I remember reading sometime late last century that the Chinese were producing a generation of Little Emperors.

It's important to learn to share from a young age. Pic: Robert McKell

The only child of two loving parents was indulged by four grandparents, who directed all their love and spare cash to their only grandson.

Perhaps even competing against each other a bit and seeing who could take their grandson to McDonalds first or most or give him the most expensive gadget.

The end result was a generation of what they called ‘Little Emperors’ or ‘Fat Emperors’.

I only have one child. So I’ve been aware of the spoiling thing, mostly because my friends with two or more children keep mentioning it. But I know we can be free with the love and discipline and hold back on the other stuff, and I ask everyone around her to be the same.

David Koch raised the issue (pardon the pun) of one-child families and a UK psychological study that found kids would prefer to come from one-child families.

I have one older brother, who knew every corporal torture method ever devised. So I sympathise with why some kids might say they’d prefer not to have a sibling. From the age of 12 to 18, I was given dead legs, crows pecks, cheese cutters (not that one, the one where they flick their hand down your backside to sting you) and general bashes, kicks and trips. I was black and blue until I left home.

The ‘only child is spoiled’ myth has been around for some time. Recently Lauren Sandler discussed this in Time Magazine. There is this expectation that, unless you are challenged in the fertility stakes, you will have more than one child because only children are spoilt and don’t get along with other kids.

According to Sandler the myth came about 120 years ago following a few studies by child psychologist Granville Stanley Hall. One of these studies, ‘Of Peculiar and Exceptional Children’, described the subjects, who were only children, as oddballs and permanent misfits.

Despite Hall’s methodology being questioned in future studies, his research pretty much set up the myth about only children. And even when subsequent psychologists have tried to reverse this myth, the media doesn’t want to pick it up.

Why? Dunno. But there are some theories we needed the kids on the farm or in the factories.

Only children fascinate me because I come from a WASP family of two children. It’s my opinion that parents can make as many, if not more, mistakes with two or three or four children as they can with one.

From my perspective, the upside to my brother’s pain management protocol was when I was picked on at school, I knew being called a skinny, white ghost would never hurt as much as a corked thigh or a random crows peck.

There was never any ‘look after your sister’ in our house. It was ‘fight your own battles’. As a result, we didn’t play together. I spent time with my friends and when they weren’t around I would play alone. Similarly my brother spent time with friends or alone.

As a result, I am as happy working in a group as I am alone and without supervision. Something a lot of job interviewers don’t really get.

My ‘little empress’ is anything but. She knows she has to get to my lap before the cat, the dog will probably take her couch and chew her toys if she doesn’t pick them up, and that her mum sometimes works at the computer and her dad in the yard.

And she calls her daycare leaders ‘Miss’.

264 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Daniel says:

      06:20am | 17/11/10

      The answer is no more than two. China had it almost right we need to put a cap on population growth so that your children’s children have an earth to live on. Having children is primarily a selfish decision. I know this is off topic but more than two is bloody selfish.

    • Super D says:

      07:34am | 17/11/10

      Where is the earth going?  WIll it somehow disappear if every couple has more than two children?  Having children is not a selfish decision.  It’s a completely normal decision.  To decide not to have children when you would otherwise be able to is an abnormal decision.

    • Daniel says:

      08:09am | 17/11/10

      Having children is something you do because you want them. You do it for your own desire. Primarily selfish. I am not saying it is wrong, just selfish, and overpopulating the planet is bloody selfish. Of course the damage being done will not be experienced by us in our lifetime so it doesn’t matter.

    • The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

      09:00am | 17/11/10

      Not in Australia, it isn’t. We need to populate from within or we will gradually be subsumed by others. It is happening already.

    • KH says:

      09:13am | 17/11/10

      Super D - what do you mean, where is the earth going?  How much of it do you think we can live on?  There is only so much land that can be lived on, and still have enough to produce food.  Then there is the water situation.  Not to mention pollution and the subsequent problems that brings.  More people = Less earth.  Eventually there will be a point at which it will no longer be sustainable.  I guess nature will have its way and kill off a couple of billion with starvation - right after a few million are lost through the wars caused as people become desperate for food and water.  Glad you are looking forward to that…......

      Secondly - how dare you suggest it is ‘abnormal’ not to have children just because you can.  What utter nonsense.

    • Barry says:

      09:25am | 17/11/10

      Pfffffff one of the main reasons people use condoms is to control births, because they don’t want the inconvience of having children disrupting their daily lives, or sucking up their material possessions.  Noone says “Look I don’t want children because I am generally concerned about the overpopulation of the earth”.  What a load of tosh.

    • Duff says:

      10:00am | 17/11/10

      Oh yes, Daniel.  Your selfish greedy parents gave birth to you, clothed you, fed you, educated you, loved you and wiped your dirty bottom just so they could selfishly bask in the fabulous awesomeness that is You.  Nasty selfish parents.  We hates them.

    • Richard says:

      10:21am | 17/11/10

      Uh uh, you are soooo wrong Daniel, didn’t you hear what Peter Costello said? 1 for mum, 1 for dad and 1 for the country. Pretty sure he knew what he was talking about.

    • Super D says:

      10:51am | 17/11/10

      @Daniel - I don’t suppose you consider it selfish to demand others conform to your misanthropic world view?

      @KH - I am of the view that via nuclear powered desalination we can have as much water as we want.  Alternatively we can have as much scarcity as we want.

    • Mario says:

      11:25am | 17/11/10

      How can having more than two children be selfish. The more you have, the more you have to give. We call it unconditional love. Having one child would be more selfish as you have more time for yourself. But, look, some people don’t know what to do with their time and worry about things that might never happen. AND THAT’S WHAT I CALL SELFISH!!!

    • Daniel says:

      11:27am | 17/11/10

      Barry, I’d like to introduce to you to Laura further down the page.

      Richard, Peter Costello cares about the economy and how to pay for pensions for the aging population. Increasing the population exponentially is a ponzi scheme.

      And Duff, my parents decision to have a baby was for their need and desire to have children. You can’t believe how strong my parents want me to have kids just so they will carry on the family name. Also thanks for recognising my awesomeness!

    • Tim says:

      11:40am | 17/11/10

      Duff,
      having trouble reading?
      Obviously after people have children they mostly aren’t selfish in looking after them but Daniel’s point was that the DECISION to have them most definitely is selfish.

    • Beck says:

      12:15pm | 17/11/10

      Barry, just like nobody has children just so that they can wipe someone else’s ar*e when they’re old. But that’s often the argument trotted out to childfree people by parents who can’t understand the choice to not have kids.

      I think we’re all guilty of making slightly false statments when justifying our choices. It would be nice if no one felt the need to justify their choice at all.

      PS. I don’t want kids, just because.

    • MelD says:

      12:24pm | 17/11/10

      Daniel, given that a lot of people in this country are not having kids through choice or circumstance we hardly need population control, there were a lot more chinese people popping out kids than there are aussie’s doing it, lighten up.

      we could always populate space ala doctor who lol

    • Beka says:

      12:27pm | 17/11/10

      I agree. I believe in negative population growth. We need to get down to a more manageable level before bringing more people into this world to suffer. (I’d like to clarify here - I obviously don’t want no breeding, or we’d die out. But those who are conscientious should think about not having children so those who are oblivious can.) Sure, here in Australia we might be fine continuously growing, but there are already millions upon millions of people in the world who are literally starving to death. Those who think it’s fine to bring more people into this world when those resources could be used to help the people who are already here are incredibly selfish, in my opinion.

      Sure, I’d love to have a kid with my eyes and sense of humour, but I’d rather adopt or foster a child who’s already here. I might get flamed for this, but I think it’s almost the same as with cats and dogs. Adopt, don’t breed.

    • Damian says:

      01:25pm | 17/11/10

      Daniel.
      Having children is primarily a selfish decision.More than two is bloody selfish. WTF. How narrow minded and stupid are you? Unmarried with no kids to I’m guessing.

    • Duff says:

      01:38pm | 17/11/10

      “And Duff, my parents decision to have a baby was for their need and desire to have children.” 
      Yes, their selfish need and desire to bring another human being into the world and spend most of the rest of their life caring for him.  It was all about them, so that’s why you are TOTALLY justified in not doing the same for someone else, because you’re not selfish.  It’s just a coincidence that it means you’ll have more money, more freedom, more legroom on flights and probably lead an easier, happier life.  But thank god for coincidences!

    • Rory says:

      01:56pm | 17/11/10

      One is one to many

    • Daniel says:

      01:57pm | 17/11/10

      Damian, nice ad hominem attack. I gave reasons for my point of view. Also my married/parent status does not affect the validity of my opinion.

    • Wendy says:

      02:20pm | 17/11/10

      I have seen ‘no kid’ couples, singles and ‘small’ families who are environmentally and economically wasteful because they are few.

      If you want to have a large family, make sure you can handle the responsibility of raising and loving your well rounded young people who can contribute and be responsible as they grow. Birth order is not a reflection on capability or responsibility. Their are plenty of intelligent and/or selfish people who don’t want to breed. I am clear that the odd family who choose to go large aren’t going to ruin it for everyone else.

      No one should have unprotected sex if they don’t want children, or want to limit the number of children. Sure have sex, but practise birth control of whatever suits your fancy. I hate seeing parents who don’t parent or love their children.

    • ryan says:

      02:54pm | 17/11/10

      no daniel, the answer is whatever is most suitable for you, taking into consideration all the factors that affect you and your partner, you cannot define what is right for other people, you are bloody selfish yourself and your a hypocrite.
      as for having kids is being selfish, well, no, its not, but sometimes you need to put your own wants first, if you dont have children, you lineage will die and just think, you would have not been born if it wasnt for this so called “selfishness” of your parents.  wakie wakie.
      note: i dont think overpopulation is a good thing.

      as for all you negative people, OUR population in AUSTRALIA is not contributing to over population, our growth is actually decreasing due to a number of factors.
      while everyone has to do their part (which we in australia are doing) there are much bigger contributors than need to pull their head in, stop being so deprecating.

    • Moggy says:

      03:47pm | 17/11/10

      You guys going on about room for more people on this earth, have you flown from Melbourne to Europe via Asia?? There’s massive amounts of uninhabited & uncultivated land out there.  With all the advances in farming techniques this land is quite arable. I am a singer & sometimes sing in aged care facilities & see the heroic lengths to which the nursing staff go to keeping the elderly alive. These poor old folk have no quality of life what-so-ever despite the love & care of the staff, they have to have their nappies changed regularly, they haven’t got a clue where they are & cry out for their families all the time. Most of them can’t even remember their names.  Modern medicine extends life far longer than our bodies are made for, thus the quality of this extended life is usually dreadful & sometimes cruel.  NO I do not believe in euthenasing the elderly, but we need a serious discussion about about how long we should artificially extend the lives of these people after they are well past having any quality of life. We should all write living wills where we stipulate just how long we want to be kept alive by modern medicine & techniques. I have had a serious discussions with my kids about this & my decision is that I don’t want to go into care. I will end my journey when I believe it’s time to.  I don’t believe in fairies, pixies, hell, gods, heaven, little green men or virgin births. It’s time for serious talk about letting the elderly go peacefully, not stopping the young from breeding. I now await with a certain wry mirth for the abuse to be heaped on my grey head.

    • Kika says:

      03:50pm | 17/11/10

      Actually Barry my husband and I haven’t had children for that very reason. We’ve been married 2 years without any plans for one anytime soon. And when we do, we will only be having 1 before I will go in for a hysterectomy. There’s no need to breed - there’s already 6 billion of us on the planet. Why make more? 1 is enough to satisfy the grandparent and great grandparents that their genes will survive

    • Daniel says:

      03:53pm | 17/11/10

      @Duff, I don’t carry any guilt for being born and I don’t feel I owe the world a favour by adding to the mess it is already in. I never said it wasn’t selfish to choose to be childless, actually you made me realise all the great benefits and how awesome my life actually is.

      The main point is that the inhabitants of this planet need to keep a check on our fertility rate because it something that is not sustainable. Sure, have kids but don’t pretend that you are doing it “for the country”. Everybody’s actions play a part of the bigger picture. What I am saying is if you have more that the replacement rate then you are contributing to the problem.

    • Kika says:

      03:58pm | 17/11/10

      Another point - no one asked to be born. So Mario-  saying that it’s by being ‘unselfish’ that you parent and love childre unconditonally is implausible.  How can you be caring and giving to something which doesn’t exist yet?  It’s not like anyone doesn’t understand how babies are born (unless you do?) therefore most people understand how one is made. So two people make a decision to do the deed and presto! A baby! But how come this happens when it’s not planned? Because the drive to do the deed is so programmed into our heads we don’t even realise the actualy biological reason for doing it in the first place. What’s that? GENE PROPOGATION! It’s your genes telling you to breed and take care of children to ensure YOUR genes pass to the next generation. The only exception where I can see people being ‘unselfish’ in caring for children and babies is adoption. That way you are giving a baby love and care which their birth parents couldn’t provide for them. That’s unselfish because it’s not your genes you’re nurturing!

    • Kika says:

      03:59pm | 17/11/10

      Also I am married with no kids! Just because you’re married doesn’t mean you automatically have to breed!!!

    • Daniel's Parents says:

      04:10pm | 17/11/10

      DANIEL!  get off that blasted computer and finish cleaning your room like I asked you to!  How many times do I have to ask you???

      (mumbling) .. I’ll show you “selfish” you ungrateful little…

    • Anne says:

      07:52pm | 17/11/10

      Frankly the environment is the last considerstion on my list for any situation. I just don’t care about it, people like you worry enough about it for the two of us.

    • Barry says:

      08:31pm | 17/11/10

      @ Daniel Thanks for the introduction, but her comment has nothing to do with mine.  The fact remains one of the main reasons people don’t have kids is because they don’t want to use their material possessions on raising kids.  They would rather spend it on themselves.  If you want to do this, that’s fine and dandy, but stating that having children is selfish, while attempting to put not having kids up on a pedestal as unselfish is just plain stupid.  Anyone can say they are not having children to “save” the planet, but is that the real reason?  It might be a part of it, I’ll happily remain skeptical of how big a part that is though . . .

    • Brenda says:

      06:59am | 18/11/10

      Please Daniel and all of your supporters don’t have any children - Australia doesn’t need anymore self absorbed, self centered, blame everybody else, self important wallies like you.  Declining population means that there will not be the tax base to support you when you can no longer wipe your own bot bot and if Heaven forbid you did spawn your kid would be a selfish wally just like you and wont want to have you come live with them because you can’t get a pension and they wont want to wipe your bottom.  Everyone who is so consumed about the planet dying/climate change should do the rest of the population a favour and go top themselves so the rest of us can get on with it.

    • Jess says:

      07:30am | 18/11/10

      You anti-kids people are hilarious. So people who have kids are selfish?! HaHa! have some yourself and you’ll soon see that having children runs the selfishness right out of a person.

      There is no more SELF SACRIFICING thing to do than have kids!!

    • Joe says:

      08:05am | 18/11/10

      The most selfless decision ever is to have a large family

    • Dan says:

      10:09am | 18/11/10

      The Scarlet Pimpernel, of all the reasons, to have more children, xenophobia must surely rank as the lowest of the low. What a hateful reason.

    • Skippy says:

      01:22pm | 20/11/10

      Sorry Daniel I do disagree with you, but won’t beat you up as others have done that.I think Beka put it better, that she doesn’t want to have children just because.
      I have two children, but I wish more ppl could be true to themselves and not have then if they so choose, I respect that a hell of a lot more than 13 year olds poping out kids just to get tax payers dollars and then society raising them. While I generally find child less ppl selfish and a little clueless about the bigger things in life, but I won’t hold that against them - kids teach you not to sweat them small stuff - but I wont hold that against the childless, each to their own. Maybe we should all just live and let live

    • Zaius says:

      10:42pm | 22/11/10

      Procreation is the ‘meaning of life’. You have obviously been drinking from the fountain of liberalism and are suffering from a hard case of ‘existence guilt’.

