bought our house 10 years ago and thankfully have a low mortgage; we sacrificed space for location when we bought a home in order to avoid a horrible commute and also to have access to good public schools. We love our neighbors, we love being close to the city (we live in Arlington) and we are both happy in our jobs. Sorry things are not good for you but we can't think of a better place for our family to be.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It remains to be seen whether RTC or Tysons, or White Flint will be retrofitted properly. Everything we've seen up until this point has shown that they're incapable of executing. Also, it's a bit of a fallacy to think that tomorrow's "biotech execs" are going to be as enamored of McMansions and sprawl as today's Baby Boomers are.

Retrofitted properly? Not sure what that means, but RTC seems pretty nice to me an the revitalized downtown Silver Spring seems to be doing it right. It's got a Metro stop, Discovery is headquartered there, lots of restaurants, diverse types and price ranges of housing and a nice mix of ethnicities. You may be right about people being over sprawl, but the reason sprawl developed in the first place was peoples' desire for a comfortable environment. I question whether that desire will be any less pronounced in the future, even if the cost of attaining it becomes higher.

Not trying to take a side in suburbs vs city debate but I must point out that the reason sprawl developed was because government policies encouraged the growth of suburbs. There's a reason that some European cities have wonderful downtowns and poor suburbs whereas it's the reverse in many US cities. Didn't happen by accident or nature but by government policy. I'm not criticizing you, pp. Just trying to point out that we often assume that develop patterns were "natural" when actually they are the result of clear government policies.

True, but state and local governments around the country implemented srawl producing policies because that's what their constituents wanted. The wealthy have long been able to have homes in both the city and the country. Everyone wants an escape from the stresses of city living. The desire for a spacious, green, more relaxed suburban home springs from the same impulse that the rich have always had the luxury of satisfying. In America, we're blessed with enough space to be able to allow middle class families to realize these desires if they want. Few European countries have the space. I'm sure we've all marvelled at how effective many European countries are at tightly controlling development outside their cities and at how green and unspoiled much of the area outside cities remains. But we've also marvelled at how tiny the homes are for the price and how you have to be truly wealthy to have a spacious country home in most of W. Europe. I lived for several years in London and I have to say that if you want to live reasonably close to the city but have any amount of greenery in your yard, you pay a heck of a lot more for it there than here. I agree that spawl isn't particularly environmentally friendly, but it has produced a higher standard of living for Americans than you'll find among W. Europeans of similar education, income and achievements.

Anonymous wrote:

Guess what? Since I've had DS 7 months ago, I've been there a grand total of once, which involved major coordination of "I put the baby to bed, then you take over, I go have dinner and try to be home before midnight".

This constitutes "major coordination?" Wow. Parenthood is going to be very difficult for you.

I think the PP was trying to make a point that when you have a kid, your priorities are different and that you have other things to think about than when to go out to be seen and eat at a trendy restaurant.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It remains to be seen whether RTC or Tysons, or White Flint will be retrofitted properly. Everything we've seen up until this point has shown that they're incapable of executing. Also, it's a bit of a fallacy to think that tomorrow's "biotech execs" are going to be as enamored of McMansions and sprawl as today's Baby Boomers are.

Retrofitted properly? Not sure what that means, but RTC seems pretty nice to me an the revitalized downtown Silver Spring seems to be doing it right. It's got a Metro stop, Discovery is headquartered there, lots of restaurants, diverse types and price ranges of housing and a nice mix of ethnicities. You may be right about people being over sprawl, but the reason sprawl developed in the first place was peoples' desire for a comfortable environment. I question whether that desire will be any less pronounced in the future, even if the cost of attaining it becomes higher.

Not trying to take a side in suburbs vs city debate but I must point out that the reason sprawl developed was because government policies encouraged the growth of suburbs. There's a reason that some European cities have wonderful downtowns and poor suburbs whereas it's the reverse in many US cities. Didn't happen by accident or nature but by government policy. I'm not criticizing you, pp. Just trying to point out that we often assume that develop patterns were "natural" when actually they are the result of clear government policies.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Your assumption, though, PP, is that she is mourning the loss of a possible sibling, NOT the loss of having a pregnancy and a biological child of your own. Your glib question about adoption was offensive in that it is completely uninformed.

Your logic continues to fail. "Thousands of families adopt every year." Thousands of families have bio children every year. Doesn't make it possible or right for every family.

