The most interesting part of the interview, for me, was in the first few minutes, when the mom describes why she wanted a big family. Take a look---no need to look at the whole interview, unless that is your cup of tea.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Apparently, being an only child is what led her to want so many kids. She explains how her mom insisted that she (the octuplets' grandma) had given her (the mom of the octuplets) "lots of friends" when she was a child, but friends are not the same as having siblings. She longed for that sibling connection, and admits that she may have transferred her desire for siblings on to her children, continuing to get pregnant so that she could give them this gift.
Obviously, there is some truth to what she is saying---siblings are siblings, and sometimes they are great friends, too, but siblings and friends are not interchangeable. This is no more clear than when siblings AREN'T your friends---when you love them, you think of them when you see things that remind you of them, you share nostalgic memories with them, etc., but you don't have much in common and don't treat each other like friends, per se.
This whole argument made me pause a bit because there is a relatively high probability that EJ will be an only child. I never thought that I would have only one child, nor did Mike, but our three-year experience with infertility and the difficult circumstances around EJ's birth and my postpartum malaise have led us to a place where we are grateful for what we have, and are trying NOT to open ourselves up to longing for another little one.
I had a health scare two weeks ago, though, one that would have threatened any possible chance of me being pregnant again. Thankfully, everything turned out healthy and clear, but the whole experience was unsettling. As resolute as I have been about feeling complete as a family of three, it was still troubling to think that the glimmer of a chance that EJ could have a sibling might be gone. Of course, there is adoption---we started exploring that before EJ was born, and really fell in love with the idea---but that takes money we don't have, and the clock is ticking before we age out of the adoption option.
Personally, I have been told several times how much I am missing because I don't have sisters, primarily from women in my life whose sisters are also their best friends. I don't know about that, though---I love my brothers, and I certainly know other ladies whose sisters have been thorns in their sides for most of their lives. I've also noticed that, as an "only girl," I have developed friendships with a lot of ladies who are also "only girls" in their families, or are separated from a sister by a big age difference.
Unlike with friends, in the game of siblings, "you get what you get, and you don't get upset," to quote Pinkalicious' mom. For the octuplets and their six older siblings, they won't remember a time when there weren't so many, when they weren't sharing time and resources, and when they weren't living in a world with built-in playmates. In our case, I don't know that it is worth my time to worry about EJ's lack of siblings, simply because it takes away from all the time I could be spending just loving her and connecting with her. No, a mom isn't the same as a sister or a brother. But a mom of one and a mom of fourteen aren't the same either, and I know which one I think I can do better.
As for the octuplets' mom, who my fave, Anderson Cooper, reported last night on his show is trying to be like Angelina Jolie (they showed a side-by-side picture of the ladies, and wow, this just gets weirder and weirder), I wish her lots of luck. I hope it all works out for her kids, her parents, and herself. I hope this was the answer she was hoping for all along, and she can get to the work of raising up a family of many siblings who all must rely upon each other to grow and thrive.
As for us, this story has an important lesson: sure, a lot of grandchildren may be great, but raise your "only" to feel secure, content, and loved unconditionally, and you may avoid a whole mess of crazy for your child and you.
10 comments:
Heh. Yeah, she said that. But millions of Americans grew up as only children, and only one of them is having octuplets. I've heard plenty of only kids say they were fine or better with the situation, and I'm sure, like you say, the biggest factor in anyone's adult happiness is getting enough love from their parents, no matter what the circumstances.
For us, though, having just one was never an option. I hesitate to even express how strongly I felt about this before having Pebbles, because I don't want you to think I would judge yours or other parents' choices. But frankly, the thought that someday, when Epu and I are dead, Nutmeg would be all alone in the world without family ... that was unacceptable to me. Of course, I guess somebody has to be last in the end, though, so maybe I'm just introducing unnecessary melodrama.
Of course, right now they are both having SCREAMING tantrums, one in her crib, one right in my ear, and I think maybe none would have been the best option.
Kori - I haven't met a more outgoing and loving little girl than Ellerie. Even if she is an "only", she's going to be surrounded by friends the rest of her life. I think she'll never feel lonely having you and Mike as parents. The only thing she won't have is someone to reminisce with about all the ways her parents screwed up =) (But like I said, you guys are perfect, so she'll never have any reason to!!)
Hmmm...Carrie, I love you and know you aren't choosing to be judgmental, but it is hard to hear that and not feel terribly guilty. Of course we are free to choose whatever is best for our family, and I know you'll love us all the same (as we would you), but leaving my daughter "all alone in the world without family" is hard to support, right? Zoinks. That makes me feel like a pretty crappy parent---like all the love that I give her now will ultimately leave her a sad orphan in the end, a very futile propect.
I think if every step of creating a new life had not been such a struggle for us, I might be more apt to say, "yes, let's have a sibling, that's a great idea, let's build a bigger family for EJ." Our admission price to parenthood is high, though, and I think I might feel equally guilty if I spent all my time in the anxious, depressed, downright emotional basketcase state I was often in while we were childless and dealing with infertility. I wish I had lived closer to you then, because I needed all the love and support I could muster---it was truly a horror show.