      Good thing everyone is not as ‘selfish’ as you are, or there would be no more humans on the planet, though that is the ultimate goalof most liberals..An empty planet, full of insects, waiting for the sun to go red dwarf and destroy all traces humanity had ever existed in the first place.

      Great plan, if someone has convinced you that your existence is a detriment to a giant, ever changing rock, that floats through cold, harsh radiation filled environment which routinely extincts species..

    • Daniel says:

      06:59am | 23/11/10

      Once again I need to provide clarity. I never said do not have kids, just don’t pretend that you are doing it for any other reason than your desire to procreate and further your genes existence. It is hard wired in to us. However, world population is increasing at an exponential rate. This puts strain on our resources and increases pollution and carbon into the atmosphere. How selfish must one be to procreate at more than replacement rate and contribute to the demise and suffering of future generations?

      Sure, what difference is one more if you don’t see the consequences in your lifetime, or other people are having more so why can’t you?

      Selfish.

    • Heather says:

      10:05am | 23/11/10

      The entire population of the world could stand, without touching each other, in Greater Melbourne.

      The trouble is not population. The trouble is with the selfish way we use the planet. A closer look at 1980s famines, for example: the difficulty was that people were starving not because their population was unsustainable in regards to land and food production, but because after years of WARLORDS not allowing food production and storage, there was a drought, and what little was produced in the “good” years could not be replicated.

      I have to agree, there, Daniel. People are selfish, no doubt: this example exemplifies that.

      As for me and kids, I feel it’s fair to declare that I am a GenX mother of 6. However, they do all have the same father (just to tout the “welfare mum” myth—even though he was an arse so the police declared it might be a good idea if he didn’t live with us any more, and I agreed wink ) and I have yet to “replace” my ex-husband, myself, and my immediate childless relatives.

      BTW, “China” didn’t decide on the one-child policy. I suggest people check the history. There is (and I’m sure I’ll be lambasted for this) a lot more xenophobia and a lot less altruism in the policy than people think.

    • Nullagravida says:

      03:32pm | 26/11/10

      Noone says “Look I don’t want children because I am generally concerned about the overpopulation of the earth”.

      Equally Barry, no-one says “oh honey I was listening to Senate Estimates today and the Joint Strike Fighters will not be ready in time. We ought to make a taxpayer!” No one breeds with the intention of saving the future of the nation or for my benefit.

      But as per usual, if it has not happened already, somewhere in this forum some self-congratulatory smug baby-maker has trotted out that usual old chestnut that its a one-hunnert-pacent rock solid your-beaut guarantee that *their* little cherubs are the nation’s future army of incredibly altruistic lawyers, corporate leaders, doctors and nurses who will all be rioting in the streets to volunteer to change nappies on geriatrics in nursing homes.

    • Nullagravida says:

      03:44pm | 26/11/10

      Oh dear Duff. The old “what if your parents felt the same way as you?” loaded with all the usual presumptions that are usually aimed at the childfree.  That old chestnut. You breeders need to get some new cliches.

    • Nullagravida says:

      03:50pm | 26/11/10

      just think, you would have not been born if it wasnt for this so called “selfishness” of your parents.  wakie wakie.

      @ ryan. How about you “just think”? Oh, and use some punctuation?

      The old “you would not be here if your parents felt the same way” that the breeders triumphantly trot out like some profound revelation.

      It would be laughable if it were not so inane.

      No, if my parents felt the same way about breeding I would not be here and I would not be aware of that state. But then, you’d be arguing with them.

      It was their choice to have kids, selfish or otherwise, just as it is my choice not to. I am not defined by my parents’ choices. I suspect neither are you, all-lower-case-ryan (and, Duff,  the writer who takes his nom de plume from a fictional beer. )

      See, not so profound after all.

    • Von says:

      07:01am | 17/11/10

      I was an only child of an only child and have an only child.My girl has grown up to have many dear friends and ‘sisters’, she is gregarious, public spirited, smart and cares about others.She is generous and sharing - spoilt? I don’t think so!

    • Steph says:

      02:53pm | 18/11/10

      No parent is going to admit their child is spoiled - that would admit to either a fault in their child or their parenting techniques, and parents wouldn’t see anything they don’t like in their “little angels”. Parents are so proud of their offpsring that even big faults look little and easy to overcome. I’ve noticed Sad mum of one posting often, reassuring everyone her child is wonderful - and I’m not disagreeing with her, but she really wouldn’t be able to see her child any other way. To her, her daughter *is* perfect, because she keeps reiterating that. She’s definitely not the only one - many parents are posting how their darling children could do no wrong. So, would a child of one see their baby as spoiled? No, I don’t think so.

    • jess says:

      07:10am | 17/11/10

      I agree with Daniel, no more than two kids. people who have 5 and 6 kids seem really selfish to me. They eat so much food, use so much water and last along time, surely 2 or 3 at the most is enough? Why keep breeding like dogs? (excuse the pun)... Bogans.

    • Mum of lots says:

      08:22am | 17/11/10

      Sorry Jess, I have 7 children because I wanted them. The same reason others have no children because they don’t want them. Or have 1 because that suits them. Thank you for suggesting I breed like a dog. Or that I could be a closet bogan. Possibly you have save me from an identity crisis.

      I didn’t have the children for money from the government. Last was born before the baby bonus came in.  If I am a bogan I’d better slip off and have a few more, I’m 40 now but with a bit of luck could manage a couple more. What do you think?

      All of my children are well bred, my eldest son has started an apprencticeship and is paying his taxes too. All of us know to keep showers short, we don’t bother with swimming pools, yes they eat a lot of food and no doubt this places stress on the environment. We have one car. We’re quite healthy bogans in that I cook, the children play sundry sports, we walk where we can.  We run an efficient household.

      And whatever do you mean by last along time? They’ll live too long and be a burden to the health system, the tax system or what? Are you talking carbon footprints? Or their perceived inability to earn money? Enlighten me, I’m curious.

    • DaisyDuke says:

      09:53am | 17/11/10

      No matter how “efficient” your household is the Earth cannot continue to sustain this kind of growth.
      If your 7 kids adopt your attitude and each have 7 kids - you have 49 times the population you had 2 generations ago, using 49 times the resources to survive.

    • Richard says:

      10:28am | 17/11/10

      Ah, but resources aren’t finite Daisy Duke. Advances in technology can solve any resource shortage. We may be able to colonise other planets, who knows? Don’t be a chicken-little, be optimistic! (its good for your health if nothing else)

    • The Badger says:

      10:36am | 17/11/10

      @ Richard

      This is the kind of logic the climate change snuffles adopt.

      She’ll be right mate. Anyway won’t be my problem - I’ll be long gone.

    • kat says:

      10:44am | 17/11/10

      mum of lots i am the same, i have 5 kids (none of whom were born after the baby bonus came in), we are a working, contributing household. our kids are well behaved and respectful, do well at school, do a few sports. we grow a lot of our own veggies, chickens, lambs and beef. the kids are never bored with siblings!
      what is the difference between now and 50 - 100 years ago when people were having 10 - 15 kids?

    • Mariposa says:

      10:47am | 17/11/10

      MUM OF LOTS:  It is completely selfish and environmentally irresponsible - it reeks of “as long as I’m getting what I want and my famly are happy, i’m not concerned about others or the rest of the world”. Teaching a large family “green” values still has more impact than having a smaller family - you can find so many studies about this online - sorry to burst your bubble.

      When you look inwardly too much - it is very unhealthy.  Have a greater sense of outside community - do some research on the enviro implications of your choices - ask yourself why you really need a large family.  This isn’t the times when a large family is needed to look after a farming business, for example (which was common in earlier times).  It’s just egotistical self-indulgence.  Maybe you needed some more outside activities/study to fill your time, instead of having kids to keep you busy.

      DaisyDuke:  correct correct correct !

    • Cate P says:

      11:31am | 17/11/10

      Jess, who will be providing all the services you will no doubt expect to have access to during your life?  Who will run the businesses that employ you?  Who will wait on you in restaurants, serve you at shops, fix your car, drive the buses and trains you travel on, look after you when you are sick?  Who will pay the taxes that build and maintain the infrastructure on which our affluent lifestyle is based?  Other peoples’ children.  So who is selfish?  I’d rather be in mum of 7’s family than yours.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:45am | 17/11/10

      “Don’t be a chicken-little, be optimistic! (its good for your health if nothing else) “

      Please go and max our your credit cards and personal loans and see how quickly a finite problem can come back to bite you.  Using your argument, you could just go and win Tattslotto!  Problem solved!

      Urghh….

    • DaisyDuke says:

      11:47am | 17/11/10

      Richard you are right, in fact I think we should go at it like rabbits until they finally get that whole alchemy thing going we can just buy whatever we want.

    • dad says:

      12:25pm | 17/11/10

      wow what a narrow mined view! I had a good laugh after reading this one… nice trolling jess.  I have 4 wonderful kids ranging from 5yrs to 16yrs and I can tell you the more kids you have the less selfish you become.  Our home is a very happy place to be, we also live very close to family so there are always cousins etc having sleep overs.  The house is always (well most of time) full and filled with laughter, I wouldn’t have it any other way.  We’re all very comunity focused and volenteer for most things around our town when required.  To raise a large family takes a lot of time, money, understanding, love and sacrifice, these are certainly not the traits of a selfish person!

    • Country Realist says:

      12:47pm | 17/11/10

      To Jess and Daniel;  Do you use water and leave carbon footprints like the rest of us? If you really think it is selfish to have extra kids then why dont you euthanase yourself for the sake of the planet?  That would be the greatest act of selflesness!

    • Matt says:

      02:48pm | 17/11/10

      Mariposa, Daisy Duke you forget one major detail.

      Not everyone does have 7 children.

      In fact many people don’t have any. Beyond that, I’m pretty sure that Gen Y is going to have even less than those before them. I’m 26, and married with a child, and I have one friend from college my age with a child. I don’t know anyone else my own age with children (I’m sure they’re out there, but obviously not in my social groups).

      So what really matters is the trend. And Australia’s growth trend is supported by some people having 7, and others having 0. It’s actually going reasonably stable.

      However, we immigrate hundreds of thousands of people each year. Now I have no problem with immigration or immigrants, but let’s be clear - it is the cause for our increasing population.

      Of course, we don’t immigrate these people to give them welfare or because we’re such good hearted people. We immigrate them because they have skills we are short on. They come here to work, because we are consuming more than we are producing.

      If you want to get big on sustainability, great! Look at the real problem - the need for perpetual growth for a sustainable economy. Heck, Dick Smith will give you $1m if you can work it out.

      Spouting your ridiculous judgments of others for the number of children they have is unfounded, irrational and completely absurd.

    • DaisyDuke says:

      03:39pm | 17/11/10

      Matt, your are completely ignoring the fact that the Earth has finite resources, and that it is a global problem, not a problem isolated to Australia.

    • MelD says:

      04:39pm | 17/11/10

      Daisy Duke - we are not ignoring it, just leaving the possibility of populating space, wont happen in our time but neither will the destruction of the earth

    • The Hypocritic Oaf says:

      05:08am | 18/11/10

      If any of you are that worried about overpopulation, why don’t you slink off down to the garage with a length of rope. That would be a really unselfish way of addressing the ‘problem’.

    • Skippy says:

      11:49am | 21/11/10

      Jess I agree and I have 5 siblings - while I had a great upbringing and could have not wanted for anything, I shun at the idea of producing as many - we therefore have two. Environmental issues aside, no matter how wonderful your parents are (mine are made of gold) you still cannot in my opinion give all the love, time and devotion to in my parents, case six children. I don’t feel I have ‘issues’ because of this, but upon reflection my mother was a warrior, cooking, cleaning, homework duties etc etc while my father worked 15 hr days so we could have our needs and various wants met. One thing that I will always remember (and this to me sums it up) as we used to huddle round mum for night time stories, and as we all squabbled to sit on her lap, we would pile on and she would soflty say ‘I only have one lap’. You can try and be everything to your kids but I believe at the end of the day you do only have one lap to sit and listen to a child (maybe two). I don’t believe it means children of small families are spoilt, it simply means that as a parent you can only give so much.

    • Single Kids are Delightful says:

      07:20am | 17/11/10

      Single children have many benefits, and are usually well trained in caring and sharing because their parents mostly pay closer attention to their social development than siblings who are left to fight it out between each other.

      The myths around single children no longer apply. From birth to adulthood there are enough social opportunities these days so they can choose when to be alone and when to have company.  Single kids are often quieter, but some of that arises from a strong sense of security.  I think that they are calmer and more observational than kids who are constantly distracted by siblings.
      I suspect your little empress is well-mannered, happy, well-adjusted, loved by all, exceptionally generous in her attitude towards other children,  and has a wonderful future ahead of her.

      And don’t allow anyone to rudely put you on the “only child” guilt trip.  Single children are mostly independent learners, extra capable, confident because they have to think and do things for themselves, and usually rate well on intelligence scales.  Siblings do not always get along together and sometimes they are a source of ongoing misery, including sibling rivalry.  By adulthood, modern-day siblings move to distant towns and lands so their family ties can be permanently broken (if there were any ties in the first instance).  And you rarely hear a single child yearn for a sibling because they are usually very happy as they are.
      What you don’t have you don’t miss.  Especially if your house is routinely filled with other people’s kids who leave for their own homes when it’s time for quiet.
      In a society where adulthood singledom is becoming increasingly popular and where there’s little to no extended family, it’s important that all kids, single or not, learn how to maintain life-long friendships and participate in their community.

    • June says:

      08:32am | 17/11/10

      I’m sorry, I had to respond to this. I want to know what your expertise is, because otherwise your sweeping statements and generalisations are exactly that.

      Modern-day siblings do not always ‘move to distant towns”, and I have 3 friends, all single children, who have told me on several occasions that they envy the close relationship I have with my brother.

      Rather than lump all multiple-children families in the same boat, your arguments would hold much more weight if you examined the impact the age gap between siblings has on their relationships with each other.

      To sum up? I’m one of two kids. After my husband, my brother is my closest and most trusted friend, and I know I’m not alone.

      Qualifications or quit talking.

    • Von says:

      10:37am | 17/11/10

      I’ve known many friends who are only children who’ve said they’d ALWAYS wanted a brother or sister. So I agree with June there, don’t go making sweeping statements.

    • Single Kids are Delightful says:

      11:09am | 17/11/10

      June, don’t be sorry to respond.  I was interested to read your views.  I agree that modern-day siblings do not always move to distant towns, but in many instances the successful ones do. 

      My qualifications are not really any of your business.  I simply offered a polite contribution out of admiration for the many single children I’ve had the pleasure to teach and enjoy their many achievements.  I meant nothing nasty or hurtful to you or anyone else.  Try not to be aggressive.  It’s rather impolite to order anyone who joins in the conversation to “stop talking”.
      If you are fortunate enough to be a mother of one or more children, I do hope you teach them better manners dear.  Just be nice.  That’s the ticket.

    • Redz says:

      11:26am | 17/11/10

      Dear Single Kids, I beg to differ.

      When my eldest was little, I had a miscarriage, contracted cancer from that and it was more than doubtful if we were to ever have more kids. All the same, my son kept asking me when we were going to have a little brother or sister for him because he felt lonely. We constantly had other children around our place to make up for it but in general, he said that that wasn’t the same and he was the happiest child when his little brother arrived. We now have 3 more children and the five get on very well indeed. They are all bright, cheerful children, well-mannered, feel secure in themselves and are doing well at school and with their friendships. You don’t need to be an only child to experience caring parents who pay attention to you and your growing-up.

      We have several friends who for different reasons only have one child each. Invariably, all of their children keep asking why they can’t have siblings. Then again, we also have a few friends whose only children are happy to be only children. I think it really depends on the family and the individual and what they feel comfortable with. Despite living on the other side of this planet, I know I wouldn’t want to miss the fact that I have a sibling.

    • blake says:

      11:45am | 17/11/10

      June you are so well spoken (written) i had to reply to your reply. It is unbelievable how self righteous and inconsiderate it is of Julia Thornton is of all the ‘facts and figuries’ in favour of multiple children, but it would suit her own agenda entirely to disregard ‘all that’ and focus on stiring up c r a p with a highly paid and yet boring and mindless article.
      June you should be a jjourno, you would be so much BETTER than JULIA THORNTON whose poor child should be removed and given to someone less vain and mindless.

