Sociological questions

I would like everyone to keep in mind that I myself am considering the childfree lifestyle, so I am not asking these questions to be insulting, but to learn. You may answer whatever questions you feel comfortable answering. It's sort of a sociological/psychological survey. Feel free to pass it by.

Here are the questions and their caveats, as it were:

Question 1:
Are you an only child, or do you have siblings? How far apart are the siblings in your family? Do you agree or disagree with the theory that if two siblings are more than six years apart, they are "separate families" according to family theorists? Did you spend a lot of time with your siblings growing up?

Question 2:
Do you believe that there is a correlation (not a causation, necessarily, but if you believe that there is, by all means, explain your thoughts) between being an only child and being childfree? Why, or why not?
Caveat: One of my friends made the decision to be childfree because she was the oldest of four and helped raise her younger siblings, so she's done with babies. However, I've noticed that many of the childfree I know are only children.

Question 3 (for only children):
What are the pros to being an only child? What are the cons?

(For those with siblings): What are the pros to having siblings? What are the cons?

For both: Did your experience with or without siblings directly influence your personal decision?

Question 4 (which is a series of questions, and are probably the most sensitive, so, please forgive me if I offend):
Do you believe that people with siblings are worse off than people without, and vice versa? Explain why you think so in the most respectful way possible.
Do you believe that some mental illnesses are correlated with family dynamics? For example, do you think that people with siblings are less likely to be successful, and only children are more likely to be narcissistic? Do these theories hold any water? Are only children more likely to be geniuses?
Caveat: Two of the most narcissistic, bordering on sociopath, people I know are brothers. Henry and William James were geniuses that were from a family of three and four. Which I why I want to stress "more likely" and "less likely" not guaranteed.

Thank you for your time. I've just been very curious about this for a while now. If it would make you feel more comfortable, or if you're just wondering, I can post my answers as well.

Firstly, I am new here. I have been reading, but never providing any input. I finally got the guts to write.

Question 1:
I am the oldest of four children. My sister is one year younger, brother is 3 years younger, and other brother is 5 years younger. We spent lots of time together and are pretty close. I believe that if siblings are more than six years apart they are more likely to have separate lives.


Question 2:
Not necessarily. They may want to have children because they didn't have siblings.


Question 3 (For those with siblings):
I thing it's nice to be able to call my siblings once and away. It's nice to have a nephew. I don't like the family drama.

My decision to remain childfree wasn't influenced by my siblings directly. I did notice that my parents struggled financially trying to provide for 4 children while I was growing up.

Question 4:
People live different lives and they can be good or bad with siblings or without. I don't particularly feel that anyone is worse off with siblings or without.
Everyone has a different personality and deals with situations differently. My sister and I are complete opposites and only one year apart. We just think differently and respond differently and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that we have siblings. My nephew is an only child and behaves just like his mother (who has 3 siblings).

Not to go off-topic, but welcome cdswim- I am new here as well. ^_^

Ahem...anyhow

Question 1:
I am the oldest of three children. I have a brother who is one year younger than me, and a sister who is eight years younger. I think that there may be some merit to the theory, but I don't necessarily see that reflected in my family dynamic. I am very close with both of my siblings. My brother and myself especially. This is probably because we are so close in age. I did not spend as much time with my sister when she was very young, mainly because I have no patience with children. However, I have always pretty much treated her as an equal, even when she was still fairly young (ten or so). We are all freakishly alike, and finish each others sentences.

Question 2:
My personal opinion is that every person who is childfree has their own reasons. I don't see being an only child as a main factor in choosing childfreedom, although it may be for some people.

Question 3:
Well, the pro of having siblings (for me) are having close friends who also happen to be family. However, this can go either way. I was lucky enough to get awesome siblings, but there are plenty of people who don't get along with their siblings AT ALL.

