[LMB] Single children (Was China)

[quietann]

On 9/8/07, Bear Master <bearmaster0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/7/07, quietann <quietann at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I will admit that my parents did something that is fairly horrifying by
> > today's standards. I am their only biological child, and was showing
> signs
> > of becoming bratty and spoiled, although I was in general a good kid, so
> > they adopted my brother when I was 4, so I'd learn that I could not be
> the
> > center of the universe all the time.
>
>
> "Fairly" horrifying?  You think?


Yes.  I agree. However -- this was 1968.

As an adoption advocate, I'm trying to see the glass as half full, a kid
> that needed a home got one.  But I can't get past the idea of adopting a
> child for the sole reason of knocking the biological child down a peg.


That was *not* the only reason; I should have made it more clear.  It's not
even something my brother and I figured out until we were well into our
30s.  I was a late-in-life child after my parents had been trying for 7
years.  They did try to have another in the usual way, but after 3 more
years of trying, at age 41, my mom said, "Enough.  This isn't working."

My dad, as an only child, had experienced the downside in full measure, and
did not want me to be an only.  He was correct; the personality I have
*does* need to be tempered by the presence of others; I can be amazingly,
embarrassingly self-centered, and having a sibling was, in fact, good for
me.

Again, it was 1968.  Healthy white infants were a dime a dozen, even in San
Diego where a pregnant girl could easily go across the border and have an
Unmentionable Medical Procedure.  Our parents were good enough that when the
social worker came for the one-year follow-up visit, she tried to convince
them to adopt another baby or two.  (Dad was interested, but Mom got smart,
and said, "If I was 25, maybe.  But at 43, I can barely keep up with *one*
toddler.")

I don't know your family, so please don't take this personally, but this is
> the worst thing I have heard of since a couple had a child because the
> older
> child needed a bone marrow transplant.  And the story made the national
> news, so no way the child will row up not knowing the only reason she was
> born was to part her out for her sister.


Again, absolutely NOT the only reason.  And I know other people, my age and
older, who came from similar situations.  No one really thought it was so
terrible back then; after all, we were only a generation or two from the
"orphan trains" where farm families were allowed to adopt children off a
train to basically be indentured servants, and most people didn't think that
was cruel, or at least thought it was better than being in an orphanage.  My
brother, while he had his problems, was not scarred for life and was as
well-loved, in the end, as I was.  His first child was born a few months
ago, and he's a fabulous father to her and eagerly hoping for one or two
more.

He actually is a lot more stable than I am; he got the slightly screwy
family environment but not the genetic problems.  My being diagnosed with
diabetes and falling into a serious depression was much harder on him than
the circumstances of his adoption; I suddenly became a very needy
child/teen, and our parents acknowledge that Alan got lost in the shuffle
for a bit.  He got their attention by some -- very minor -- acting out, and
things got better for him.  Again, a very common family dynamic when one
child is disabled/chronically ill, but most people do cope, somehow.

So yes, looking at this through 2007 eyes, without all the background, it is
not good.  1968 eyes and more context hopefully makes it clear that this
wasn't at all unusual for the time.


-- 
quietann at gmail.com

aka "The Accidental Jewess"