    • Emma says:

      12:00pm | 17/11/10

      I am an only child. I should have have 2 younger siblings but those pregnancies didnt last due to mum having ectopic pregnancy both times. I am 28 and have 1 child myself. I often think about another baby so she wont grow up like I did. Sure being an only child you get all the attention and love, but as I have grown up i see my partner with his siblings (he has 5 brother and 1 sister) I often wish that i had someone else in ‘my’ family who will be there for me when my parents are no longer around. Someone who would share my pain and feel the same way. Once my parents are gone, my family will only have my daughter and her father and his side of the family. I often envied friends with brothers or sisters whether the relationship was close or ot, just simply having another person who knows and understands stuff that happens, people to reminisce with. I often wonder what it would have been like for those 2 children to have been born, where we would all be today.

    • NicoleG says:

      12:54pm | 17/11/10

      @blake, so going by that twisted ‘logic’, if you only have one child, you’re vain, mindless and should have your child removed? Good Lord, what a stupid, stupid thing to say. It’s a little early to be on the turps, don’t you think?

    • June says:

      01:20pm | 17/11/10

      @Single Kids are Delightful I apologise, perhaps I should have written ‘qualifications or quit hypothesising’.

      You are correct, your qualifications are none of our business, except that you are stating ‘facts’ like “Single kids are often quieter, but some of that arises from a strong sense of security.” and “By adulthood, modern-day siblings move to distant towns and lands so their family ties can be permanently broken (if there were any ties in the first instance).” without citing references. In fairness, you have used ‘I think’ but not to qualify these particular statements. This generally leads to the presumption that you either have undertaken study in the field, or that you’re taking what you ‘know’ and presuming it stands as true for the rest of us.

      The wording of your post may have been polite ‘Dear’ (a quite impolite use of that word there, kudos!) but your inference really wasn’t. I appreciate that these forums are the perfect opportunity for a bit of passive aggression, and will put my hand up that it’s colouring my response to you, but in my defence you went there first. Feeling a little defensive, perhaps?

      Let’s accept that while some single children are happy with their lot, and some aren’t, just like some of us with siblings are happy also! Alas, I’ve yet to have children (3 miscarriages, I know you didn’t ask, but I feel a need to qualify that), but having observed the people I grew up with, I hope to have two if I can.

      As humans, we (generally) crave companionship. As Emma has so eloquently stated below, she often wonders what she missed out on, and it has the potential to impact on the number of children she in turn will have.

    • wendy says:

      02:24pm | 17/11/10

      I have seen just as many brats from single child families as large. The commitment of a parent does more for a child than whether they do or don’t have siblings.

      Love is not divided but grows. Just as you can love your partner, your parents and your child, so can you love your siblings and ALL of your children.

      Kids don’t miss a thing if they are loved by their parents. The number of kids does not matter.

    • dan says:

      02:50pm | 17/11/10

      @ Single Kids are Delightful - Whilst I would like to have another child, I do agree with you and that is from experience.

      Your comment “By adulthood, modern-day siblings move to distant towns and lands so their family ties can be permanently broken (if there were any ties in the first instance) ” is spot on.  All of my siblings are spread out all over Australia, not one of us are in the same city, let alone the same state.  We also have relatively no ties and never really have.

      Most of my friends are in the same position as me. 

      Whilst I am not unhappy at this situation, I would have liked to have been closer to my brothers and sisters. 

      I think as a whole, families are different now as to what they use to be and we all just need to adapt and appreciate who we are for what we are, and not judge others by how many kids they decide to have.

    • Emma says:

      02:56pm | 17/11/10

      I agree, having one child equals successful and very well adjusted children. I put my very small family as an example; it is common in my family (on both sides) for there to be only one child. My parents broke that trend and had 3 children, all within about 18 months of each other.

      My cousins both had the best education (and achieved the outstanding TEE scores), have both taught english in foriegn countries, have travelled extensively with their parents, can both speak multiple languages and both of them are currently in university with one studying to become a doctor and the other a pharmacist. Their parents were able to invest complete one on one time with them (the mums stayed home) and we able to afford to give them experiences that I could only dream of. These kids are not spoilt little brats, their parents didnt shower them with stuff, they showered them with experiences and opened up so many doors as they had the time and the money to do so.

      My parents were good parents. But with 3 of us they could not afford to give us what our cousins had. I had to fight for attention, fight for help with homework, fight for the funds for activities outside of school etc and was often denied as I am the eldest and my brothers always needed more attention as they were always younger than me (duh, lol). I know that if I was the only child, I would have had better education, more choice of hobbies and probably would have travelled more. Now I am not saying I want everything handed to be on a plate, I am doing the best with what I have and I think am successful given where I came from… but I cant help but wonder what could have been

      I plan on only having one child. In a selfish way its because I still do want to travel, I want my child to excel and I want to be able to give 100% to my child, not the 33.3333333% that my mother had no choice but to give me. I am still yet to convince my partner the same thing, but a recent bust up with his brother, I think he is more inclined to go with my suggestion

    • A Mother says:

      06:38pm | 19/11/10

      Emma, your statement that “one child equals successful and very well adjusted children” could equally apply to children of a large family. Being one of many doesn’t automatically result in them being unsuccessful.
      Cathy Freeman was one of five children; Quentin Bryce, current Governor-General, was one of four daughters; Fred Hollows, pioneering opthalmologist, had three siblings; Rupert Murdoch, media magnate, one of four.
      I could go on but the point is success is based on far more factors than just the number of siblings one has and is often irrespective of wealth (as in Cathy Freeman’s case for example), education and ‘quality time’ with parents.
      I notice you don’t have children yet. For the record, I am one of three and when younger (20) wanted none or only one child. I now have four. My eldest child is autistic. Having a younger sibling, close in age, has been an absolute blessing for him (although that was not a factor in us having more than one child as he wasn’t diagnosed until I was pregnant with our third), and I firmly believe his issues would be more severe without the support of his brother.
      Your post was largely justification for choice to have one child, as is your prerogative (your body, your choice) but I’m suggesting you keep an open mind, and an open heart.

    • Observer says:

      03:39pm | 26/11/10

      @June.

      Unless you can present more than a case study of ONE I’d like to see it, because otherwise your sweeping statements and generalisations are exactly that.

    • GregS says:

      07:27am | 17/11/10

      I grew up in a family of 7 children - not catholic, most of the families in the area I grew up in Sydney had 5-7 kids. My son is an only child.  He benefits from not having hand me down clothes and his own room to sleep in. The state school that he attends has student of the week prizes and the ones he has received of which I am most proud are all associated with being the student who always befriends the new kid, always helps the kid who has been knocked down and hurt and so on. Compared with what I had when I was his age he is probably spoiled, but then so are all his friends from multi-child families. He and his friends regularly do reciprocal sleep overs so he knows how to play with others. I cannot see any discernible difference in the degree to which any of them are “spoiled”. My son is however not upset about sitting in his room and reading a book if none of his friends are around. A little emperer he is not.

    • R says:

      07:30am | 17/11/10

      The assumption is that we have a choice. I didn’t. But it doesn’t stop people judging me.

    • amanda says:

      11:32am | 17/11/10

      Well said R- i only have one child and i am happy, chemo put me in my place in the breeding department. Because we only have one child we can offer him the following things:
      1) Private school education
      2) New clothes and toys
      3) Swimming, sport and music lessons
      4) Overseas holidays
      5) Class room helper
      6) Attending all of his school functions

      None of these things were afforded to me as being a 3rd child there simply wasn’t time, the money or the want i suppose.

      So if these 6 points make him a spoilt child- that’s fine by me!

    • D says:

      11:45am | 17/11/10

      Thank you for this R.  I didn’t have a choice either, but will be eternally grateful for the daughter I have.  I have grown used to people who will always instantly make a snap judgment that she is spoilt simple because she is an ‘only’.

    • Beck says:

      12:21pm | 17/11/10

      I find that the judgemental people are often the one’s with the most issues. Take solace in the fact that if they are judging you then they must have pretty sad, unfulfilling lives.

    • T.Chong says:

      07:32am | 17/11/10

      The cost of housing is a big factor in this issue, specially if more than two of the lit’luns are running about.
      By about 10+ yrs they will want and need separate rooms. 3 or 4 br units / houses get to be pretty damn dear, specially for the good folks of Capital City.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      04:47pm | 17/11/10

      Funny that, I grew up in a family of 4 kids & we had to share a room, in fact being able to share is a good thing for later life & in the workforce.

    • Brendan says:

      07:35am | 17/11/10

      Damn this is self indulgent stuff.

      Your brother was mean to you?  So sad.  Maybe now you’re an adult you can put this behind you?

    • Paul Neri says:

      08:02am | 17/11/10

      I think the victim in parenthood is the bloke. I doubt men want children. And if they do, not at the time they were forced to have them. And they are “forced”. They are dragooned into breeding by the female. Their admittedly weak wills are overborne by the aggressively determined woman. My advice to a young blade is whack a few spermatozoa into a jar and store it in the fridge for possible future use and then race off and get a vasectomy. Probably one of the best decisions you’ll ever make.

    • Davida says:

      08:36am | 17/11/10

      Lucky for men that their mothers “forced” their fathers, “dragooning them into breeding” or they would not exist (nor would their posts, Paul)

    • DH says:

      08:40am | 17/11/10

      Dear Paul Neri, I do like the word ‘dragooned’ and wish it was more widely used. Other than that, I love the premise of your alternate reality science-fiction story and wish you well.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:59am | 17/11/10

      As a woman who doesn’t want kids, I meet more blokes that want them than don’t.  Then they look at me like I’m a freak show because I don’t want them.

      I’d very much like to meet these men you polled to get that accurate assessment…

    • ChelseaLee says:

      09:27am | 17/11/10

      Paul, next time you make such a strong statement, you should consider if it is actually valid. From my experience, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Before meeting my husband, I never wanted kids. Infact, the idea of it still scares me. He is the one who has always wanted kids, and is beginning to change my mind about it. So how do you explain that, in your infinite wisdom?

    • T.Chong says:

      09:50am | 17/11/10

      Ellie - re Paul Ns surveying methods. I always assumed ( I know, never make assumptions)  Paul would probaly find verbally asking as being quite sufficient.
      No offence to anyone , on any level , if that aint the case.  wink

    • Tom says:

      10:13am | 17/11/10

      Im a young guy and i want as many kids as humanely and financially possible! My girlfirend originally only wannted 2 but it was easy to convince her haha

    • Paul Neri says:

      10:26am | 17/11/10

      Petals, what I’d really like to know, and Punch should poll, is how many parents believe they made a mistake. That they had too many kids or had them at the wrong time. You see, the Authorities want you to sacrifice your lives and your money (million bucks to raise a kid). They want your pride and joy for their vast armies! Their factory floors! They’ll wrench this precious thing from you one way or another! Do you really want the pain of losing it?

    • Duff says:

      10:28am | 17/11/10

      Great advice, Paul.  Just make sure you label the jar clearly and for gosh sakes don’t store it next to the mayonaisse.

    • Mariposa says:

      10:50am | 17/11/10

      Many women “oops” men into pregnancy - this is unethical and should be made a “criminal” offence.  Of course trying to prove it is another area entirely.

      Men: if you know you don’t want a kid - get a vasectomy and never use a woman’s condoms - only use your own. This really happens, look it up online.  It’s far too common.

    • MelD says:

      12:34pm | 17/11/10

      @Mariposa, doesn’t do much good, vasectomy’s can reverse themselve, condoms fail and the pill is not 100% effective either, want proof? pill+condom=up the duff

    • Paul Neri says:

      12:45pm | 17/11/10

      You thought having kids was a private decision. It partly isn’t.

      There are forces conspiring to get you knocked up. Apart from good ol’ Mother Nature there’s ... the State.

      You see, a State needs to control its citizens and it’s easier to do so if those citizens have little citizens.

      A man with a couple of kids isn’t going to throw in his job lightly because he hates it. He’s going to suffer in silence. Live that life of quiet desperation. Be docile, controllable. And that’s how the Authorities like it. They want people chained to their jobs and at the mercy of economic forces that have levers pulled by Government.

      The DINKS on the other hand, have more potential to be rebellious. It’s a lot easier to eat pet food on the dole when it’s just you and your lady than if it’s you and your kids. Conscience inevitably overrides ideological commitment.

      So you see, keeping people in a state of vulnerability, which is what having kids does, suits our masters.

      Parents, you’ve been shamelessly and cynically manipulated!

    • ChelseaLee says:

      01:00pm | 17/11/10

      Yeah, that’s definitely it Paul. All parents have been shamelessy and cynically manipulated. You’ve hit the nail on the head, and don’t sound like a looney toon at all.

    • Emma says:

      02:07pm | 17/11/10

      This is disgusting! I was with my partner for 10 years before i found out i was pregnant. We were both overwhelmed, scared brainless and completely unsure of what to do. In the end i told him that i wanted the baby, he needed to decide if he wanted to be in her life. If so, hang around and be there, if not, we go our own ways, and thats it. I would have asked him for nothing. He CHOSE to stay and be a father. Our daughter is now 18months and neither of us have looked back, our girl means everything to us.
      You seem to be very bitter. I feel sorry for you. being a parent may be hard work, but the smiles and rewards are better than anything else.

    • Kika says:

      04:07pm | 17/11/10

      I like your comment Paul. I don’t have children with my husband yet.  When we do, we will have 1. And when that will be is entirely up to him. He has never really wanted kids before he met me, and when we met he said I changed that all for him. Now he tells me he wants this and that first, and he wants to have his child born here or there etc. The list never ends. I’d like you to explain how women force their men to breed with them? I don’t believe in what I call ‘sperm raiding’ (i.e. going off the pill without telling him - he’s too clever for that anyway beause he uses condoms as well anyway) or threatening to leave. Having children should be a joint decision. Sadly my husband doesn’t seem to have the time for making the time to have one. But then when I tell him I don’t want one anymore, he gets upset?? Can’t explain it. Oh well. I have my cat. She’s enough for me.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      04:53pm | 17/11/10

      Paul is this your personal experience or is it just something you’ve heard about? ? Oh & a question, do you actually know any women & would they even want to breed with you? ? ? ? Actually with your attitude I think a vasectomy would be a great idea.

    • Paul Neri says:

      10:55am | 18/11/10

      There is a grain or truth in what I’m saying about our vulnerability being exploited.

      Look how Labor embarks on a scare campaign before every election on how the Coalition will cut benefits.

      It suits Labor to have vulnerable voters, including parents. It wants people hooked on benefits. It wants a large (vulnerable) migrant population. It wants ... control and from control springs the glittering prize of all Labor’s endeavours, the culmination of its hopes, dreams and aspirations, and that is ... power.

      We are all vulnerable to our political masters, it’s just that if we make ourselves less vulnerable to economic forces, by not having kids, we can afford (literally) to actually vote according to our principles instead of according to Family Tax Benefit Part B.

    • Nullagravida says:

      04:08pm | 26/11/10

      Agree with Chelsea Lea, Paul. In my dating days, I met more dads-in-waiting than childfree blokes. When I did meet Mr Right, I had requested the nip-n-tuck on the bloke who wanted me to marry him.

      As for storing “it” in the fridge, not a good idea. It kills the little guys. But should you insist on keeping it in the fridge I will bear in mind to request my coffee “black” should I ever pop around.

    • Jolanda says:

      08:02am | 17/11/10

      I have 4 and it seemed like a good idea at the time but I sort of didn’t really add up the cost of bringing them up in today’s world.  Love them to bits and wouldn’t put them back even if they did fit but certainly it would have been easier financially to only have 2 as we would have been better able to afford what they needed medically, educationally and physically.  The love part is easy.

