Is life really "better" with siblings?

I wouldn’t usually get riled up by a New York Times opinion piece. After all, they publish some truly wild takes and I don’t even live in America. But riled up I was after the paper this week ran a piece called ‘Life Is Better With Siblings’.

Citing the fact that over the past 50 years, the share of American mothers with only one child has nearly doubled (and that in the EU one child is now the most popular and common family size), the article begins: “We have a word for children without parents: orphaned. We have a word for those who lose a spouse: widowed. There is no everyday word in English for growing up without siblings — until now, we’ve rarely needed one”. And that’s only the opening paragraph. Comparing only children to the bereaved is completely offensive and ridiculous. Besides, I would argue that there are perfectly good terms for these kids: only child, single child, solo child.

But we’re just getting started. The author, Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, goes on to argue that children excel with siblings and that if you want to raise children with “good character” then you should give them one (or preferably more). The older children learn to help out, change nappies and cook. OK. Then what about the younger ones? Without all these extra chores - and does any child really need to be changing nappies? - are they destined to be without good character? The author also notes that with siblings “there are tons of opportunities for [children] to be self-sacrificing and patient and charitable” as if it’s impossible to raise a child with these attributes without a brother or sister around. It’s nonsense.