The cons are obvious, and probably apply to the vast majority of families with multiple children:

1. Fewer resources. The more children, the less money to go around. This means less or lower quality of pretty much everything, from food to clothes and sometimes things like braces, vehicles, you name it. Obviously, the more income, the better the resources. I know that I had to go without a lot of things that my sister is now able to have since my brother and myself are grown and gone.

2. Less time alone! I cannot tell you how many times I was interrupted by one of my siblings when in the middle of something.

3. Less quality time with parents. The more children, the less time each parent can spend with each child. It's that simple.

4. Sibling rivalry/jealously/fights etc.

There are a lot more, but I'm not going to list them all here.

My experience with my siblings has little to nothing to do with my decision to be childfree. I have never had a desire to have children. I'm sure that in an indirect way, my sister had some influence. After all, I was eight years old when she was born, and I got an idea of the work involved with caring for a child. I helped watch her, change diapers, feed and dress her- you name it. Luckily my mother took the main responsibility for raising her, so I had to do these things very infrequently. All of that aside, I already knew by then that I didn't want kids, so this may have just reinforced my feelings.

Question 4:
I think if you get rotten siblings, you are probably better off being an only child. There is always a trade-off. If I hadn't gotten so lucky, I would probably wish that I was an only child, too! It all depends on the family.

I don't agree with any of that. As a matter of fact, I have known two people (one who I only suspect is a sociopath,but is DEFINITELY a narcissict) and another who is a murderer. I went to high school with the latter- always knew he was trouble. Anyhow- they both have one sibling. I have never heard about that particular theory. In terms of only children having a greater chance of being geniuses- can't say I've heard that one, either. I think that a number of mental illnesses are genetic, so there might be a family connection there. I think what you're asking about are personality disorders. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope that helped!

1-I am an only.

2-I don't have an answer, but you're right, I went to a CF gathering and MANY women were onlies.

3-I feel as there are many Pros as I never really regretted being an only. One thing I can think of off the top of my head is...the lack of sibling rivalry. As an adult, I can see this still is a very real issue among sibs into their adulthood. I can see friends, family and my own spouse still vying for mommy and daddy's approval, doing things out of simple obligation instead of love, to one-up a sib, to be the star in mommy's eyes and not disappoint. I already know mom liked me best, I don't need to compete for the position.

The cons--might be--the fact my parents had no comparision, so everytime I did break the rules, they acted like it was the end of the world, because kid 1, 2 and 3 didn't do it first while they were growing up. It would nice to have a sib because I felt I would know more people through them also in the 'hood, have more aquaintances, but that was the only thing I *thought* I was missing out on.

4--I obviously don't have the answers for this. I do see as an adult and from my childhood, that kids with sibs aren't necessarily better at "sharing" into adulthood, it is almost the opposite: like they resent being forced to share with the sibs, so now as an adult what it theirs is theirs! I don't see better social skills when it comes to dating, communication, inter-relation activities. They don't seem less spoiled, some all the more spoiled. All the things that breeders say about the need for a sibling do not pan out in real life from my point of view. But, this is obviously not and all or nothing situation, everyone is raised differently, and then grow up differently. :sw

This is just my point of view, and 2 cents.

question 1, i am in a strange situation i do have a brother 13 years oolder than me, so i didnt really have a brother growing up as he was at university.

question3

the bad bits in having a brother far older than me, is he was away and needed money for university, and there wasnt a lot left. as i said my bro is a lot older he was like a other father (my bro is also childfree he is 47 and its unlikely he will have a child or anything. so just me and him and thats the end of my line. which is fine by me. and fine by mum,

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Question 1:

I'm the oldest of 4 & female. My sister is 1.5 years apart, brother #1= 4 years, & brother #2= 7 years. I myself don't agree with the 6+ years = separate families theory, since my youngest brother is close to me. And I knew plenty of young kids who had great relationships with their 15+ years older siblings, due to their parent's setting that standard. (In large Irish families- it's kind of a way of life!) I actually always wanted an older brother- maybe 5 or 6 years older than me.