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • MelD says:

      12:36pm | 17/11/10

      I don’t know it seems pretty easy to me, draw untiil they outgrow it, then a box slightly larger, get friends and family to knit them stuff until they can walk, blend up what you’re having for dinner and feed them that, seems pretty cheap to me lol

    • Davo says:

      08:04am | 17/11/10

      None of the arguments above really matter. In a Western, Social Democratic state, a one child per couple result, whether by policy or by happenstance is a recipe for organisational suicide.
      Halving the number of new productive people earning an income and paying tax every generation and also sustaining the social welfare state in the context of expectations of increasing standards of living doesn’t work.

    • Mrs Skippytron says:

      09:07am | 17/11/10

      What about immigration??

    • Davo says:

      10:08am | 17/11/10

      Leaving aside the social integration issues, immigration generally provides fully grown adults to society and also tends to have flow on effects including family sponsored additions like parents etc. It’s a numbers game and no amount of scoial engineering can change that.
      Immigration won’t solve the issues I’ve mentioned with having a one child policy or result.

    • BobbyDan says:

      08:07am | 17/11/10

      Two to replace the parents is fair, a third in hope of getting a son to carry the family name on, if the first two are daughters, may be. Or a daughter to tame her two brothers (and gain another son).
      A only child of an only child, that we know is a spoilt brat, so two is a good balance.
      We have my three (2 sons and a daughter), my partner has two (1 of each) making 5 they have produced 11 Grandchildren for us. Enough is enough, neither the parents nor us can afford anymore.
      BUT we are looking forward to our first Great Grand Child to make room on the earths surface for this child, someone will have to go. Ma-in-Law at 86 isn’t looking to good, hmmmm

    • NEFFA says:

      12:38pm | 17/11/10

      Why can’t a daughter carry on the family name?

    • MelD says:

      04:37pm | 17/11/10

      exactly right, not all women change their name and a lot of girls are single mothers so they keep their surname, i will be a single mother so keeping my current surname, it will live on

    • Mariposa says:

      06:38pm | 17/11/10

      Why does “carrying the family name” get offered up as a reason? How does that concept positively impact the world in any way at all?  What’s a name in the significance of being environmentally/socially responsible?  What a load of sexist egotistical garbage - it’s just a name, get over it.  My world’s not going to end if my name isn’t passed on - I won’t be here to witness it ! I don’t care if another human has my name/dna - please work on dissolving your attachment to yourself, your face in a “Mini Me” and your ego.

    • Rich says:

      08:24am | 17/11/10

      I for one don’t mind if greenies don’t have kids, they will die off and their insanity with them.

      What will replace them are Indians, Chinese and Muslims who don’t share your self destructive views, tolerance for gays or care for the environment.

      Calling people who wish their race to exist in the future selfish is insane when the reality is you wish to keep your ipod lifestyle and have lost any sense of community. It’s all about you and what you feel like doing and it is you who is selfish.

      Humans are tribal by nature but only whites have forgotten this. The rest of the world is gearing up for conflict and we will end up only having a much of geriatrics to defend us.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:29am | 17/11/10

      Only child a myth? Seriously it does not need to be studied to know there is a difference in the only child dynamic. Observations would be enough to tell you otherwise or even a little logical thinking.

      2 parents have X amount of time a day for thier kids. If they have 2 kids then each kid has x/2 amount of time. I would say its safe to assume only childs get spoiled more (depending on what the definition of spoiled is).

      But at least you have justified your life decisions, put forward a case that your daughter is not an “empress” despite evidence from your friends, and made yourself feel better because you only had one child. That was the point of the article right?

    • Julia Thornton says:

      10:23am | 17/11/10

      Nope. I just thought the Time article was good.

      You can be very rude. Do you get enough fibre?

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:55am | 17/11/10

      I can be rude, Julia but you become more bitter the longer you read the punch I have found. Debate has just decayed, instead of two sides looking at an issue objectively with facts and logic, people just pick a side then find information to “justify” thier chosen theory.

      Also if the Times article is the basis of your justification, you should of just linked to it, rather than using as the basis to promote your two life experiences (one of which is debated by your friends no less) that support the article and your argument, which is by no means clear.

    • The Gremlin says:

      03:27pm | 17/11/10

      What evidence from her friends? For all we know, they could just be generalizing. Most likely that’s the case, as parents of multiple children they don’t know.

    • Dan says:

      08:48am | 17/11/10

      The grass is always greener on the other side. The only problem with having one child is that third world countries are having heaps, we will be overrun and out-breed.

    • Ben says:

      10:57am | 17/11/10

      They will however also also all die off even faster as the food and water shortages get worse.

    • Elphaba says:

      08:52am | 17/11/10

      I think a one child policy is not a question of if, but when.  Medical advances have enabled us to live much longer, to be an overall larger drain on resources, and technologies such as IVF mean that couples who nature selected to NOT have children, suddenly can.  The Earth is already struggling under the extra burden, and it will continue to get worse.  The environment, overcrowding in housing, the price of food and petrol - everything can be linked to the number of people on the planet.  Curb the population, allow it to grow steadily, rather than an explosion, and the planet will survive and so will we.

      Make no mistake, we’ll breed ourselves to our own demise.  We can delay the inevitable, but it’ll happen eventually.

      The decision to have children is just as selfish as not having them - how many parents intone once they’ve conceived “I’m having children for the good of the nation!”  Bollocks.  You do it because you want them.  Selfish doesn’t need to have a negative connotation, it just is what it is, and both sides exhibit it.

    • Steph says:

      02:54pm | 17/11/10

      We *used* to kill ourselves off with famine, war and malady. Of course, as you say, we’ve found ways around all three and as such live longer, and eliminate all things that keep the population manageable. I doubt a one child policy is in order, but a two child policy, I can see that happening, or at least being proposed. Not that it would get through the government, the outrage at such a barring of the publics’ freedom would stop it before it began. It would be like proposing to kill off the mentally ill or the old. It would curb population, but it would also be a breach of human rights. Namely the right to, y’know…. live.

      When you read about the Black Death or some other disease coming along every couple of centuries and wiping out half the population, leaving it to start again, you can see why it took so long to get to where we are now. It was natures way of keeping the resource drain down.

      Just a theory I’m putting out there… seeing opinions… does anyone think the internet may have contributed to such a large growth spurt in the world? Not going on a conspiracy theory, but before we could meet and talk to anyone in the world we (“we” being a relative term) kept locally and didn’t interact as thoroughly as we do now. Just a thought. It doesn’t control how many kids we have, but it does give us access to meeting new people, etc that we wouldn’t have had before.

    • Kika says:

      03:46pm | 17/11/10

      Hey Steph - I don’t necessarily think it’s the internet. I think it’s because we still can’t get that biological urge to breed out of our heads. Without that there would be no need to worry about boyfriend/girlfriends, love, marriage etc. Plus there are still a minority out there who are religious and think breeding is continuing god’s creation on earth. We haven’t quite got our prehistoric African savannah brains hard wired into surivival mode to move into 21st century scientific reasoning quite yet!

    • MelD says:

      04:42pm | 17/11/10

      @Kika - not everyone has that urge to breed, most of the women in my work place are childless by choice and I work in a large company over 200 people, some of my friends are childless by choice and it is their choice, they don’t like kids or like to hand them back or they don’t think they will make good parents or yes even they don’t want to mess up their current lifestyle, better to not have them than blame them for regrets

    • Dave says:

      09:04am | 17/11/10

      There are too many people in the world already. The Optimum Population Trust reckons two children per couple - that should be enought to keep anyone happy. Any more than that is purely selfish.

      http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

    • Scott says:

      11:23am | 17/11/10

      Not every couple has children. So if every couple that does only has 2 child, that’s negative population growth.

      Assuming 0 effective imagration (same number come in, as leave Australia), the economy and country will be in shambles in a few generations. Eventually Australia will no longer exist, except as an empty landmass, inhabited only by animals - that don’t have a 1 child policy

    • Sad Mum of One says:

      04:20pm | 17/11/10

      DAVE nice of you to assume my child will be a spoit little bastard!! That makes the pain of the miscarraiges and one of which was a late miscarraige even easier to bear! so the death of a baby is BOOHOO hey - arent you a lovely member of society!!.
      My child sure as hell wont grow up to be so lacking in compassion and tact as you my friend! if you were from a big family then maybe your not such a good role model!!
      and we for that matter would KILL for another child for a sibling for our child and im sorry if that offends anyone also! but tough.
      My child is innocent you have no right to judge who she will turn out based on iF she has siblings.
      You have yoru right to your opinion and so do I my friend and my opinion is that you your comments are ignorant and baseless. YOuve judged it on observation of a tiny amount of children compared to the general population then generalise that to apply to all only children

      any scientist would tell you thats crap - wheres yoru cross section of subjects etc

    • Heather says:

      10:21am | 23/11/10

      Australia’s current replacement is actually 1.8 (maybe not current, that was a figure from news.com.au and the census 2 years ago. I would link but I cannot find it). Actual “replacement” is 2.4 per breeding couple. In other words, we are currently below replacement, and need to breed, on average, at least .6 of a child per couple more, just to get to “your version” of okay, population wise.

      Paper tiger.

      France in the 1700s had similar theorists, all declaring that the earth would be “too full” within 50 years.

    • Kelly says:

      09:19am | 17/11/10

      Completely agree with Daniel. The planet is already groaning to support its population, and within a few decades I really don’t see how we’ll be able to feed everyone roaming the Earth—or even come close, for that matter. I have to stifle shudders when I hear of people announcing their third, fourth, fifth pregnancies…. It’s too many. Ultimately, it’s a personal choice, but I can’t help feeling parents-of-many are being really selfish.

    • Naomi says:

      10:27am | 17/11/10

      We already failing to feed everyone roaming the earth. That’s why famine exists in Third World countries. I’d be less concerned with the breeding habits of employed, tax-paying citizens of a First World nation and, if I was REALLY concerned about the over-population of the earth, I would devote the time, energy and money I would have otherwise put into raising my many children to educating and providing resources to those populations that are already overwhelmed and incapable of caring for themselves.
      Or, we could just seal them in a vacuum and wait for them all to die - effectively providing the rest of us with a bit of breathing space in regards to over-population.
      Of course, this is all just speculation. Personally, I have no opinion on whether a couple should have none, one or many kids.
      For reference - I grew up in many-child household and it was fantastic. Now we’re all adults I count my siblings amongst my best friends. I never felt deprived because my parents shared their love with my brother and sisters.

    • Mariposa says:

      11:04am | 17/11/10

      Naomi:  this is the problem with why we can’t move forward with this discussion.  Westerners don’t want to be told what to do with their families - too used to having affluent freedom, so they try to deflect to the third-world, so they can keep doing what they like.

      Our western families cause more enviro impact because of our spending power and need to consume things we don’t need - a third-world family of 8 have very very basic needs, therefore they make less impact in terms of rubbish, pollution, consumption.

      EVERYONE needs to be ethical about their reproductive choices, not keep passing the issue around like a football - just reinforces the selfishness of many individuals who are used to having the freedom to do whatever they like, whenever they want - without having to consider the consequences.

    • Naomi says:

      01:43pm | 17/11/10

      Mariposa - I see your point. If we’re going to hold EVERYONE equally responsible for over-population of the planet, wouldn’t that call to the forefront the need (again) for education of Third World country inhabitants as to the damage their large families is causing the planet?
      Regardless of whether the damage caused to the planet by a large impoverished family is comparatively less than that of a large wealthy family is irrelevent to the dicussion. The issue of the larger the family - the worse the implications for over-population still stands firm. However, I fully agree that the Western mindset is that of not liking being told what to do with their families, and perhaps to a certain degree the appeal of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face is all too present. I like being the devil’s advocate, and it’s interesting to see opposing points of view. I am curious, can anyone agree on what is the ‘ethical’ reproductive choice? And who does it apply to? Are there any exceptions?

    • Amy says:

      09:22am | 17/11/10

      As the product of two only children (no cousins. Win!) I have to say that only child syndrome stays with some for life.  While my dad grew up in a house with many people coming and going, my mum didn’t. It was just her and her parents.  There is such a thing as only child syndrome and she’s textbook.  She will walk through a gap big enough for just her in a crowd and leave the rest of us trying to catch up - even as children, we walk at her pace, regardless of situation and regardless of what it is, she has to open the food packet.  By contrast, Dad is happy so long as he’s included.  Neither of them understand the dynamic between my brother and I, though.

      It could be a personality difference, but since my mother is quite the lovely lady, it’s pretty clear to me that she doesn’t actually mean to behave this way, it’s simply a product of her childhood situation and it’s stayed with her.  That said, as one of only two grandchildren on both sides of family, I’m not doing too badly either.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:32am | 17/11/10

      All the only children I see are spoilt little shits. Sorry. And some of them are the spawn of our good friends.

      I was the oldest of 4 boys, I think 4 is too many nowadays, unless you can afford them all, more often than not, its the rest of us paying for you to have that many and more.

      So, 1 child - no. 2 children is OK, they provide each other companionship etc. 3 has always been the number I thought was the ‘sweet spot’. 3 allows not only companionship but also getting the older child/children to help teach the younger one/s and give them a bit of responsibility. Also, for all of us who had brothers and sisters you’d know that we all go through spells of liking/fighting with our siblings. I think that a dynamic of 3 kids allows for various fluctuations and alliances over time. One day Child 1 and 3 might be arguing with Child 2, the next day its Child 2 and 3 ganging up on Child 1 etc.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      10:37am | 17/11/10

      Thanks alot RealFave for your hurtful comments! I have no choice but to have one child after 4 miscarraiges its not happening. Your comments add to our families pain!

      THINK before you say such things as we dont always have a choice!!!

    • Beck says:

      12:38pm | 17/11/10

      Sad mum of one, your comment that you can only have one child may hurt people who can’t have any. Those people would probably kill for just one.

      We can’t censor every comment we make so that NO ONE get’s hurt. You’ll just have to learn to suck it up. I’m sure you’ll hear a lot more painful stuff in the future.

    • Kelly says:

      02:27pm | 17/11/10

      I can’t have any children, sad mum of one. So thanks a lot for YOUR hurtful comment…. NO, wait, I’m not hurt, because it’s a comment on an article about how many kids is the right amount. Not sure what you were expecting when you came here to read…

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:42pm | 17/11/10

      Boo Hoo. As Beck says, millions of people around the world would kill for one child…some of them literally! And given the free nature of our society I am allowed, nay privileged enough, to voice whatever opinions I may in a public forum. Its my own observations, and I said as much, that the ‘only childs” I know are spoilt little bastards. And that is including the children of people who I consider near and dear friends. Personally. I couldn’t give a rats arse if that offends anyone. Yourself included. If you only have one child its common sense that you are going to lavish 100% of your love, affection and money on them, isn’t it? An only child is not going to have to ever share the limelight as it were with other siblings its only natural. And sorry to say it, this does make them, in my experience, grow up to be spoilt little bastards.

      Of course, this is a topic that is going to be split clearly along the lines of those who have a number of children and those who only have one child or are an only child themselves. And I am clearly in one of those camps wink

    • Kate says:

      02:47pm | 17/11/10

      @TheRealDave - my younger sister is a spoilt little shit and she’s from a two child family. It’s all about the parenting, not the number of children.

    • MelD says:

      04:48pm | 17/11/10

      @Dave - I am the youngest of 2 and I am a spoilt little miss, I want what I want when I want it, and it’s all about me, me, ME! but that’s the evolution today haha

    • Surrounded by idiots says:

      07:18pm | 19/11/10

      We have 4 kids. We educate them privately, we do not receive any ‘handouts’ or ‘benefits’. I think there’s a tax rebate which amounts to about $25 a week and doesn’t compare to the $30k we pay in taxes each year. Exactly how are you paying for my children? I don’t drive a car yet the taxes I pay go towards the roads you drive on. Let’s stop building roads shall we?

    • lee says:

      10:06am | 17/11/10

      i wouldn’t give up having my 3 siblings for anything.  It has helped me enormously in life.  My brother, the eldest, learnt patience with his 3 younger sisters, which turned him into a gentle man and now a wonderful father.
      There is no magical number.  Sounds like the author’s parent’s couldn’t keep 2 in control if your brother was so abusive.
      Also, i find talking about her child competing for attention with the cat creepy

    • NicoleG says:

      10:45am | 17/11/10

      Ha! I’ve got three brothers who used to beat the sh!t out of me and in turn, my sister used to beat the sh!t out of them. It’s called sibling rivalry. That was when our parents weren’t home. We all get a good laugh out of if now. Don’t presume to know the authors parents.

