Parents of 3- do you wish you’d stopped at 2 or 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, because children are humans, not just a source of enjoyment for parents.

Do you have children?

DP but I have kids and absolutely agree with the PP. I derive great joy from my children but am always keenly aware that providing me joy is not their sole, or even main, purpose in life. No matter how many kids you have, you have to remember that they are independent people with their own needs, dreams, desires, etc.

I just find it laughable that you think anyone would have three or more children solely because of the "joy" they provide. The entire premise of this thread is how much work three is.

Lots of people have kids thinking mostly about what they will get out of it. I'd say it is a majority who think critically about how their child will become a person with separate needs and desires before getting pregnant. Most people do figure this out eventually, but we're talking about the decision to have kids, not the experience of having them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand wanting to be a parent and go from couple to a family. I also understand wanting a sibling for the child. I find it hard to understand having thirds, fourths and so on. I get that different people think differently but what's the reason behind it? Is it to fill some personal or marital void?

I wanted them for them. They are cool kids. I wanted them to exist. It wasn’t really about me.

[Anonymous]

I have three and am pregnant with our fourth (and final) child. My husband and I always wanted a third, and also started on the younger side of normal so we had time to spread out the kids a bit. When people ask us about two vs. three kids, we do say that two is a really great number of kids to have. Unless both partners are certain that they want a third, I think most people are better off stopping at 2.

Interestingly, about 8/10 people I have talked to personally that have 3 kids have told me that they wished they had gone for a 4th. Several were just wistful for one more, while some had issues with the odd number of children causing problems in the family. I was surprised to hear that from so many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have three and am pregnant with our fourth (and final) child. My husband and I always wanted a third, and also started on the younger side of normal so we had time to spread out the kids a bit. When people ask us about two vs. three kids, we do say that two is a really great number of kids to have. Unless both partners are certain that they want a third, I think most people are better off stopping at 2.

Interestingly, about 8/10 people I have talked to personally that have 3 kids have told me that they wished they had gone for a 4th. Several were just wistful for one more, while some had issues with the odd number of children causing problems in the family. I was surprised to hear that from so many people.

The thing about an odd number of children is magical thinking. If having 3 causes issues (say with one child feeling like the odd one out a lot, or with tag teaming as parents), evening it out with another kid is a very risky way of trying to fix that. I would only have a fourth if having three is going GREAT and we really wanted another.

Having a child to solve a perceived problem in the family is always a bad idea. You have to solve problems first, babies don't fix issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have three and am pregnant with our fourth (and final) child. My husband and I always wanted a third, and also started on the younger side of normal so we had time to spread out the kids a bit. When people ask us about two vs. three kids, we do say that two is a really great number of kids to have. Unless both partners are certain that they want a third, I think most people are better off stopping at 2.

Interestingly, about 8/10 people I have talked to personally that have 3 kids have told me that they wished they had gone for a 4th. Several were just wistful for one more, while some had issues with the odd number of children causing problems in the family. I was surprised to hear that from so many people.

I wonder if it’s the stage of life when people are saying this. I wanted a fourth until my three were teens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and am pregnant with our fourth (and final) child. My husband and I always wanted a third, and also started on the younger side of normal so we had time to spread out the kids a bit. When people ask us about two vs. three kids, we do say that two is a really great number of kids to have. Unless both partners are certain that they want a third, I think most people are better off stopping at 2.

Interestingly, about 8/10 people I have talked to personally that have 3 kids have told me that they wished they had gone for a 4th. Several were just wistful for one more, while some had issues with the odd number of children causing problems in the family. I was surprised to hear that from so many people.

I wonder if it’s the stage of life when people are saying this. I wanted a fourth until my three were teens.

I think a lot of people get wistful about wanting another kid when their children are small and they watch their youngest go through certain milestones and are sad it's their last time. I definitely felt that way. Still do sometimes. But some kid has to be your last. You have to step back and separate that wistfulness from practical considerations like the size of your home, your personal capacity for more kids, the number of college educations you can save for, etc.

I think everyone who enjoys parenting has moments where they think "I love these kids so much, we should have another." But after two kids, I don't think that's enough of a justification for doing it unless some other ducks are in a row.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

+1! I'm one of 2, my DH is one of 2. Both of us have "problematic" siblings, probably one of the things that drew us together. My brother also has two kids. DH's sister will not have children. I wish someone with kids broke the mold and had more than two, just to shake up the two-kid dynamic. We tried after our 2nd and it didn't happen. I find the dynamic of two kids produces such a binary - you compare every experience with your 2nd child to only your experience with your first. Siblings compare everything to each other only. Lots of concentrated attention, as PP mentions. Obviously we have biased opinions, but maybe a helpful anecdote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

+1! I'm one of 2, my DH is one of 2. Both of us have "problematic" siblings, probably one of the things that drew us together. My brother also has two kids. DH's sister will not have children. I wish someone with kids broke the mold and had more than two, just to shake up the two-kid dynamic. We tried after our 2nd and it didn't happen. I find the dynamic of two kids produces such a binary - you compare every experience with your 2nd child to only your experience with your first. Siblings compare everything to each other only. Lots of concentrated attention, as PP mentions. Obviously we have biased opinions, but maybe a helpful anecdote.

