In a recent conversation with my mom, we got on the topic of me having a second child. As a rule, I do not discuss having children with my parents. They had no idea that C and I were trying when I announced I was pregnant with Wild Man, and if we do have a second child, I plan to use the same strategy. The conversation started with me saying how exhausted I was from the rough week we'd had. It went something like this.
Mom: It sounds like Wild Man is having fun.
Me: Oh, he is. After three days on antibiotics, he is back to his old self, playing, running, getting into everything. I'm the one who is struggling! I have a cold and am still trying to catch up on all the sleep I lost this week.
Mom: Just think how tired you'll be when you have two.
Me: Well, Mom, Wild Man may be it. We may not have a second one.
Mom: (in a very stern voice) You have to have a second child, M!
Me: Well, no, Mom, actually I don't.
Mom: Yes, you do. Parents should always have two children in case something happens to the first one.
Now, I've heard my mom say this my entire life, and she firmly believes it. I don't question her belief in this because I've heard her speak about how close my brother came to dying as an infant (he had spinal meningitis when he was 5 months old, and he was very sick for several weeks). She took comfort in knowing that if anything had happened to my brother she had another my sister to help her through her grief (I wasn't born yet). Every time I hear this story, I always think "Can one child really replace another child? In my mother's case, would my sister have been enough to get her through losing my brother?" Fortunately, we'll never know because (and I think this is something that influences my mother's opinion on this issue) my mother has never lost a child. When she said this during our recent conversation, I just changed the subject, but I had much stronger reaction that I didn't share with her. I really think this is a stupid statement, and I hope my mother never says it to me again. If anything ever happened to Wild Man, I would be completely and utterly devastated. No other child could replace him, just as he couldn't be the replacement for any other child. While I understand that the job of parenting and the love for one child may force a person through the grieving process faster, I don't think one person can ever replace another. And I also think saying this sort of thing in front of a child who has just lost her sibling puts a lot of undue pressure on that child. Not only has the child lost her sibling, but now she must also become a replacement for that lost sibling. I love my mom, but sometimes I really question her thinking.
4 comments:
If the conversation occurred in that order, it is way too early to play the "In case" card. At least begin with "There will alway be someone for Wild Man."
My take on this may be a little unexpected. In some ways though, I can see your Mother's point. My existence may rest on the fact that my mother lost a child after my sister was born. My sister is 2 3/4 years older and my mother lost a child very late in her pregnancy.
I know that this situation does not present a perfect analogy. And, I think you are correct that one child never "replaces" or "stands in" for another. But I can assure you, I am very happy my parents thought of trying again, which may not have occurred. Maybe I did "replace" something, but I am sure I provided something what was not there..."Replace" may be wrong word choice.
This may be a generational argument . Our parents faced vastly different medical circumstances as they tried to have children.
My Mom has said something similar recently, but it was more tied to her thinking about my grandmother. My mom has 3 siblings, and none had a really good relationship with g-ma. So they quibble over who takes care of her. My mom would never outright admit it, but she's afraid we won't help her in her old age, so she's said things like she's glad she had 3 and 1 (I have an older half sister and this is how she explains it).
But I agree with you. I talked with my other grandma awhil ago about what it was like for her after my Dad died. She didn't get comfort that I had 2 uncles, she still had a whole because her child died.
My father lost two brothers, and he has suffered not only feeling those losses but also feeling as if he has to replace the rest. He told my mother after his first brother died while my dad was in college that he didn't like to go back home because he had to be two people.
On the other hand, I can understand how having another child to take joy in can help ease grief. It's not an issue of replacing the lost one but in finding an object of hope in what you have left. Like when something bad happens and you try to focus on the good things in your life to help you get through it.
I don't know if that's a good reason to have a child, but then again, what IS a good reason to have a child?
Recently, I read about somebody saying something similar--I can't remember where now--but the author's reaction was, "Yeah, because people with more than one child don't mind if they lose one." I get your reaction to your mom's comment, but maybe she didn't mean it like 'replace' Wild Man. I have actually said to Gabe that if anything ever happened to Luke, I could imagine never recovering, never getting out of bed again. Maybe she meant it more like another child would force you to get out of bed again.
Have you ever read Sweet|Salty? I started reading the blog back when the author was the mother of one son. She had twins prematurely last year and one of the boys died. Through the most beautifully raw writing, she clearly identifies herself as the mother of three. Children are never replaced, and even if they're not living I don't think you ever stop being their mother.
Post a Comment