      No excuse me while I remove my child from the couch to make way for the dog.

    • Father of Four says:

      10:19am | 17/11/10

      I have no problem with how many children people want - it is a personal decision - if you have 1 and that’s all you want - good on you.  If you have 5 that’s fine - but only if you are prepared to go the hard yards for them.

      I have four children - all under five and am very happy with my decision.  It is is nobody else’s business why I chose to have four.  And it is no one’s right to tell me I can or cannot have as many children as I wish.

      As I said, I don’t care how many you have so long as you are responsible for them.  People who say they have 3 children and can’t afford day care shouldn’t have had 3 children to start with.  My children are raised at home and pose no burden to anyone other than ourselves.  They each have their own bedroom and each have their own belongings though share a lot of others.  They are raised to look out for each other and not to expect hand outs. 

      I don’t think it is so much a problem of how many children you have, just what you do with them when you have them.  We prefer not to “outsource” our parenting.  Everything we do, we do as a family, we don’t rely on others unless absolutely necessary.  We don’t impose our children on those that may not enjoy their company (restaurants etc) and our children are disciplined fairly and know their boundaries.

      If parents have the time and the love to give they should be allowed.  But if you don’t - don’t have more than you can genuinely (and are willing to) handle because that is not fair on everyone else.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      10:23am | 17/11/10

      Can I just say that as a parent with secondary infertility who has been through 6 IVF attempts to have a second child to no avail, and 3 miscarragies, the stereotypical “only child” comments really really hurt!!

      its time we moved with the times and challenged these discriminatory stereotypes.
      To think my child could be labelled and stereotyped due to our failure to have a second child we so desperately tried for - just adds pain to what is already a painful situation.
      Think people!! before you say such hurtful things because you may not know the full story.

    • Katie says:

      09:36am | 18/11/10

      Have you ever considered adopting?  Why not give a child without family a family?  I have made that decision that if for any reason I am unable to have children I will adopt and give a child the life and love that it may otherwise miss out on.
      I’m sorry to hear you’ve been unsuccessful in your attempts.

    • Sad Mum of One says:

      01:37pm | 18/11/10

      KATIE of course we have considered adopting. They give preference to childless couples and even then the waiting list time is at least 4 years.
      Unfortunately we dont have the 10s of thousands of dollars to go overseas and for adopting. We are considering foster care and have looked into it. However bit concerned of the impact on our current child when and if they have to say goodbye to them to go back to their natural parents which often is the case.
      I realise we have to accept our lot and we are grateful for what we have.
      it is the narrow minded stereotyping that makes it so hard! my child is innocent and it hurts that adults will be judging and stereotyping her in the future. How disgusting to stigmatise an innocent child! They should go and pick on someone their own size!

      as for the people saying well i cant have any so shut up basically - Ive known a few of them that are now either pregnant or had more then one child!! they dont think to come back and say sorry to us now everything has worked out for them

    • Laura says:

      10:29am | 17/11/10

      Well, I just don’t want kids. And I’m not going to ‘change my mind’ when I get older. This is a decision I’m keeping for the rest of my life. It doesn’t matter how ‘selfish’ you call me, I’m not pushing a baby out just because everyone else wants me to. I’d rather not bring a child into a world that has so many problems, in my opinion THAT is selfish.

    • Dink says:

      10:57am | 17/11/10

      Hear, hear Laura. Stick to your guns and don’t ever let anyone make you feel you’re less of a person because of your decision.
      I am 46yo, have never had children and never wanted children. I am an extremely happy, contributing member of society.
      I’ve never regretted my decision - not for an instant. I don’t think you will, either.

    • Else says:

      11:04am | 17/11/10

      lol thats what i used to say. now at 23 im engaged and cant wait to give my fiancee all the kids he wants. i used to hate the thought of having children. but in my opinion that was the selfish bit. not having children and saying i wouldnt change my mind even if he wanted kids just cos i stil wanted to fit in my size 8 jeans, cos i didnt want to sag. now i have my fiancee i really dont care about that all. i come from a family of two kids and a step sibling. we were all raised together. my fiancee comes from a family of 4 children. and we hope to have four. or more. not saying you will change your mind, but its the best feeling when you love someone enough to make something half you and half him.

    • Beck says:

      12:27pm | 17/11/10

      Else,  Laura hasn’t decided not to have children because she doesn’t want to sag. She has much more mature reasons than that. You never made the decision not to have kids, you just didn’t want to get fat, then a guy comes along and produces a ring so you decide you’ll cough up the spawn for him.

      Please don’t compare a 23 year olds fear of getting fat with an adult’s choice not to reproduce. It’s insulting to everyone who’s put some thought into the decision, regardless of their final decision.

    • Shannon says:

      01:31pm | 17/11/10

      I know some people who would be shocked that you are so upset. They can’t have any kids.
      It takes a lot, but perhaps try not to be so ‘self-involved’. Be thankful for what you do have because there are always people out there who can only dream of what you have.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      02:14pm | 17/11/10

      secondary infertility is VERY painful and VERY isolating

      you feel as if you have no right to grieve due to people with people with primary infertility. One does not cancel out the other.
      Its offensive to suggest we are not grateful for our one child. It is also offensive to minimise the pain of miscarraige and secondary infertility because primary fertility exists.
      So is it wrong to be sad you cant have any kids because some people have cancer?
      see how ridiculous your argument is

    • Laura says:

      04:11pm | 17/11/10

      I’m lost. Sad Mum of One I feel for you, but I have just never thought about reproducing. Some people love children, some people don’t. I’m not worried about ‘sagging’ or ‘gaining weight’ when it comes to having kids. That would be a stupid reason not to have them. I’ve watched my parents struggle financially to look after my brother and I, and it made me realise I couldn’t handle it. I don’t even like being around family friend’s kids, it just irritates me. People say ‘well, what if your parents decided not to have kids?’. Here’s my answer for you, if they never had kids then I wouldn’t be here saying I don’t want any.

    • Middle-aged-grump says:

      10:30am | 17/11/10

      I always find this amusing, the usual arguments between the people with children, and those that choose not to have any. I am 54 and have chosen to remain single, and not have off-spring. I prefer my lifestyle. To those who say this is selfish, you are correct. On the other hand, people who have chilren are selfish as well. You can justify it any way you want, the fact is you have them for various reason. Fear of growing old and not having help or company. Need to pass on values. Justification that your race is worth saving. Faith tells you that it is your duty. Genetic imperatives. Familial and societal pressures. I could continue. Just admit to yourselves the truth.

    • Else says:

      11:11am | 17/11/10

      i always thought i would be like this. single and happy that way. i was never keen on marriage and children. as i mentioned in my reply to the above comment i am now 23 and engaged. i found the man im going to spend the rest of my life with and i want to show him how much i love him. the old fashioned way. by popping out his kids. im not afraid of ending up alone. im not religious or have anyone in my ear telling me i must have kids. it happened by accident that i met him and fell in love with him. he’s the only man i’ve ever thought about children and marriage with. its pretty special when you love someone that much that you want to have a family with them. i find it amazing that i even considered it. i would like a truckload of kids thanks!

    • Middle-aged-grump says:

      12:32pm | 17/11/10

      Else, I have no problems with your decision, more power to you. All I wanted to establish was that is basically selfish. In your case it sounds like a genetic imperative.

    • Anna says:

      12:53pm | 17/11/10

      Would be interesting to see if Else still feels the same way 10 years down the track after ‘popping out’ her truckload of little brats!

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:14pm | 17/11/10

      @Anna same goes for the people saying how great their single kid free life is when they get of an age to not be able to get out of the house anymore without assistance.

      Cuts both ways.

      I always wanted kids, I have 3 of them, I couldn’t go a day without seeing them. If its a choice between travelling through France on an extended holiday or eating out every night of the week or sitting on the couch watching the Wiggles with the little ones I know which one I’d rather pick every day of the week, even when I am changing the 3rd shitty nappy of the day.

      Sorry, littlest one is 17 months old, going through a cute phase were he scrunches up his face with the biggest shit eating grin you have ever seen. Laughing just thinking about it. of course…...I could instead be thinking about buying a new CD or new designer pre-faded jeans…..nah, not in the same league….

    • MelD says:

      04:24pm | 17/11/10

      @Else - wow a whopping 23 are you??? you can’t compare not wanting children younger than now to suddenly YES i want them, some people just aren’t genetically cut out to be parents, they have no maternal/paternal instincts and actually don’t like children, which is their choice, as is the number if kids people have

    • Middle-aged-grump says:

      04:51pm | 17/11/10

      Dave - You profess to loving and enjoying your 3 kids, that is nice and I do not dispute it. On the otherhand you say that you expect them to help you when you are no longer able to help yourself. Very selfish reason to have kids.

      MELD - I was chuckling at Else comment also, the wisdom of youth !

    • Steph says:

      05:27pm | 17/11/10

      Anna, what a sweet person you must be, do you suck lemons with your breakfast or are you naturally that bitter?

      There’s a selfish element to everything we do, Middle-aged-grump. It’s almost second nature - no, it’s first nature, to think of Numero Uno. Arguing the selfishness of it is a bit futile, since everything we do has a selfish motive. I believe the most selfish are the parents who wish to choose the gender/eye colour/hair colour/facial features of their child and get genetic modification to achieve that result. It’s like buying a breed of dog to tote around in your handbag. Then they get dumped in daycare so parents can continue with the lifestyle they held before they gave birth. Essentially, the child is something the parents can bring out at gatherings to coo over, and put on a shelf when he/she’s not being admired. That, to me, is the ultimate form of selfish parenting.

      I’m sure the blogger has a point, that not everyone should be stereotyped the same, but I honsetly haven’t seen anything to prove the “one child is spoilt brat” theory wrong yet. But, of course, it’s all about personal experience, which is why there are so many replies to the column.

    • Middle-aged-grump says:

      07:12am | 18/11/10

      Steph, very good retort to my original premise. Everything does have a selfish component, human nature. I am not argueing the point, nor am I putting a moral judgement on anyones lifestyle. I would just like people to be open to the idea instead of justifying their decision with some ultruistic nonsense.

    • Steph says:

      08:42am | 18/11/10

      Er, actually, I was meant to be, at least, partially agreeing with you. Though there was a retort there for Anna. I guess I was just adding to it.

    • HB says:

      10:42am | 17/11/10

      The Birth Order Book by Dr Kevin Leman is a facintating read and worth a look for everyone whether you want kids or not.  It explains each birth position and the charcteristics that are displayed.

    • Ben says:

      10:43am | 17/11/10

      None to 1 at the most.
      Interesting is that I read that the more educated women are, the fewer children they have and vice versa.
      Overpopulation is a very serious issue that will confront humanity very suddenly in the not too distant future.

    • 2 is company 3 is (can) be a crowd says:

      10:56am | 17/11/10

      I was an only child to the age of 12, I have a younger brother who is now 9 and we get along fine. I tend to agree that more than 3 children is really pushing it, My working mother complains she hardly has anytime to spend with me (keep in mind I’m an adult). If you can raise your family to be healthly, happy and without relying on goverment handouts well done, those who can’t need to take a long hard look at themselves, I find it quiet distressing that I see children in clothes that don’t fit, compalining their hungry with a parent smoking and telling them to shut up because the other 3 children are all doing the same thing.

    • IMHO says:

      10:59am | 17/11/10

      Come on Punch…what was it? Was it my use of the word “arse”? As in you couldn’t be arsed publishing my very well-thought out and moderate comment? Oh and it was very funny too. Very funny.

    • Jane says:

      11:00am | 17/11/10

      My older sister and I are 18 months apart and have never been close. We are very different people with totally differnet values and attitudes to life. I love her but I often I find spending any length of time around her to be draining and unenjoyable. A lot of my hang ups are the result of sibling rivarly casued by my father trying to shove us into certain roles - i.e ‘the good daughter’ ’ the pretty daughter’.

      My own daughter is for now & unless circumstances drastically change distined to be an only child. She is a very sociable child and gets on well with others. She sometimes struggles with sharing mummy but this is normal toddler behavior and I encourage her to be independent and self sufficient. She is the best thing I ever did and I tell her every day that i love her but she is not the centre of the universe and whilst she is my number 1 priority I also have a life beyond being her mother. I try to balace it out by giving her time each week where she has my undevided attention and times where she must entertain herself. Because I work full-time she also goes to daycare and I think this has helped a lot with teaching her how to interact with other kids.

    • Toni says:

      02:13pm | 17/11/10

      You & I sound very much like. I have an older sister who I hated growing up, she picked on me relentlessly and a younger brother who I picked on. My sister is the most intelligent person but she has no commonsense whatsoever and we still are not very close. I have a son who goes to daycare because I work fulltime and try to do the same with him as you are with your daughter. I think that whether you have 1 or 15 kids depends on individual choice and circumstance but it’s how you choose to raise that child or children determines whether it will be placed into the “spoilt” category. i was spoilt with love and affection growing up because we never had much money, I just hope i can do the same for my son. Good luck Jane, have a wonderful life.

    • CraigJ says:

      11:01am | 17/11/10

      I don’t believe that “the only child is spoiled” saying is a myth at all. I would suggest that the ones that are not spoiled are very much the exception. Of course in both instances it is no fault of the child, just good and bad parenting, which is the case whether they have one or five kids.

      I love how all the “I chose to not have kids” brigade always jump on these stories, as if it somehow validates their choice. C’mon people, I chose not to play football either, yet I don’t feel the need to tell everyone of my choice whenever the topic of football comes up.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      01:04pm | 17/11/10

      SO CRAIG your saying its not the only childs fault they are spoit just bad parenting - BUT this is the case whether they have one or five kids???

      can you see how you have contradicted yourself there?
      QUOTE:
      “THIS is THE case whether they have one or five kids”
      SO what on earth does being an only have to do with being spoilt and bad parenting if its the case regardless of the number of kids
      you said it yourself it is the case REGARDLESS
      ERGO the only child comments ARE A MYTH
      You said it yourself!

      now STOP putting stereotypes on my family because we have lost 3 babies to miscarraige. you are not adding intelligent debate to the argument - you are just CAUSING PAIN

    • Single Kids are Delightful says:

      01:12pm | 17/11/10

      Craig can you please give your definition of “spoiled”.  (I am a teacher).

    • CraigJ says:

      07:59pm | 17/11/10

      SAD MUM
      “Of course in both instances it is no fault of the child” is what I said, so, the rest of the hysterical rant can be disregarded as you have clearly not read my remarks.

      The next point was that bad parenting means that irrespective of whether one has one or several kids it will apply throughout, a point that the number of children is not the issue, just the parenting, seriously? did you read my post at all?

      The last part of your post is just disturbing self pity, as I made no remarks to that at all, really, I think you should read the post before getting so worked up, just like my remark about those that chose not to have children feeling that they have so much to offer to those that have, about their decision to not have children.

      Single Kids are Delightful, my definition of spoiled is “those children that do not know, or understand that there are other children in their class that do not consider themselves the centre of the universe, and that their constant craving for attention, be it positive or negative, is sucking valuable resources away from those that deserve it, and as such relegating children that behave well and have a thirst for knowledge into a position that they have to accept what is left of the teachers time and energy as being all that they can expect from a system that rewards, as in provides nearly all of its energy, to “problem” children.”

      I hope that explains it “Single Kids”, just my experience as a full time dad of two well behaved and growth motivated children.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      06:52am | 18/11/10

      OK I get it now!
      Smug parents who CAN have more then one child take it apon themselves to judge only children. Not having a clue what that situation is like since they smugly can have more children. Thats you Craig!!

      Still stumbling over the fact that you said it all comes down to parenting yet you dont believe that the only child is spoiled is a myth at all.
      I challenge you to prove that all “problem” children in the classroom are only children!!
      I now know to in the future encourage my child to play with other onlys as I dont want her associating with families with such smug ignorant ill educated attitudes!