Even if this is true, I’m not creating another entire human just to (maybe) mitigate this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

Hmm, how many people from big families do you know? I know some large families like you describe. I also know large families where one or more of the siblings is as bad or worse than you describe your SIL. I know large families with intense "golden child", "scapegoat", and "overlooked middle" problems. I know large families where the siblings are intensely competitive, either altogether or in small groups (two sisters out of four kids who are intensely competitive, for instance). Again, I also know large families who are happy and get along great, but there's definitely no guarantee that having more kids will result in that dynamic.

I also know plenty of families with 1 or 2 kids that are healthy and happy with great dynamics, and others that are highly dysfunctional.

My takeaway is that number of kids will not result in the "correct" family dynamic. I think it comes down to parenting, personalities, and also probably a lot of external factors like stress, support from extended family, etc.

[Anonymous]

Does having 1 parent stay home with the kids make having 3 easier? Or does it not change anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of two, I consider a third because I think having more kids diffuses competition and self centeredness among overly coddles two children families.

My husband is one of two and his sister, although nice, is one of the most vain and self centered (and spoiled) people I’ve met. I 100% believe this outcome is a result of my in laws providing too much intense attention and coddling.

In general people I know from bigger families are close with their siblings and learned early how to exist amongst other people.

+1! I'm one of 2, my DH is one of 2. Both of us have "problematic" siblings, probably one of the things that drew us together. My brother also has two kids. DH's sister will not have children. I wish someone with kids broke the mold and had more than two, just to shake up the two-kid dynamic. We tried after our 2nd and it didn't happen. I find the dynamic of two kids produces such a binary - you compare every experience with your 2nd child to only your experience with your first. Siblings compare everything to each other only. Lots of concentrated attention, as PP mentions. Obviously we have biased opinions, but maybe a helpful anecdote.

Even if this is true, I’m not creating another entire human just to (maybe) mitigate this.

Agreed. And couldn't you mitigate it just as well by making some other parenting choices? The PP said "you compare every experience with your second child to only your experience with your first." Well... don't? Especially if you can see how this manifests competition and comparison in the family. Learn to treat your kids as individuals. And if it seems like they are getting too much "concentrated attention" with only two kids, you as a parent must learn to be more hands off.

The idea that having a third or fourth or fifth child is going to fix what you consider to be an inevitably unhealthy dynamic raises real questions for me. No one should feel that beholden to an unhealthy dynamic. As with most parenting challenges, you have to look at it from a few angles, maybe try some different approaches, and find something that will help and keep working at it. You don't just throw up your hands and say "well this is just how it is with two kids." It's so defeatist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does having 1 parent stay home with the kids make having 3 easier? Or does it not change anything?

It's all about resources and allocation. Having a SAHP could be the right solution for resource allocation, assuming that parent genuinely wants to be home with three kids and the family has enough financial resources on one income. Other families will do better with both parents working, maybe one in a more flexible job (teaching seems to be a good job for the primary parent in a family like this because of how well it aligns with kids schedules compared to other careers) and then very good and reliable childcare in the form of a nanny, extended family, or great and convenient daycare/aftercare. Probably house cleaners and other assistance around the house because if you are both working, there will not be much time for cleaning, mowing the lawn, etc.

It is harder to allocate resources with three kids than with two. Basically the longer you will be in high-resource stages (the 0-5 stage, and then again during tween/teen years) the harder it is to cover all your bases. I'm a huge fan of the temporary SAHP to help deal with the high-resource stages, I think we should talk about it more as a society. Having a SAHP during the daycare years can be such a boon if you can swing it and it won't torpedo that parent's career. But then having two incomes during the school years can really help with ensuring everyone has access to other resource they need (though I think a part-time or super flexible job can really help there as well, unless you have good help at home).

I do think one thing that happens with 3+ kids is that if you have a SAHP with that many kids, the odds of that person returning to the workforce gets slimmer and slimmer every year. And if they do return, it's likely to be in a very low paying job, or to have very little flexibility, because they will be very junior. So if you have 3 kids and decide one of you should SAHP, you need to be ready for that to be a permanent change and not be resentful or disappointed 10 years later when you are still on one income. And with 3 kids, you need the working parent to be pretty high earning, or you need to be willing to live in a low COL area, because the expense of raising 3 kids, and sending them all to school, is not for the faint of heart.

[Anonymous]

Nope, don't regret it at all. DH and I both work FT, albeit in flexible jobs. FT means 40 - 45 hours/week, not 50+.

What I don't do is convince people who are on the fence about a third to go for it. "Think about your Thanksgiving table in 30 years!" is lousy advice. We were sure we wanted three and were fortunate enough to have the kids we wanted with the spacing we wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does having 1 parent stay home with the kids make having 3 easier? Or does it not change anything?

I work now but I was a sahm until my youngest was 2. I did find staying home in the early years easier, personally. We now have a nanny which I also find easier than childcare but we will likely switch to after school care when all the kids are in school F/T