One important thing I should add, though-YES I am close to my sibs as an adult- BUT ever since my 1st brother had kids- it's like there are only 3 of us sibs now. We used to play without even needing to talk. Now it's like he's ripped away I really miss how we used to be. I'm actually tearing up :bawl

I DID spend a lot of time with my siblings growing up, even though sometimes I fantasized I was an only. We of course fought a little, but played more often. As an adult, I wouldn't have traded it for anything.

> Question 2:

I don't think there is a correlation. Most CF people I know have 1 or 2 sibs w/ kids. My SIL is an only, and she felt it her duty as a hyper-responsible person to have those grandkids. Of course I felt pressure as the oldest, but I figured well, one of us 4 is bound to breed someday. So there was actually LESS pressure. And it's subsided altogether since my brother had kids.

> Question 3

The PROS:
Always someone to play with, blow off steam with, share stuff with, learn to develop your own individuality (& cover your ass when you sneak out, etc) Being a weird kid, they "got" me more than anyone. As an adult, you have someone who deeply understands you & where you came from like no other- not even in the way your SO can understand you sometimes.

The CONS:
Fewer resources, less opportunity. I wanted badly to go to college & we couldn't afford it, and since my parents actually worked for a living, we weren't eligible for "freebees" (sarcasm anyone?) I remember when my mom wanted another baby I wished so much that she wouldn't, since they had so many money problems. I never had a problem with too little attention, since being in a busy house I actually craved alot of alone time. Being the 1st made me more independent.

My experience with siblings had nothing to do with my being CF. I decided to be CF BEFORE my brother had kids, so that wasn't a factor. I believe I came pre-wired for potential CF-ness, since I was a tomboy who liked science & other weirdness. Other influences in my life that were non-sib related made me decide for sure.

> Question 4

#1- I don't believe either is worse off than the other. I'm sure rare cases exist such as sibling brutality, abuse, etc... or an only child being under a microscope so intensely they crack, but for the most part, people come wired to need different levels of attention or space, and they will seek it out one way or another- whether an only or one of many.

#2- I don't feel one is more prone to mental illness than the other. Since I think it's mostly genetic, there appears to be more sibs w/ mental illnesses simply because the genetic chances are greater with say- 4 vs 1.

And I don't think either has a monopoly on narcissism. A parent can create a monster out of any kid if they want to. And if by chance parents do win the genetic narcissism lottery and their kid is just born brat-ready, then the parents just have a harder hill to climb with that kid.

I had a younger brother who was one year, one day and one year younger than me. I was always close to my brother, even though we are complete opposites. I would really hesitate to say that an only child has a greater tendency to be CF. Where is such evidence other than anecdotal? And what difference does that make if it were true? The pros and cons are obvious to me so I don’t feel the need to list them. Ultimately each person is alone in their life experience whether they have siblings or not—but a lot of people aren’t comfortable with that.

If people are only children, so what? It’s all relative. If people have siblings, so what? There isn’t a “better” here. It’s just a different set of circumstances. There are cons with each one. I do not think that only children are the geniuses and the rest of us are mediocre. Look at a lot of great artists, writers. Many had siblings. It's a crapshoot, really. But again, people aren't comfortable with that. They like to think they can make their lives completely secure. I think that’s a lot of BS. At the same time, though, people do have a lot of control over their lives to a large extent. It always bothers me when women say “If God wants me to become pregnant, then it will happen no matter what I do.” I’ve heard that more than once, and it's bullshit.

Looks like you have definite theories that might not go over too well on a forum like this. You mention you think there might be a link between being an only child and being childfree, and then you mention "only children" and "narcissism" in the same sentence. This is very close to the breeder bingo of "you're so selfish if you don't have kids". You say you're not trying to be insulting, but what you say after that speaks volumes as to your frame of mind. You mostly ask questions about whether it's better to have one child or many, so I sincerely doubt you're truly interested in the option of no children at all (except as a circus sideshow or a research paper).