Further, I am not sure if you are the sam poster who seems to insist that it is better to have a team of children and live in the burbs rather than one and the city, but whoever is saying this is ridic.

First, it is not always about not wanting your life to be overly child centered. It maybe about being grateful that you are past the baby stage and can have some of your own life again? So...

I may be financial reasons--you can afford one, but not more, regardless of where you live.

You like living in the city or in small places, and have some perspective and know that not having siblings is not going to ruin your child.

And I have some perspective about adopting a child when it's not possible to have another biologically. Few people mourn simply not being able to become pregnant. Pregnanyc, if all goes well, leads to a child. And I do understand the longing for a biological child. I also understand that it is entirely possible to overcome the idea that a biological child is the only acceptable way to build a family and love an adopted child just the same as a biological child. While I am not the original poster, I didn't see any reference in that post to anyone having "teams" of children. I did see a reference to the benefits of children having siblings. I also think that's a benefit well worth considering. Of course a child doesn't "need" siblings, anymore than a child "needs" to attend a tony private school or a top public school. But people try to provide these things for their children because they believe they'll benefit the child. I'm suggesting that having siblings provides life long benefits that are important to consider. Not only do siblings help a child learn how to compromise with others, resolve conflicts and cope with not being the center of attention, but they also form a life long support network that becomes increasingly impotant when parents become older and need support from their children. There's more to consider than just whether the two parents want more than one child to optimize their own child raising experience.

Guess what? Since I've had DS 7 months ago, I've been there a grand total of once, which involved major coordination of "I put the baby to bed, then you take over, I go have dinner and try to be home before midnight".

This constitutes "major coordination?" Wow. Parenthood is going to be very difficult for you.

Your assumption, though, PP, is that she is mourning the loss of a possible sibling, NOT the loss of having a pregnancy and a biological child of your own. Your glib question about adoption was offensive in that it is completely uninformed.

Your logic continues to fail. "Thousands of families adopt every year." Thousands of families have bio children every year. Doesn't make it possible or right for every family.

Further, I am not sure if you are the sam poster who seems to insist that it is better to have a team of children and live in the burbs rather than one and the city, but whoever is saying this is ridic.

First, it is not always about not wanting your life to be overly child centered. It maybe about being grateful that you are past the baby stage and can have some of your own life again? So...

I may be financial reasons--you can afford one, but not more, regardless of where you live.

You like living in the city or in small places, and have some perspective and know that not having siblings is not going to ruin your child.

Anonymous wrote:^ Is this question for real? As if adoption is as easy as going to the store to pick up a new baby when you couldn't make one on your own. Idiot.

And one and done is fine, for whatever reason. Kids absolutely do not siblings.

Adoption isn't easy, but who said it should be? Raising kids isn't easy. Yet thousands of families do manage to adopt each year. She said she was mourning over her inability to have another child biologically. That suggests a desire to have another child, else why mourn? It's perfectly reasonable to ask if she considered adoption as an alternative.

And you can save the snarky name calling. If you're so easily offended by the question, then don't participate in the discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you proposing that I have another child even though neither I nor my husband really wants one? We are very good parents to one, but know ourselves well enough to know we might not be to more than one. As one benefit to having one is that we are able to live in a place that we really like but could not afford with more than one, should we disregard our feelings about what will work best for our family and have another anyway?

Every family has to make the choice that's best for them. For us, making sure our kids grow up with siblings was really important. That meant moving to a suburb with top public schools rather than staying in DC and sending a single child to a private school. I'm not sure what factors go into concluding that you might not be a good parent to more than one child, other than that your lifestyle then becomes completely child centered in a way it doesn't have to with a single child, but better to stick with one than to have more than you feel you can responsibly handle.

^ Is this question for real? As if adoption is as easy as going to the store to pick up a new baby when you couldn't make one on your own. Idiot.

And one and done is fine, for whatever reason. Kids absolutely do not siblings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

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.

And I think it's a shame that you are so stupid, and self-righteous to boot. "Most of the folks I know" who decided to stop at one did so for very sound, very personal reasons that are nobody else's business. Why don't you just stick to hauling your 8 kids around in an SUV in your plastic suburb in your oh-so "real" and enlightened life??

Before you judge, realize that there are some women who don't have a second pregnancy for medical reasons. I'm still mourning this, and comments such as yours sting.

Have you ruled out adoption?