July 21, 2010: This has been, no doubt, the most exhausting year of my life.

Well, it's happened. As of yesterday Gavin is one year old. One whole year! In some ways this seems impossible. Could 365 days really have passed since a nurse first handed all 8.8 lbs. of him to me at the hospital? Yet in other ways, it's pretty irrefutable. No longer is he a little baby who doesn't do much more than cry, eat, and fill his diapers. And he's long passed the under 10 lb. mark (he's at about 25 lbs. right now, and I'd add the caveat "give or take" but I really think only "give" is applicable here). We have a one year old in our house. A very willful one at that. Take now, for example, when our "baby" boy is supposed to be napping and is instead sermonizing from his crib. Whatever he's saying, it is very grave, very important. But I'm not getting him up because he's supposed to be sleeping. He hasn't been in there long. It could happen. Yesterday he babbled for about a half hour and then sacked out for two.

Stacy said she's feeling sad about our boy growing up. I can understand that. I mean, for one thing, the end of nursing is in sight, something Stacy will really miss. Once Stacy goes back to school in the fall she doesn't plan to pump any more, so Gavin will only nurse in the morning and at night. Some ladies say that this isn't enough to sustain their milk production and they dry up. I know that would be sad for her. But I'm also curious to see what happens once Stacy isn't the milk mom any more. We'll see if Gavin still prefers her. Or if he'll cast us both aside as damaged goods. But I don't really see that last one happening. Not until he's a teenager at least.

On the cover of the newest issue of Time is a story about single children. Not, of course, children who aren't married, but children who have no siblings. "The Only Child: Debunking the Myths" by Lauren Sandler is a good read. Before having Gavin I had never really given much thought to single children. I have three sisters and one brother, for one, and being a twin on top of that means that I have never spent any of my life as an only child. But of course, the whole question of whether or not I want another kid in addition to Gavin is huge. Stacy does, while I lean in the opposite direction. And I have definitely felt guilty about this and have worried that I would be doing a disservice to my son by not giving him a sibling. After reading Sandler's article, I definitely feel much less insecure about my desire to have one child. Apparently it's all the rage now and not just because of the economy and because sports cars sans child seats are so fun. In other words, it's not just because people have less money and are more selfish. Though that's part of it. But is being selfish all so bad? I mean, it is, if you're selfish and only selfish. But being selfless can be equally destructive. And, as Sandler writes, in order "to be good parents, we have to be happy people." Unhappy people don't really make good parents. I mean, I doubt Sylvia Plath ever won any Mother of the Year awards.

I think the most important thing to take away from Sandler's article is that if Gavin is an only child he's going to be okay. In fact, better than okay. This whole idea that only children are sad bastard weirdos is completely baseless. There's nothing to back it up and yet it's still wedged into the crack of cultural consciousness like an ill-fitting thong. In fact, studies have even shown that in terms of intelligence and achievement, an only child typically does better. After all, an only child doesn't have to divide his or her parents' resources, whether we're talking about money or time or love.

One of the mothers Sandler talked to said that, in terms of her only child, "being a mother, and loving being a mother, means being his mother." Right on, lady. Right on. Another mother talked about the "light at the end of the tunnel" philosophy, which I definitely relate to. Talking about her daughter waking up over and over at night due to teething she says, "I can be fully present for this and do my best at trying to appreciate it, because it's like this is the only time I am going to do this." While I think this woman might be a better person than me, her sentiments strongly correspond with my own.

The comments following the online version of the article (I read the whole thing in the magazine, which I got from the library), are also really interesting to read. A few people say that Sandler is selfish since she says that she's had to sacrifice for her children. Apparently you have to love every second of raising a child and pouring your entire being into someone else's life without ever feeling like you're trading one thing for another. Except you are. Sacrifices aren't always a negative thing. People make them all the time, some more willing than others. But maybe "sacrifice" is too loaded a word since it evokes virgins jumping into volcanoes and Jesus on the cross and stuff. Maybe if she used "compromise" would come across as less "selfish." Having a child is a pretty unselfish thing to do for the most part. I mean, sure there are exceptions (Joan Crawford, for example), but as I said before, you can't be completely selfish, or selfless for that matter, and be a good parent. It's kind of like a "having your cake and eating it too" thing. Though let me be clear, you should never eat your children. That is one thing I think we can all agree on. That's our common ground here. Everything else is up for grabs.