    • mariposa says:

      08:50pm | 18/11/10

      Sad Mum of One:

      * Lay off the victim status and self-pity - having an only child is not like being a victim of child abuse, starvation, domestic violence or sex trafficking. You are attributing too much importance to your situation, and not counting your blessings.

      I suspect it’s giving you emotional problems, because you keep taking so personally whatever people say here. You keep acting like a victim/martyr - get off your cross.  “Only” children are OK, the world won’t end.

      Focus on what you have, rather than what you don’t have - and there’s also a support group in Australia, called Grow, who have an excellent social/group program that challenges thoughts/feelings.  Check them out online. And seek out a counselor.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      12:12pm | 20/11/10

      MARIPOSA - since we are doing the analyse all the comments thing - ive yours a aggressive and attacking rude and slightly degrading. Im wondering what personal problems you have to hold so much hostility towards people youve never met? I also wonder who you know about the GROW website? personal experience?
      I take offence at the suggestion that I do not appreciate my child! we most certainly DO! what would you know?
      The only support group we need is one for secondary infertility - there is one on the net - perhaps you should go there and see how your “get over it” and “your selfish and dont appreciate your current child” and even “you must be mentally ill” kind of comments go down! RESOLVE is just one of these such groups!
      NO im sorry im never going to accept stereotypes as they are ignorant and not based in fact. Scientist studies prove that most only children feel a sense of shame at being an only mainly bought about my these stereotypes.
      Whatever you think of me I really do not care that is not the issue! The issue is judging children based on if they have siblings or not!
      I have an appreciate one of these special children!! It is my FOCUS on her that drives me as a loving parent! I thought that my sharing my personal story is may help others to be more compassionate about the families stories in some of these cases.
      Unfortunately in your case it appears to have bought out the dark side of human nature!
      I suggest you go back to your Grow website you are so familiar with and work on your anger issues

    • Mariposa says:

      12:26pm | 22/11/10

      Sad Mum of One

      It is obvious from your language and use of exclamation marks that you are again getting very emotional/woe-is-me about this whole thing.  There is sincerely no attacking/hostility from me, your emotions are allowing you to interpret it in this way.

      I apologise if you interpreted harshness from my last response - I certainly didn’t mean it that way. I apologise.

      You are not mentally ill necessary - but human beings are emotional creatures often - we sometimes need an outside source to get another perspective. I have done a huge amount of work on myself and it has helped me grow a lot.

      You really do need to talk to someone about keeping your emotions in check. Grow is excellent - yes I’ve used it. There is no shame or fear in seeking out support for these things.  It helps us grow and evolve in life, and that can only be a positive development.

      This is a response based on concern - I am seriously trying to help you - please go and see someone - sometimes our emotions blind us as to how we come across to others - I have been there - so I know.  I do speak from personal experience. 

      There is no anger or malice in my heart at anyone - I recognise someone in emotional distress and I want to help them, based on my previous experience. And I hope to work towards being a counselor some day.

      Best of wishes and take care to you and your family.

    • Von says:

      11:03am | 17/11/10

      I would like children (when I feel ready for them). I think 2 or 3 is good. 4+ is too many in my books - I just wouldn’t have the energy to keep up with them! One I would think of as too lonely. It’s a personal choice though I admit, I’d look at someone with 5+ kids strangely (how do they cope?!). Even 4 is quite unusual these days. I would mainly have an issue with those having kids to get welfare in cases where welfare is the main purpose of having kids.

      I come from a family of 3 girls and my partner is an only (in a blended family for some of his life). Generally he’s been an only child. For one set of grandparents, he’s the only grandson. He is very social but also independant. I find with his “only child syndrome” that it’s not about being spoilt but more about not being aware that there are other people that he needs to think about. For example, he will just change the channel on the TV without even asking if I’m watching. It’s not a malicious thing but more of a lack of awareness. I’ve trained him out of that though wink

      I dispute the idea that only children think they’re happier. Or perhaps it’s a grass is greener thing. The onlys I know seem to want to have at least 2 children. If they thought their only life was so fantastic, why would they want to have more than one, if any? In fact, from my limited experience it’s the ones that come from large families that decide NOT to have children. Maybe it’s a combination of already being in a large family and also not thinking they need to give their parents grandchildren because someone else in the family can do it. In saying that though, one of my friends is from a family of 4 kids and she (and her husband) want 5.

    • Don't Want Children says:

      11:09am | 17/11/10

      I am not having children and people have called me selfish.  I tell them to mind their own business, it is my choice.  There are alot of people who shouldn’t have children, they don’t spend any time with them, they don’t take them anywhere or do anything with them.  IF I had decided to have children, I would have had 2, I had an older brother and we had a lot of fun growing up.  When we went on holidays we used to do everything from fishing to swimming and exploring.  Some people worry I will be lonely when I am older.  Well, you make your own life, and will always have your friends and extended family.  Added to that, the law is telling people how to discipline your children, and I for one, don’t agree with that.

    • self preservation says:

      11:13am | 17/11/10

      This is a laugh, have children or not, have 1 ,2 3 or a basketball team.
      I have 5 children spread ages spread from 5 to 18.
      It shouldnt matter how many you have as long as you are not a drain on the taxpayer. I earn to much to even get $1 from social security, so they are not a drain on any government system. Its how you bring them up to appreciate the simple things in life , dont spoil them with buying things or keeping up with the Jones’s, you live your life to what you can afford. People make comments about taking valuable resources, we live with tank water because the councils say my property is to far off the street and I would have to pay a fortune to get it connected, I have solar hot water and solar energy with battery banks, no nasty water or electricity bills, only use what water we need and turn off all appliances that are not needed. we have a vege garden , chickens gives us eggs , we provide alot of our own resources.
      My kids are happy as they eat very healthy, are active and have a large circle of friends. Actually I have alot of the kids friends stay on weekends they enjoy coming over and helping around,picking vegs , feeding the chooks because they were raised in a era of silver spon in mouth and want everything.
      Alot of people need to get off there high horse, soap box and release that some people do make a difference and are not a drain on society.

    • Redz says:

      11:17am | 17/11/10

      My sister and I grew up pretty much joined at the hip, being born in the same year. We were and still are best of friends. She has chosen not to have children, whilst I have four.

      But whilst there’s the usual bickering going on between them, there’s no serious hitting or stuff like that and I’d be shocked to find one of my kids being black and blue because of their siblings. They play well on their own but also love playing together.

      Yes, I admit, there’s things we have to deny them because there’s four of them so money can be tight. They usually do the same sports or at least back to back lessons so the driving about isn’t so time consuming and right now, the two bigger ones take a break from tennis for two terms so the two younger ones can have swimming lessons. And, yes, my eldest keeps feeling so awfully neglected because we won’t buy him a games console. It’s not the priority on my list of needs when it comes to finances right now. But I wouldn’t have bought him one even if he were an only child and we were stinking rich because I firmly believe that children should not waste their time sitting in front of the TV or computer but rather get outside and do something with their imagination.

      I think the amount of children you have is a personal choice that people should be able to make without everybody else knowing better and trying to force their opinion on them. You can spoil one child as badly as you can spoil 6. You can neglect one child as badly as you can neglect. 6.  Every family is different but I for one know that ours only felt complete after baby number 4 arrived.

    • Nathan says:

      11:27am | 17/11/10

      Ok, we all have two kids or less.  Take out the gays, the single women who never get married, and all the rest, we actually have negative population growth.  From the response on blogs regarding immigrants we already dislike how many are coming in.  Do you realise, whether you like it or not, we live in a capitalist society, which means the economy must keep expanding, which also means we must have increased population growth.  We don’t keep up, cost of living increases and the economy crumbles.
      Lets not forget the baby boomers who are moving into retirement.  Where is the volume of workers coming in behind them to support the economy when these people stop paying income taxes.
      Our growing population & our ecomony and quality of life are very much linked.  So why attack parents and call them selfish.  Is this because you have no idea or thoughts on the bigger picture????? In this day when our kids are turning into little princesses, you want to talk about how hard it is to have a sibling, and blame the parents for the difficulties.  Learning to deal with difficult siblings is great training for dealing with difficult people in adult life.  Further an only child finds it hard to understand at times why the world doesn’t keep revolving all about them when they turn into adults, and makes them frustrated.  Sure they have plenty of self confidence, because they were doted on as a child, and came to the personal conclusion that with all this attention, they must be pretty hot stuff.  How many bossy “single” kids have you met.  Not many it seems.  You should get out more!

    • Kate says:

      11:33am | 17/11/10

      I am an only child, and have a toddler son who will be an only child as well.
      I am not spoilt, the only way I got spoilt was with time, not material items.
      In saying that, I always waited my turn, never spoke unless spoken to, played well with others, was very sharing and caring toward other kids and was very capable and independant.
      Yes, i do long for a sibling at times, purely seeing things differently in an Adult world, as a child you know no different, however when i see the rigors my husband and friends go through with their siblings I am glad i dont have that in my life.
      We all have issues about our upbringing and family dynamic that stay with us through life, it is how we choose to let it affect us and our offspring that will determine what type of person/people we become.

    • Kika says:

      04:02pm | 17/11/10

      Excellent comment!

    • P. Darvio says:

      11:39am | 17/11/10

      Cardinal George Pell demands “populate or perish” - therefore I demand all those good Christians out there to go at it like rabbits and multiple until they can no more. Stuff the environment - who cares - you will be doing GODs work and that’s all that matters to Christians isn’t it?

      There is only one country doing anything about global warming and that’s China through it Population policies.

    • Steph says:

      08:39am | 18/11/10

      Such bitterness… You’re confusing Christians with Muslims. Muslims breed till they can breed no more. The only Christian denomination that encourages large families are the Catholics, and they’re not a majority.
      Also, before quoting what God wants, try actually looking it up. In Biblical times, the law was you had to let the land rest every seven years, free to recuperate from farming and crops. Do we do that now? No. Apparently too much loss of revenue. They were more land conscious and environmentally aware back then than we are now. And, yes, it was part of God’s LAW. And as a Christian, I do think God gave us contraception for a reason.

    • jade says:

      11:40am | 17/11/10

      I am an only child. Most people I meet are astonished to discover this, because I do not conform to the stereotype of “spoiled brat”. I found that being an only child taught me to be far more responsible and honest, because there was noone to cover for me, or lie for me growing up. I also had noone to blame things on - when I broke Mum’s favourite vase, she knew exactly who had done it. I found that many of my friends who had brothers and sisters tend to be more comfortable with lying, breaking rules and behaving inappropriately - because they got away with it when they were younger.

      My best friend who comes from a family of 5 still at 23 years old throws worse tantrums than I have ever thrown in my life when she can’t get her way. And yet, I am perceived as the spoiled brat.

      As a child, I was not allowed gaming consoles or things of that nature because there was noone to play them with so there was no point. Instead, my mother spent numerous hours driving me here there and everywhere to participate in activities with all kinds of children to ensure I was socialised appropriately. Because my parents had only one child, it was far easier for them to monitor my social development, and ensure that I behaved appropriately. I grew up to be able to mix with people of all ages because I was socialised with adults as well as children, since my parents couldn’t send me out of the room to play with my brothers and sisters, nor sit me at the “kiddie table” - it would have been rather lonely.

      I don’t believe that one is necessarily better than the other - I have known some awesome children from large and small families. It comes down to parenting. Some children, like my best friend, can come from a large family and still be spoiled rotten, and other children who are only children can be wonderful, generous, charitable, independent, caring individuals. Some can be the stereotypical little brat. But to lump all products of an only child household into this ridiculous stereotype is rude, offensive, and wrong.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      01:55pm | 17/11/10

      Sweetheart my heart goes out to you

      I find it sad that because of a stereotype you are having to defend yourself that you are in fact not this “only” stereotype very very sad!!  Your right it is “rude, offensive and wrong.”
      Its darn ignorance is what it is!!
      Ill tell you one thing all onlys do have in common!!

      They have to tell everyone they are not like the stereotype!!

      Im going to teach my little daughter to stand up to herself against these bigots. Hopefully in the future when shes grown up it wont be necessary anymore!

    • Sad ol Aussie says:

      11:40am | 17/11/10

      From the above comments, Australia will no doubt be a socialist/communist country one day.

    • matty-boom-sticks says:

      11:42am | 17/11/10

      What about poor people who have had twins, or triplets or WORSE….....somebody save us please!! Should I adopt out 3 of my 4 kids to childless families. ONE per CUSTOMER.

      Roll-up. Roll-up. First in first served. Get the pick of the litter!!

    • Fatty Watty says:

      02:00pm | 17/11/10

      I am very close to a twin and he absolutely HATED it. And they dont talk to this day.
      Also this man is the most rude arrogant inconsiderate spoilt person you will ever meet. And he had to compete with a twin for attention etc.
      Yet ive met delightful onlys.

    • The Worlds Gone Mad says:

      11:49am | 17/11/10

      You are all nuts!
      Some people have 1 kid some have more…..big deal, get over it, stop over thinking the subject.
      If you all have this much time to waste go and do something nice for someone who needs a hand.

    • only child says:

      12:43pm | 17/11/10

      Here here i second that! I had a brother growing up and we lost him at when i was 21 Family is my back bone and i would give anything to see him again. So does this mean we are easing the economy because one of us got killed off? Every one please take a minute and pull the stick out from your bum and get a life.

    • Kel says:

      01:03pm | 17/11/10

      Your comment is the most sensible thing I have read all day.

    • NIMBY says:

      11:49am | 17/11/10

      Discrimination and sterotypes are rife. I am an only child from a single parent family (i.e household total of 2 people). I was once knocked back for a job because the employer presumed I would suffer from “single child syndrome”. I probably could have sued for discrimination but for what - I would never want to work for such a tosser. I now have 3 kids and thinking about another (frozen IVF embryo that we can’t bare to part with).

    • Older Mum says:

      11:55am | 17/11/10

      Sometimes I think people have the wrong idea of the word “spoilt”. I have one child who is showered with love and affection. He is well behaved at school, loved by his peers, is relatively well mannered. I always thought that something “spoilt” was bad, or off.  I see lots and lots of kids from multiple sibling families who are starved of affection, made to fend for them selves, left unattended in front of video games and tv etc and are absolutely awful when in a group of other children. They cannot and will not play by themselves and have to constantly have “play dates” to keep them amused. We have a society of children who are in my opinion “spolit” Bad mannered, rude to peers and those in authority, are allowed the “freedom” to roam the streets causing havoc. Strangely of all the children I have contact with (and its a lot) the single child is usually the one with good manners and able to be trusted. They are not “spoilt ” they are loved unconditionally and become good citizens in our fast becoming “spolit” society.
      I will add that there are also multiple sibling families who’s children are extremely well behaved and able to take their place in society. I also note that usually Mum does not work but concentrates her time on her children.

    • C Dunning says:

      11:58am | 17/11/10

      How many can you afford to raise properly?

    • Sigh says:

      12:02pm | 17/11/10

      oh what is all this selfish bullshit going about? So you’re selfish if you want multiple children and you’re selfish if you don’t want children it seems.

      I want children but can’t due to infertility. I hope people don’t assume I’m being selfish because I don’t have children.

      I don’t want to have to run around telling people I’m infertile all the time because I don’t have kids. It’s personal but more importantly .... It hurts.

      :(

    • Beck says:

      12:43pm | 17/11/10

      I wouldn’t worry about what other people think if I were you. Judging by the comments above you will be criticised either way so just get on with your life. People who judge you for such a stupid thing as how many kids you do, or do not, have aren’t worth knowing.

    • HC says:

      01:08pm | 17/11/10

      True, Beck, but I imagine after going through infertility those kinds of comments are like rubbing salt in the wounds

    • HC says:

      12:23pm | 17/11/10

      Since when can we all predict the future? I think it is quite arrogant to assume that just because you have an opinion, suddenly you are the prophetic authority on what is going to happen to the human race. Sorry everyone who commented with psychic predictions of the future, but we just don’t know what is going to happen.