I will point out that narcissistic children are almost always created by narcissistic parents. Not by birth order or by being only children. Both of my parents are narcissists, and both came from families with many siblings. They are narcissistic because one or both of their parents were.

Narcissism does not equal sociopathic behavior, by the way. A sociopath is just an extreme kind of narcissist. Healthy adults have a functional amount of self-interest, which is called "healthy adult narcissism". This is the middle ground between being a sociopath at one end and having no sense of self outside of serving others at the other.

I am not a narcissist, despite both my parents being so. That is because children of narcissists can instead become extremely empathic and giving due to being expected to read the minds of and fill all the desires of the narcissistic parents. I have no sense of self outside of serving others. I am the opposite end of the spectrum from the narcissists.

I am an only child.

I do not want children because there are more than enough people already and there is nothing particularly special about my genetic code. Humans are far more similar than they are different on a genetic level, so what does it matter if certain man apes breed and certain others don't? I would rather concentrate my energies on serving the people who are already here, rather than bringing a brand new life into being.

If you want to see a visual example of just how fast the birth rate is outstripping the death rate and some of the environmental consequences, go to http://www.breathingearth.net/ and watch for a few minutes. It's the most convincing argument I know of not to have children.

This is a little lengthy:
Actually, I'm trying to DEBUNK the theory (or should I say stereotype) that only children are narcissists. My sweetest cousin is an only child, one of my best friends is an only child, and the two narcissists I know are brothers. But I've heard "oh, only children are spoiled/narcissistic/etc." Which makes me wonder, how can people think this? I would think that the with the amount of only children in the world, they can't ALL be narcissistic (unhealthy narcissistic, that is, you have an excellent point that I should have been more clear). It's insane. My friend who is an only child says that people cluck their tongues at her, and ask her if it was hard for her to make friends, if she was a spoiled brat, etc. One even asked her if her parents were disappointed because she wasn't a boy!
I know a lot of CF people are only children, at least those I notice on this board, and on the True Confessions Snark board. So that's what makes me wonder if there is a correlation.
I am interested in the only child/genius link because somebody mentioned to me that as an only child, he spent a lot of time with adults, who have more intellectual interests (generally) than children. Which makes sense, and there's also undivided attention and resources, as mentioned here.
And I'm not talking about having no children because I'm asking people who are born, and are obviously not from families with no children. If you exist, it stands to reason that you have parents, and they decided whether to have one child or more than one. It's really sort of how sibling dynamics effected YOUR choice.
Certainly, I wish this was more formal. I've been asking people IRL about this too.
I certainly don't think that having many children is a good thing. My mother came from a family of eleven. She was the only girl until her younger sister was born, when she was fourteen. I think it would be impossible to give adequate attention to each child with that many, especially since both my grandparents worked. Also, it was a very patriarchal family, so, my mother was not only one of many, but a second class citizen to her brothers. Don't get me wrong, I love each of my uncles very much, but I often wonder whether my mother would have been happier and less insecure (something she admits to) if she had been an only child, or at least had less siblings.
And hey, Natalie Portman is an only child. Coincid5ence? Okay, so I'm a little envious, but I love my brothers. And I've read nasty things about people who have siblings on another board! So, these experiences, and the odd antagonism toward only children in some places and those with siblings in others, prompted my curiosity. And the nasty comments about people with siblings did raise my defensiveness, unfortunately.

And Sibyl--
thanks for the website. It was scary as hell, so thank goodness for Lunesta--and condoms!

Leaning toward childfree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a little lengthy:
> Actually, I'm trying to DEBUNK the theory (or
> should I say stereotype) that only children are
> narcissists. My sweetest cousin is an only child,
> one of my best friends is an only child, and the
> two narcissists I know are brothers. But I've
> heard "oh, only children are
> spoiled/narcissistic/etc." Which makes me wonder,
> how can people think this? I would think that the
> with the amount of only children in the world,
> they can't ALL be narcissistic (unhealthy
> narcissistic, that is, you have an excellent point
> that I should have been more clear). It's insane.

