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

[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.

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.

Most large families are full of drama, especially as the kids grow. It is intense competition for attention, affection and resources of the parents and the fact that you are forced to live with many people you did not choose and that you may not like at all.

Just look at the Family forum, sibling relationships are more often fraught than not. Large families only serve the needs and wants of the parents.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

[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.

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.

+1 add in mental health. One of my son's has ADHD and it will always impact our family dynamic. In some good ways, and also a lot of hard ways. And dynamics would generally be easier with two kids who naturally had more stable mood etc.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

m

Sorry your childhood was like that, but I also don’t think this is a universal. I’m one of five, and I don’t think any of my siblings would describe our childhood like that. I agree with some posters who’ve suggested that a parent who isn’t good with a larger number of kids often is also not great with fewer children.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

m

Sorry your childhood was like that, but I also don’t think this is a universal. I’m one of five, and I don’t think any of my siblings would describe our childhood like that. I agree with some posters who’ve suggested that a parent who isn’t good with a larger number of kids often is also not great with fewer children.

+1 I grew up one of four and can’t relate to the PP you’re responding to, at all.

[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.

I am a teacher, and this is THE TRUTH

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

I’m sorry PP, that sucks. I’m also 1 of 4 kids, and my parents did a lot of stuff wrong (ha), but they did raise us to celebrate and enjoy our siblings. There was no competition between us, and I believe that is because our parents made sure to never compare us - we were celebrated as individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses.

I don’t know how they did it, but they did meet my emotional needs and I had a “normal” childhood in terms of development and independence. It probably helped A LOT that was mom was a SAHM.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

I’m sorry PP, that sucks. I’m also 1 of 4 kids, and my parents did a lot of stuff wrong (ha), but they did raise us to celebrate and enjoy our siblings. There was no competition between us, and I believe that is because our parents made sure to never compare us - we were celebrated as individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses.

I don’t know how they did it, but they did meet my emotional needs and I had a “normal” childhood in terms of development and independence. It probably helped A LOT that was mom was a SAHM.

And also PP I hope you don’t take my post to suggest your parents did something wrong or or I’m questioning whether your emotional needs were met or not - I’m definitely not. Just trying to say we are all individuals and it’s a whole lot more complicated than saying, “hey if you have four kids, they WILL be messed up and their needs will not be met.” You have to take soooo much more into consideration!

[Anonymous]

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

Much easier if it doesn’t create a financial hardship to do so.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

I’m sorry PP, that sucks. I’m also 1 of 4 kids, and my parents did a lot of stuff wrong (ha), but they did raise us to celebrate and enjoy our siblings. There was no competition between us, and I believe that is because our parents made sure to never compare us - we were celebrated as individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses.

I don’t know how they did it, but they did meet my emotional needs and I had a “normal” childhood in terms of development and independence. It probably helped A LOT that was mom was a SAHM.

I'm an only but all of the "families" in my family are 4-6 kids. It's SO dependent on the individual family dynamics. My dad is one of four and had Ana amazing childhood, is incredibly close to his siblings (talks to them all every day at age 78). My husband is one of six and close to his siblings and parents. All of his siblings are professionally successful and married with kids. Zero family drama. Two aunts are one of seven and same.

My mom is one of four and her parents were quintessentially checked out mid century parents focused on bridge and golf. She and her siblings competed for their attention and are super screwed up as adults because of it.

I think success or failure as large family comes down to parents and the family culture they instill.

[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.

As someone who comes from a family of four, more children don't diffuse competition. You just give up and resign to the fact that your parents are not going to be able to meet many of your emotional needs. You are forced to grow up and become independent quickly, often leaping past developmental stages.

Pp here. Im also one of four. This wasn’t my experience at all. I had a great childhood and have a close family. We’re all 2.5-3yrs apart so my parents didn’t have us back to back, which probably helped.

[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.

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.

Most large families are full of drama, especially as the kids grow. It is intense competition for attention, affection and resources of the parents and the fact that you are forced to live with many people you did not choose and that you may not like at all.

Just look at the Family forum, sibling relationships are more often fraught than not. Large families only serve the needs and wants of the parents.

NP. Nah, I know a lot of large families and the only large family I know who fits your description is mine.

[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.

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.

Most large families are full of drama, especially as the kids grow. It is intense competition for attention, affection and resources of the parents and the fact that you are forced to live with many people you did not choose and that you may not like at all.

Just look at the Family forum, sibling relationships are more often fraught than not. Large families only serve the needs and wants of the parents.

Lolll that’s completely ridiculous, are you daft? …You DO realize it’s a self selecting group of people who have sibling problems and post about it online, no?

The people who have good relationships with their siblings aren’t flocking to anonymous online forums to report about it. Surely you understand this…..??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just today my best friend told me she wished she stopped at two. I mean two things can be true at the same time. Holding two truths in your mind and seeing the nuance is intelligence

I feel sorry for her third kid. That kind of attitude eventually comes out. Poor #3.

Maybe but I think you can regret a child and at the same time give that child the world and make sure he has a happy home life. In fact I wonder if parents who sacrifice more to give their children the lives they deserve wind up regretting children more than those who aren't great parents.

[Anonymous]

My son was our third child, first and only boy. I cannot imagine what life would be like without his existence. What an amazing experience it has been so far to have a family dynamic of three children - two girls and one boy. We did consider stopping at two children, but we are so grateful our son entered this world. He is funny, witty, great at building (wants to be an engineer) and is learning to play football and the cello. He is kind to animals and has a big heart that loves to spoil his teachers and friends. He isn't perfect, for no one is.