      I don’t think we’re ever going to be at risk of everyone having heaps of children anymore. Norms have changed from most people having 6 or so children to now most couples having 1 to 3 children. I think the average is somewhere around 2 or slightly less and it will probably keep going down as people have children later in life, the cost of living increases, and the societal pressure to have kids continues to decrease. If these things change then the birth rate might change too- who knows. Currently those who have five are probably outnumbered by those who have zero. I don’t think it really matters as much as we all think it does.

      I don’t think anyone should have a second child simply because they believe that an only child is spoilt - it’s ok to have one if you want, and it’s also ok to have more if you can afford it. But I’m glad my parents eventually had another child because I can remember being very lonely as an only child and begging for a sibling, and even though we’re not that close (big age gap) I’m still always very thankful for him. But they could have spent more time socialising me too, there are other ways to help a lonely child besides having another kid.

      I think this whole thing highlights that we just need to spend less time judging each other really.

    • KO says:

      12:25pm | 17/11/10

      So true, my fiance’s mother had four kids. He’s the only one that isn’t a dumb brat.

    • Tom H says:

      12:32pm | 17/11/10

      The bigger issue is that they have a loving Mother and Father, thus giving them a balanced upbringing as shown in numerous unbiased studies.

    • Adrian (yes Jules its me) says:

      12:33pm | 17/11/10

      3 sons - Its like watching 3 cats wrestling in a sack some days - other days its somewhat more peaceful. Bottom line - in our society - People are free to choose to remain single - partner up and remain childless - or partner up and produce one or seventeen children - all choices are equally valid, and no position has any right to a moral high ground over the others. However - if parenthood is the chosen option, then It falls upon us to try and raise healthy emotionally stable kids. Is that easier in multi-child families - possibly - however I remember life being easier with only one or two children.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      08:22am | 18/11/10

      “and no position has any right to a moral high ground over the others.”

      Bollocks it does.  Every kid you have over replacing yourself is one step closer to jumping off a cliff that, thanks to idiots wanting to “save teh children!!111” instead of investing in space research, we have no way of gliding off.

    • Lev says:

      12:34pm | 17/11/10

      the problem with single children is that only white people do it. If we keep it up before you know it immigrant communities with much higher fertility rates than our own become the norm. And before you know it, our kids will be living in Australiastan. It is happening in Europe alreadyWake up people 3 kids is ideal. Get over your “oh i want to travel and build my career and wait till im 35 to have kids and even then i’ll just have 1” because by then, you may just find you are infertile (with any luck)

    • Kika says:

      04:10pm | 17/11/10

      Well, say that to my husband. He is adamant that he wants his life properly mapped before we do it so any plans and promises he made to have our 1 and only child have been backshelved for a good day when he’s ready.

    • Barry says:

      08:36pm | 17/11/10

      True story.  Anyone want to go to France, or Germany?  I’d get there in the next 30 years, before it becomes an Islamic state.  It’s funny, because people think this is just xenophobic crap.  It’s just honest statistics though, and a dead-set reality.  Muslims have a huge fertility rate compared to ours, and their numbers are growing astronomically.  There’s no argument about it, if Europeans don’t start having more children.  Their countries will become Islamic states in the years to come.

    • Clare says:

      12:37pm | 17/11/10

      I am an only child and have an only child.  I get so tired of people (who AREN’T only children) sprouting about having another baby ...  What is their scope of reference here?  They have no idea what they are talking about.  I had an awesome upbringing, was curious from time to time about having a brother or sister but never really missed it, loads of friends etc etc and am a very happy 37 year old thank you very much!!  I am very close to my parents and they adore their grandson.  We are all careful not to spoil him materially but he gets lots of cuddles and there is nothing wrong with that!!  He is a toddler after all and loves it!!  grin

    • Ben C says:

      12:50pm | 17/11/10

      I think the simple answer to this is “How many kids can you be responsible for, and how many do you want to be responsible for?” Take the lesser number of the two and you have your answer.

      A parent’s responsiblity is simple - provide the kids with the following:
      - Nourishment
      - Clothing
      - Shelter
      - Education
      - Love
      - Discipline

      A worrying trend I see just by observation (not necessarily applicable in all cases) is that parents provide excess of the first three, leave education to everyone else, use expensive material goods to show their love and instil no discipline. This may be attributable to the following:

      - Rising costs of living - parents are working longer hours to make ends meet.
      - Materialistic attitudes of people - everyone wants to look the best/live in the best house in the best suburb/drive the best car/use the best phone etc.

      Then you have the parents that take no responsibility for themselves, let alone their children - if they had taken responsibility for themselves they wouldn’t have had children, or they would’ve planned their children properly.

    • Proud mum of Callen says:

      12:55pm | 17/11/10

      My husband & I have been together since I was 16 (I’m now 42) & we were never going to have children. His & my family gave up asking after about 10yrs because we were adamant it was never going to happen. We were going to travel, pay off our home & do whatever we wanted. That all changed last year when at 41 I discovered I was pregnant. My son was never planned, I thought i was too old (I actually went to the doctors because I thought I was going through early menopause) and had been on the pill since my husband & I met. With all those factors in mind, I thought well if this child is that eager to be in this world, I’m not going to stop it. My husband was in complete denial throughout the entire pregnancy & even missed the birth. Our son is now 15mths old and you wouldn’t find a better dad. He’s already got his future mapped out, his father wants him to be a penthouse pet photographer so he can invite his dear old dad to the set! My point is NEVER say NEVER because you have no idea of what your future holds. I couldn’t care less if people say my child is spoilt, spoiling can be done in many different ways, materials possessions or family values and love. I think he will get plenty of everything.

    • Anna says:

      01:13pm | 17/11/10

      I’ve got 5 kids, my husband wants ten.  So there!!

    • Ben says:

      06:48pm | 17/11/10

      Anna, the more educated women are, the fewere children they will have.

    • Dave says:

      09:34pm | 17/11/10

      I never wanted any kids, but was surprised early last year when my partner became pregnant. We’ve now got a 15 month old son, we’re having another child in April next year and I’m thrilled to bits! I’d LOVE to have 10 kids now too! The other half isn’t so keen though, but I’m working on her! lol

    • Lauren says:

      06:43pm | 19/11/10

      Ben, the only reason more educated women have fewer children is because they’re too busy studying. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Fiona Wood, inventor of spray-on skin and Australian of the Year award recipient, has six kids. Presumably she has a very supportive husband.

    • MF says:

      01:32pm | 17/11/10

      None. I’m in my early 30’s and won’t be having any kids.  Is it selfish? Sure. I won’t deny it’s largely a personal lifestyle decision. Though it also has to do with environmental considerations.

      But you know what’s more selfish? Having kids when you didn’t actually want them, aren’t prepared to adjust your lifestyle to make room for them and treat them like they’re the scum of the earth for ruining your lifestyle making sure you let them know at every turn that they were a mistake.

    • St. Michael says:

      01:49pm | 17/11/10

      There’s also the age consideration to bear in mind.  Having had two kids in my mid-thirties I wish I’d had them in my twenties, mostly because (a) I’d have more energy for tham and (b) I won’t be pushing 70 by the time they’re fully settled into their own adult lives.  On the other side of the coin, though, I was a lot less mature in my 20s and statistically speaking marriages commenced when the participants are in their 30s have double the survival rate of their equivalents commenced in the participants’ 20s.

      There is also the biological clock to bear in mind, too.  Like it or not, female fertility (if not male) also dramatically falls past 30 or so, too—there’s going to be a lot of women out there who decided to wait past a semi-decent career to have kids and will be bitterly disappointed that they can’t emulate the misconception (no pun intended) propounded by a lot of Hollywood mums that having a kid in your 40s is simple.

    • Richard says:

      01:50pm | 17/11/10

      It seems like a number of punchers think that everyone has to forgo their basic human right to procreate in whatever type of proliferation they choose for ‘common good’ or even worse, the ‘environment’.

      As usual their comments (and views in general) are completely misplaced. In Australia, the two biggest challenges we face re: reproduction and population is ZPG and infertility.

      I wish all these smarmy self-righteous twits would take there irrelevant insulting comments and use them in some country where they would actually be relevant. How about China? they recently revoked their one child policy, why don’t you go bother them?

      But if you do still want to stay in Australia and demand that Australian citizens give up their human right to procreate in whatever numbers they choose, well then can you please all reverse your hypocritical support for allowing asylum seekers in to our country.

      Either our population is unsustainable or not. If it is, then we need to stop boat people coming here as well as mandate family size. But if you still insist on accepting illegal immigrants with open arms, you can’t then turn around and criticize Australian citizens whose families have lived here for generations for wanting to have any size family they want.

    • Heidi says:

      01:54pm | 17/11/10

      Im 29 and about to be married and im still ont he fence as to whether i want children or not, as is my fiancee (luckily!). We have so much pressure on us from family as to when we are going to have them. I worry that im somehow less of a female or not normal because im just not feeling that at this point its the right chocie for me to have them…and i hate that i have to justify to others the fact that i dont want them at his poitn and may not, ever. If we do decide to have children, i think itll only be 1, and i dont for a minute think that he/she will be spolied with anything but love and time. In the end it comes down to the way people bring their kids up, not how many they choose to have. Many people can create children, but not just anyone can be a good parents.BTW…i am 1 of 3 and love both my sisters, but we had our fair share of dramas as youngsters!

    • Kris says:

      02:02pm | 17/11/10

      It is a personal choice! If you want kids and how many is not up to anyone else to decide. If you choose not to than that is your perogative too. There are more important things in life that whinging over who has how many kids. As for people being “bogans” because they have a large family show just how uneducated and small minded you really are. FYI - I have 3 children and that’s enough for me. They are all blonde haired and blue eyed, we have a mortgage, both work, have pets, our own vegie garden and go camping. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • Ned says:

      02:18pm | 17/11/10

      I don’t think it should be law, but it should be recommended that people have no more than 2.
      Only because we’re fast running out of resources on this planet, so 2 kids are a replacement for each parent, then the people who don’t have any kids will lower the population.

      I don’t even know if I’ll have kids (need a wife first!) but if I do I’m going to try and keep it to 1 or 2.

    • max says:

      02:18pm | 17/11/10

      It’s none of my business if you have 1 or 10 kids BUT as soon as you become a burden to the society/taxpayers (having kids for allowances) then it is my business.

    • MyVoice says:

      03:13pm | 17/11/10

      Are you kidding me? People are actually going to criticize & complain now on how many kids someone has? Having a child is far from selfish. How do you know that the said child won’t grow up & become some kind of world leader who can help preserve the earth?
      What do you suggest ppl do when they get pregnant by accident? (accident being not planned) Should they consider an abortion to help with over population? Are you prochoice & do you speak out for these causes? Or just with the selfish comments about having more than one or two children?

    • Andrea says:

      03:23pm | 17/11/10

      As an only child and having both my parents die by the time I was 28 this has meant I now have no one who knows me as much as my parents or who can share childhood memories.  When they were both sick I often wished for a sibling I could share the pain and heartache with.
      I know not all siblings get along, but I do envy my friends who have nieces and nephews, sisters, brothers at all their family gatherings. 
      Just something to think about when choosing to have one child.

    • Kika says:

      03:43pm | 17/11/10

      Answer = 0! No kids is the right number. Anymore than that it’s just a given that you will make some mistakes somewhere along the line. The planet is overburned as it is with humans. We used to procreate and have multiple children because of the risks that they would have died young, and thus not propogate your genes through the generations. Our child mortality rate is so low, tell me one reason why anyone needs to have more than 2 kids these days? Let alone 1!
      By the way, who on this god forsaken earth was brought up in an absolutely perfect family? Even the Brady Bunch had their skeletons in the closet (pardon my pun).  My husband and I only plan on having 1 child. We haven’t yet because of one reason or the other. And frankly I don’t even think I want children at all. My mother tells me that this is just a phase and I will get clucky one day. But that’s her wishful thinking! I used to be clucky and look forward to having a baby with my husband but the more I am around babies the less I want them! My aunty took me to lunch once with her 12 month old twins - OMG! From that moment I thanked my lucky stars I hadn’t procreated yet. What a nightmare. The children are lovely, don’t get me wrong. But i am content being their cousin and loving them from a distance. Worrying about whether they are eating, choking on chips or annoying fellow patrons at the restaurant was enough to put me off forever. This suits my husband fine as he doesn’t have a nurturing bone in his body and can’t even handle looking after our cat let alone a child.

    • Catherine says:

      03:51pm | 17/11/10

      SERIOUSLY - we are all so different, as reflected in all the posts.  One thing I hate about this post is that some people feel the need to attack another person for making their opinion, when we are a country of free speech.

      It particularly annoys me when someone who has been offended by another persons views gets on here as a victim. 

      This is an open forum, where EVERYONE has an equal right to say what they think, if you are sensitive, then dont be part of the forum.

    • fit-mama says:

      04:10pm | 17/11/10

      If you want to have 6 kids and can afford it, I say do it… unfortunately I see so many large families that would have been better off stopping at 2 so that their kids get a decent shot at life.  I love my sister,  but have decided to only have one child, partly because of the cost, but mostly because everything I was told we ‘couldn’t afford’ to do while growing up, she got to do because I had a job and was no longer relying on mum and dad….  I also can’t fathom having another child so that my daughter ‘wont be alone’ when we die - its not a good enough reason to bring another child into the world (and borders on My Sisters Keeper)

    • craig says:

      04:21pm | 17/11/10

      Luckily cells don’t spend this much time reducing the human experience to facts and logic or none of us would be here.

    • Citizen X says:

      04:33pm | 17/11/10

      Zero kids suites me ...have kids if you want but don’t judge, discriminate against or disadvantage those who prefer not to.

    • my 2 cents says:

      04:48pm | 17/11/10

      People can have as many children as they can care for.

      For me personally, as the eldest of a very large family - and I do love all of them even if we drive each other crazy - 2 children is the perfect number for me. Any more than that and they outnumber me and my hubby smile

      Growing up in a large family, I always had companionship but we also always had to compete with each other for attention and resources. It really was survival of the fittest at times. Although as we got older, we did band together as necessary, recognising the safety and powers of numbers in our corner.

      My hubby and I have had to resort to IVF to have children and considered only one child. However, if we can we will try to have another one, as he comes from a small family of two, who were quite close siblings and less competitive, but unfortunately that sibling passed away. He is now the only child left, and family pressure has doubled for him to have children and ensure the family name is passed on as the only remaining source of grandchildren.

      As one relative said, two children is ‘an heir and a spare’.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      05:02pm | 17/11/10

      I have 4 kids, 3 from my first marriage & 1 from my second. For me 3 was easier than 1 as they look after each other whereas with 1 you are it! ! !I am happy to say that al 4 get along famously with my daughter firmly in charge even though all her brothers are a lot bigger than her, 2 of them are adults.

    • Megan says:

      05:17pm | 17/11/10

      Parents with two or more children have no idea of the dynamics of a single child family any more than vice versa.  I stopped worrying about the ‘spoiled child’ thing years ago and honestly find parenting mostly a breeze.  Silly people who judge just get ignored.  Besides, she has several very close friends who double as sisters due to her well-developed social skills.

    • Cheez says:

      05:37pm | 17/11/10

      My Comments:
      1. If we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, why do I have 4 kids
      2. If we break it down to the lowest common denominator, we ARE on this planet to breed. This is what species do in order to survive. However, no other species has medicine to prolong the lives of their species so maybe we should breed less.
      3. Those that say they dont want kids, well good on you. I will tell you though that nothing beats being a Dad. Nothing beats the look a child gives you filled with unconditional love and trust.  Nothing beats the opportunity to teach your child how to be a good human.  Nothing comes close to being a parent. Sure its hard work and its stressfull, but this is exactly what our parents went through with us.
      4. Some people should NEVER be allowed to breed.
      5. Mongrels live longer than Pedigrees.
      And finally, teenage daughters should be shipped to a hell hole somewhere on another planet and returned to us when they are 30, married and with their own offspring!