> I know a lot of CF people are only children, at
> least those I notice on this board, and on the
> True Confessions Snark board. So that's what makes
> me wonder if there is a correlation.

> I am interested in the only child/genius link
> because somebody mentioned to me that as an only
> child, he spent a lot of time with adults, who
> have more intellectual interests (generally) than
> children. Which makes sense, and there's also
> undivided attention and resources, as mentioned
> here.

> And I'm not talking about having no children
> because I'm asking people who are born, and are
> obviously not from families with no children. If
> you exist, it stands to reason that you have
> parents, and they decided whether to have one
> child or more than one. It's really sort of how
> sibling dynamics effected YOUR choice.

Thanks for clearing that up. Good luck trying to shake people and wake them up. People persist in believing that children will make them happy, when study after study has shown that the opposite is true. I suppose you could define "truth" as "what a lot of people believe to be true". They want to believe that only children must be spoiled and selfish. They want to believe that loving couples without children must have been only children (and thus spoiled and selfish).

You'll have quite an uphill battle if you wish to convince them that CF people are not aliens and non-persons.

To answer a few more of your questions:

I never really thought about the pros and cons of having siblings. I could not even speculate what kind of added value or loss of value they would bring to my life. I tended to operate alone regardless of who was around. Dealing with people and their needs wiped me out, and I would go somewhere solitary to recharge and do my own thing.

I never really wanted siblings. I had some step siblings eventually, but I didn't live with them most of the time. My parents were both so self-absorbed that there wasn't enough love and attention to go around for one child, much less many.

Having been raised thus, I have a high chance of passing on my maladaptive behaviors to impressionable young minds in my care. Any child of mine would have a high chance of becoming an extreme narcissist, not because of birth order or only-child status, but because I have been raised to serve narcissists. The child would analyze the power dynamic between us and assume (correctly) that s/he could get away with attempting to rule the roost. It's another good reason I don't want children. Inflicting this sort of multi-generational mind poison on them seems cruel.

I took an IQ test (the WISC-R) when I was 5, and I scored higher than the top score (which was 155 for that version of the test). My IQ is thus recorded for posterity only as "156++". (Keep in mind that the only IQ test capable of testing for IQs higher than this is the deprecated and antiquated Stanford-Binet test, which takes ages to administer.) I have no idea what "++" means or how much higher the examiner felt my score could be. Am I a genius? I would have difficulty describing myself as one. You will have to draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for getting this far.

Question 1:
I am an only child.

Question 2:
I don't have any reason to believe that being an only child leads one to being child free. I know many only children who have had children, and many folks with siblings who have not had children. I think the only thing that child free people have in common, aside from a lack of desire to raise children, is a willingness to think for themselves, and not just follow the norm.

I'd add here that I started babysitting at least 3 days per week at the age of 12, and pretty much did that until I was 19. When I was 18, I spent the summer as a status symbol - I mean live in nanny.


Question 3 (for only children):
I think nearly every aspect of being an only child is a pro, and see no cons about it. Sure, I could never get away with anything just by blaming a sibling, but as a result I learned pretty quickly that actions have consequences, and that if you're sneaky enough to not get caught, then you don't get in trouble. I never had to worry about someone ratting me out.

I don't feel that being an only child has any bearing on whether or not I'd have children, because my decision isn't based on family dynamics, but on personal choice (and freedom)

Question 4:
None of the sibling/only child theories hold water, because what it's really about is the resources, physical and otherwise. If the parents have the physical and mental resources to care for each of their children's individual needs, AND they keep the breeding down to a point where they can sufficiently provide for their children (mentally and physically) then the children should be fine. If the parents don't have the physical or mental resources to even provide for one child, then any other children are going to become an exponential burden and drain on the entire family, and the results aren't going to be good.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me