I abandoned the idea that I could choose what I wanted for my family size a long time ago, because thinking I had that kind of control just made me feel helpless when our hopes were repeatedly dashed. I suppose that if we consciously decide not to try for another, that is some measure of control, but along with our high parenthood admission price is a low level of say-so when it comes to conception, so even if we try, we could end up with only one child.
This is where I pull my hair out---feel guilty because EJ might find herself alone later because she has no siblings, or feel guilty for spending a chunk of her childhood crazy with longing for a person who isn't here, and may never come.
It is funny, because I know that it is this kind of discussion that is sometimes presented to convert people to Christianity---the "don't you want to make sure you don't burn in hell for all eternity, suffering alone for every day" argument. Personally, I have never been a fan of the "accept Christ so you don't burn" evangelism. Being Christian for me is about the joy and peace it brings me on this earth---the "living" salvation I can experience through faith---that would be my selling point. Maybe that's what we all have to do as families---plan for the future, but focus on the joy that you bring each other each day.
Kori- Thanks for sharing your blog. I love your voice - insightful, funny, inquisitive and clever! As for the topic, I have known onlies that wouldnt have it any other way, and ones who craved siblings. We can never know. All we can do is keep doing what we are doing in the best way we know how.
Ugh, I shouldn't have said that. I'm sure this is more about my own neurosis than anything my kid would ever go through. And I would never suggest someone have kids only FOR the kid they already have. That would just be stupid.
Since we wanted and were able to have more kids anyway, it was not really the decision-maker.
Now, if I believed in heaven, I wouldn't have to worry about that scenario either. I'd feel confident that our threesome would be reunited someday anyway.
Well, I have two sisters and didn't really get along with them until I was well into my 30's. Now we get along, but are we best friends? No. We are much too different for that to really fly.
Suleman is quite good at reaching for the sound bytes that she thinks will make her sound sympathetic to others, but I don't buy her "woe is me, only child" line. She says she didn't get enough attention as an ONLY child? How does she think it will be different or better for her 14 children trying to get attention from their one present parent? This woman presents like someone who is really struggling with some psychiatric issues and who is very concerned with self-medicating through her obsession with no concern for how her actions are affecting her parents or her children. The whole situation is tragic. I especially feel sorry for her mother...as an older mom who had her first at 40, I cannot imagine trying to track six of my daughter's children when I am SEVENTY. Especially when three of those children have emotional or learning issues. Nadya Suleman is a selfish, selfish woman.
I remember my first child development class at NU. I wish I still had my notes. We had a GREAT prof who was covering some of the research on early events in childhood development that would have a very specific and reliably predictable effect on children in adulthood. Funny thing about adversity. You can trace it backwards more easily than you can use it to predict forwards. One child who is abused will be affected one way and the next child will be affected differently. One child living in poverty will grow up feeling like a victim and the second child will grow up motivated to achieve more. If I remember correctly, there was only ONE thing that could happen to a child that had a reliable and predictable effect on that child as he/she became an adult.
What was that one thing? Early death of a parent.
So, I look at my job as a parent in three objectives:
1) Trying to do the best I can for my child with the circumstances we are given;
2) Keeping my child as healthy and safe as it is in my control to do so;
3) Stay alive until she is older.
Some people will siblings will want everyone to have the sibling relationships that they had. Other people will wish with all of their hearts that they were only children. You do the best with what you've got and try to stay out of traffic.
Should also point out that maternal mental health is a huge -- one of the biggest -- factors in children's development. Really, keeping ourselves healthy HAS to be a top priority, much higher than the hypothetical pluses or minuses of family size. It's not selfish for Mom to stay sane.
Wait just one minute---I have to stay ALIVE and SANE? WHAT???
This job just got much tougher.
I too saw the interview and was flabbergasted by her reasoning for wanting to have a large family...from most of what I have heard (and seen) in my life, onlies tend to get MORE attention from their parents than kids who have tons of siblings. It just doesn't add up to me. Would Suleman feel differently if she had siblings? I imagine she would still be able to conjure up some sort of other "woe is me" story.
As for our family, I have one daughter and a son on the way, and even though our daughter is going to have a sibling, we STILL have people ask us if we are going to try for another one so Gracie (my daughter) can have a sister. Sheesh. And the answer is no, because like you, I have had pregnancy-related issues (miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension) and frankly, I don't foresee myself as being up to do this again. I agree with jeannie--you do the best you can with what you have.
What a fascinating discussion. Sorry for coming in so late.
I guess I have to wonder why people think it's any of their business how many kids YOU have or how you raise them?
But people pass judgement like they pass gas—often and it's usually stinky. (I just thought that up!)
And as for EJ not having the support of her siblings when the time comes? I, for a fact, know too many families with several siblings where only ONE of them takes on the responsibility of that task while the others shy away.
So what the hell is the difference? Either way, EJ would have the support of her extended family for sure, the support of the family she creates—biologically or by "choosing" your family through close friendships. She will not be alone.
So, for me anyway, the choice or fate of how many children we have—I'd rather use my energies in more productive arguments.
Such as (and here I go passing judgement) Suleman adding to the overpopulation dilemma and the taxpayers burden. Not to mention the other things you ladies already highlighted.
I prefer people to have as many children as they:
1. can afford
2. can give adequate (if not more) amounts of love and attention to
3. can support mentally, physically, and emotionally
EJ has all three, and much, much, more.
Post a Comment