    • Katie says:

      12:24pm | 18/11/10

      hehe all very good points!! I love it.  I feel sorry for my mum when I was a teenager.  I don’t even have children of my own yet, but I can see some of the crap I put her through.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:40pm | 17/11/10

      Breed away, more population for the global population dieoff when world energy production collapses (see Richard C. Duncan and the Olduvai Theory)

    • Paul Carter says:

      06:46pm | 17/11/10

      Does anyone thing about how tough it’s going to be for the kids - high housing costs, 40% of the labour force is in casual employment (lack of security), mortgage size university fees.  So, why have kids if it means a life of struggle for them?  I’m not optimistic about the future and having kids to see them grow up and struggle is a CRUEL act.

    • meri says:

      07:19pm | 17/11/10

      Ok everyone listen up…this is my ONE and ONLY area of expertise….The question of ‘how many children’ is cruel and misleading. The question SHOULD ALWAYS be ‘how many TEENAGERS’ do you want to live through and the answer is NONE!! I remember getting into a lift with my four young children and an older woman smiled at me and said ‘little children, little problems, big kids, big problems.’ I presumed that she had forgotten the endless exhaustion of raising young children but I tell you NEVER HAVE TRUER WORDS BEEN SAID!! I have four children aged from 28 to 20 and a surprise 8 year old. The worry and outright terror I suffer on a daily basis with the older ones is beyond imagining….a fatal accident involving a young woman when you know your daughter is on that exact road at that exact time and you can’t reach her, off for a brain scan on another one who has had headaches for a month, drunk calls from a son who can’t get a cab out of the Cross at 3am, another who has forgotten to text that he is home safe so you are up all night nearly vomitting….all in just a couple of days, every week of every year of the last 28 years of my poor life. I am about to turn 50 and have so many years of this ahead of me that if I think about it I could collapse. Mine are all ‘good kids,’ they have done uni degrees and post grad, they hold very good jobs, they don’t do drugs, they drive safely, they have wonderful boyfriends and girlfriends, they are social and good looking kids AND THEY ARE STILL A BLOODY NIGHTMARE!!! Imagine the pain and hardship for parents when something goes wrong…..THINK BEFORE YOU TAKE THIS LEAP TOO MANY TIMES.

    • Mariposa says:

      10:23am | 19/11/10

      Meri:  I affirm you for your truthful candour on your experience of being a parent to older children.  Too often people get sucked into the “Kodak Moment” cliche of parenting and forget the hard, traumatic stuff, then regret having kids later.  I hope they heed your warning.  Thanks for speaking out.

    • young mum says:

      07:09pm | 19/11/10

      Very true. My children are all young but I’ve fostered a 17yo and I am NOT looking forward to my children reaching their teens. I’m reminded of another issue - children are not invincable. Our son was very sick as a baby and almost died. I have friends who have lost children, including one that lost two sons in a car accident. Then there are the high profile cases like the policewoman whose two children were stabbed to death by her father and those three children that were driven into the dam to drown by their father. To go through all those years of raising them and then be left with nothing is unimaginable. After almost losing our son, I knew I had to have more than one child because if I lost him, what reason would I have to get out of bed each day?

    • katie says:

      07:30pm | 17/11/10

      I came from a family of 12 children. The answer to ‘how many children is the right number’ is not numerical. It is completely up to the parents raising the children. I have had 4 children. Not because I challenge my parents on how many children they had, but because that is how many my husband and I wanted, and could manage. I would have hated being an only child! I am glad that my parents sacrificed to have all of my siblings, and while we all have little spats from time to time, we all enjoy eachothers company!

      It sounds more than anything, that the woman writing this artical is just trying to justify her choosing to have 1 child. If you choose it, don’t apologise about it, OWN your choice and get over it!

    • Tran says:

      07:48pm | 17/11/10

      The peoples of Africa and Asia will continue to naturally increase their populations. The peoples of Western countries will reduce their populations. Evolutionarily, whites/Europeans are infertile losers.

      It doesn’t matter what Australians do. If the population doesn’t increase naturally(which it hasn’t for many years), it will increase through immigration.

      Have 7. Have 1. It’s of no consequence to our environment whilst the immigration rates of the last 15 years continue. We will only naturally increase the population once whites are a minority(in a few generations the remaining whites will probably emigrate anyway).

    • Anna says:

      08:04pm | 17/11/10

      You may want to all consider that the reason many people have more than one baby is because babies, and children, are wonderful.

      When my baby wakes up from her nap and I go in to pick her up, she wiggles up and down so fast she looks like she’s about to take off. Somebody is so excited to see me, three times a day, that they actually convulse with happiness. I can’t tell you how adorable this is, or how lovely her warm milky snuggles are, when her hair is damp with sleep, and her curls lie flat on her shiny little face.

      I have three children, and they are a joy. But having children is a deeply personal decision - there is no right or wrong.

      Have children, don’t have children.  Aren’t we so lucky (most of us!) to have this choice? smile

    • Amy says:

      10:14pm | 17/11/10

      I’m one of 4 and the youngest at 19.  My two older siblings are much older than me, so I don’t really have the sibling relationship with them.  But I have a brother who is only a year older than I am.  He’s the best brother in the world.  Sure we fight sometimes, but he looks out for me, and I look out for him.  I would hate not to have my siblings in my life, I would not like to be an only child. 
      Julia, your brother sounds like an idiot, or your parents didn’t teach him that hitting his sister is bad.  As for ‘fight your own battles’, well fight!  Stop complaining.  All this article seemed like was a whinge about being picked on, and trying to justify to yourself why it’s ok for your daughter to be a spoilt princess and an only child..

    • js says:

      11:03pm | 17/11/10

      Hey Daniel, your comments have attracted the responses you were looking for but who cares what you think?  answer, nobody, hahahaha

    • Daniel says:

      03:20pm | 18/11/10

      Who cares what you think?
      I offered an opinion backed up with reason, which is much more than you did.

    • Annoyed with everyone being judgemental says:

      11:19pm | 17/11/10

      Oh, I am sorry. I have 5 children. Are you all suggesting that I “do away” with them so as they don’t ruin your life for you?

      Just as a side note: My family’s water usage is less than a couple we know with no children. Maybe you should all go on a lynching spree and attack frivolous and wasteful childless couples while you are all being so judgemental sitting in your self made ivory towers.. acting all holier than thou just to make yourselves feel superior to the rest of the human race.

    • mariposa says:

      08:34pm | 18/11/10

      golly gee - you’re getting a bit hyper, a bit emotional there ..... guilty conscience biting you? Is it embarrassing that you never thought of the enviro impact of your choices until now, after spawning, when other commenters highlighted it here?

      Selfish, in your own little world. Focusing inwardly on your immediate situation tends to do that to a person - try and see the bigger picture and how it effects the whole planet. Oops, too late !

    • Observer says:

      03:57pm | 26/11/10

      A call to “attack frivolous and wasteful childless couples” from someone who calls themselves “Annoyed with everyone being judgemental [sic]” who is now acting all holier than thou just to make herself feel superior to the rest of the human race.

    • Nick says:

      06:21am | 18/11/10

      The problem with this country is that most of the people who are breeding shouldn’t and people who should aren’t.

    • Mum of Three says:

      06:46am | 18/11/10

      Please don’t get me started on the “only child debate”.  I am an only child (not by my parents’ choice, but due to medical circumstances).  If I am asked for my opinion by people who are considering only having one child, I have to make sure they really want the honest truth before I answer.  I think to choose to have only one child is selfish on the parents’ part.  In my opinion these parents are partly missing the point and are thinking short-term, rather than long-term.  They are thinking about what is convenient for them at the time or during their child’s upbringing - how much time off work, finances, one on one time, time for self etc etc.  They are not thinking of what their only child will be faced with in adult life.  Don’t misunderstand, I was raised by two loving parents and had plenty of friends around.  However, as an adult having not long lost one parent and being faced with health problems for the other, things are not quite so rosey.  I have friends who are also only children and they are faced with the same problems.  We are soon to reach the point where there is nobody who will be able to talk about things that happened in the past, things from our childhoods or young adulthood.  There will be no immediate family with whom to share the loss of parents.  Whilst partners may attempt to support, they can’t truly understand and empathise, particularly if they have siblings with whom to share the loss when their time comes.  Whilst I know there may be unforeseen circumstances that mean someone who had initially had siblings may find themself alone, but parents and potential parents please don’t only have one intentionally.  For a child it’s a terrific choice, but for an adult it is certainly not an ideal situation.

    • Kate says:

      08:31am | 18/11/10

      Very true!!  My husband, an only child, relies too heavily on his parents and now I really feel for him when the time comes to say goodbye to them and make the decisions, not to mention the costs involved that can’t be sharted to lighten the burden.

    • Sad Mum of One says:

      02:10pm | 18/11/10

      Thankyou MumofThree

      I have these basic reasons for wanting another child. I now know that I am justified in being upset that I cant give my child a sibling, irrespective of people telling me I have no right to feel this way due to people not being able to have kids. When my daughter is an adult and faced with what you face, I hardly think “well some people in your mothers age couldnt have kids at all so stop complaining” is really going to cut it!

    • Rich says:

      06:49am | 18/11/10

      By all means people, let only the less intelligent breed. Then every generation our IQ will drop 5 points.

      Watch the movie Idiocracy, crap movie but the point is clear.

    • mum of 11 says:

      06:57am | 18/11/10

      Well, I may not be given the welcome mat here but anyway.. I have 11 kids all my own no adopted/foster kids and I always wanted a large family and my kids are well looked after, my husband has a good job and works hard and pays and enormous amount of tax, around 45k per yr, so I dont believe that we are a burden on society, and my kids will all grow up and contribute to the economy, 2 of my daughters already work full time and part time, many people should find out each families situation before making insensitive comments.

    • Eleven Children Too says:

      08:09am | 18/11/10

      We too have eleven children, and they are neither neglected or weird.  What’s the point of being able to give your children everything, except a sibling?  My husband works hard, and so do I, but our children have each other.  You own experiences of the distant parenting you received are hardly much of a recommendation for your choices.  Large families are never a burden on society.

    • Sad Mum of One says:

      07:01am | 18/11/10

      I have to challenge the articles mention that a study has found most kids prefer to be onlys. I have read various only children support web pages over the world and most of them as adults say they longed for a sibling.

      Then again - just about every situation ive seen with more then one child when there is a baby means the other toddler/s get yelled at by the parents because they are too busy with a baby to give them their full attention or get and physically rectify a situation. So at least im not a yelling parent!

    • OchreBunyip says:

      07:46am | 18/11/10

      The right number is how many children the parents can support and properly care for. For parents who have 11, there are parents who have none or one.  We will face our own balance of nature at some point unless we develop new ways to feed, clothe and house our growing world population. On a species level it will be normal; on an individual level it may be perceived as a disaster.

    • Hayley says:

      08:05am | 18/11/10

      My husband is an only child.  He is a happy, well adjusted person.  Happy to be social but does not like to be left alone at all, will not even run errands alone.  Since being with me he has gotten better at it because I refuse to go with him.  There are also little other things he does which are clearly from someone who has never had to wait their turn or other people to consider.  He will go to get food or a drink and not even think to offer anyone else.  He ‘expects’ anyone to drop whatever they’re doing to assist him immediately with anything.  He will make appointments or anything without consideration for what another has planned.  I know this is making him sound awful but he is a loving caring man.  Let not mention the sad fact that he had no one to ‘be a kid’ with and get into trouble with or someone to rough house and conspire with.  As an adult he has no family (other than his parents), yes he has mates but you can’t get the relationship you have with a sibling from a mate and his children will have few cousins, only my sisters children.  I would never do that to my child, it’s sad and lonely being an only child, even if you have all the love of your parents.  I know this because the second half of my child life was spent alone and I was sad and lonely and took any opportunity to get out of the house and away from my parents.

    • Sad Mum of One says:

      04:58pm | 18/11/10

      I agree it is a bit cruel to do that to a child. and they do end up a bit different. I wish I had a chance and an option to give my daughter a sibling! people who tell me im selfish for being upset over that cuase some peopel dont have kids at all can go take a flying leap !
      Like I said earlier that wont cut it when the child in question is suffering later in life!

    • Jane says:

      09:16am | 18/11/10

      I find a lot of only children (not every one, but most)  a bit precocious ... and that they expect to be part of adult conversations which, as a mother of two healthy and happy boys, I find totally annoying.  I also get mothers latching on to me so my sons will play with her (only child) son.  At first I tried to accomodate but now I just feel sad about that, because my sons really only want to play with each other, or bash each other, or paint each other and they are fantastic together and I don’t make them play with only children that they don’t want to.  I think it is cruel to choose an only child.  To be honest I only wanted one child until I saw no. 1 son playing and laughing with another kid.  Then I knew.

    • Sad Mum Of One says:

      02:14pm | 18/11/10

      JANE well its not the only childs fault but I can see your point. I for one will not be latching onto any mother so my child has a playmate - i have too much pride for that. I will seek out other only children for my child to play with. Id hate for my little girl to be a “burden” on someone else. Poor kid shes behind before she starts!

    • Kari says:

      01:36pm | 18/11/10

      I admit I’m puzzled by people’s decisions to have kids.  Most of the people I know with kids are dying to get away from them (most, not all), and their kids are badly behaved.  But then I’m American.  I’ve traveled a bit and from what I’ve seen, American kids are the worst in the world. 

      Also, I’ve known a lot of people who chose to have kids even though they had never changed a diaper, spent no time around kids, had no knowledge of child development, had very little time to spend with their kids, etc.  It confuses me.  Having kids is the most time-consuming, expensive thing you can decide to do—but people put less thought into it than they do into buying a couch.

      Also, the “they will support themselves” argument is absurd.  The point isn’t that your kids will be on welfare, the point is there are over 6 billion people in the world.  Too many, not too few.

    • rod says:

      03:30pm | 18/11/10

      We humans are spreading like vermin destroying everything in our path. Try and make sense of the figures here: http://www.worldometers.info/

    • Minerva says:

      06:00pm | 19/11/10

      What an incredibly biased, opinionated and pointless article. “My child isn’t spoilt so that debunks the spoilt only child myth.” What trot. My husband was an only child and he still acts like a spoilt brat at the age of 40 so the ‘myth’ still stands.
      I, on the other hand, am one of 9. Both my great-grandmothers had 13 children. 11 survived to adulthood, pretty rare stats for early last century really. Of course these days we have significantly decreased infant mortality rates so we don’t have to have as many children.
      The number of children a person has is nobody’s business but their own, especially if they are financially responsible for them. We have four children. Two to many you say? As I said before, my husband is an only child so we’ve had the two his sibling would have born had there been one. I read that same article about the Little Emperors and I was interested to read that where two singletons marry, they are allowed to have two children to make up for the absence of cousins, aunts and uncles. This is something I can relate to because all my family are overseas and with my husband being an only child, I keenly feel the loss of not having an extended family to help raise my children (I mean with regards to providing roots, life lessons, etc. Not just changing nappies.)
      It was my husband’s idea to have four children. He desperately wanted a sibling as a child. Some would suggest it’s selfish of you to deny your child that special relationship. As much as I used to wish that I was an only child, decades later I am very grateful for the particular love, friendship, shared memories and kinmanship that only siblings can provide.

    • DIL says:

      07:25pm | 19/11/10

      There’s a flip-side to this. Only children grow up to be only adults. My husband and are both only children whose parents had us late in life. Consequently I, as the daughter and dutiful daughter-in-law, now have four ageing parents to look off. My life is an endless round of doctor and hospital visits, cooking, cleaning, sorting out finances and house maintenance (they refuse to move into a unit - “oh but we want to leave you the house”. I don’t want it, it’s too much work!). I wish I’d had kids when younger because now I’m nearly 40, I don’t have time - I’m too busy looking after the oldies.

    • DaveinPerth says:

      07:06pm | 12/12/10

      If we are to survive as a species, the correct number of kids may end up being 0.75 per person. (For a few hundred years) With a ‘fresh’ husband and wife collectively having a licence for 1.5 kids. They would have the option of selling the licence for the additional 0.5 of a child, or buying some other couples 0.5 To make up the 2 required.

      Compliance would probably be done through the tax system, rather than some Orwellian Chinese method. But it would require the society to be happy with taxing ‘breeders’ into poverty.

    • nba basketball says:

      09:29am | 27/02/12

      aeKZ8f I do`t see a feedback or the other coordinates from the blog administration!...

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter