What is a better number of kids? 3 or 4?

[Anonymous]

I am one of 5 and we never had this issue of “odd man out.” The question and rationale is honestly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You’re overthinking this. Have another kid if you want but having 3 does not mean that one is the odd man out. (Parent of 3, and one of 3 kids myself).

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having 3 kids but it’s delusional to claim it doesn’t create the odd man out dynamic. It’s like people who have only children insisting their child is NEVER lonely. These things are not insurmountable but they are a very obvious downside to your chosen family structure.

[Anonymous]

2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re overthinking this. Have another kid if you want but having 3 does not mean that one is the odd man out. (Parent of 3, and one of 3 kids myself).

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having 3 kids but it’s delusional to claim it doesn’t create the odd man out dynamic. It’s like people who have only children insisting their child is NEVER lonely. These things are not insurmountable but they are a very obvious downside to your chosen family structure.

+1 I'm the middle of three, my older sister and I are 19 mos apart and always extremely close. My brother, 2.5 yrs younger than me, was absolutely the "odd man out" and it was hard on him. My mom has said that she wished she'd had a 4th. But, so much of this comes down to personalities and gender mix. And, parents being mindful of the potential for that dynamic could do things to mitigate it. For example, in my family if we weren't doing something together it naturally tended to fall that mom took the girls while dad took the boy. I was encouraged to do thing with my sister but not much with my brother. Splitting us up differently to nurture the sister-brother relationships more might have helped reduce that feeling of a divide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think 4 is an insane number of kids and there’s no way the kids can get the individual attention they need from their parents but that’s only my opinion.

As one of 4 who has 4 kids, I disagree.

It’s best to avoid an odd man out, and good parents focus on quality time with the family—individually, in pairs, and as a group.

As one of 4, I agree with the original pp. $ is too many, and you can have an"odd man out" with 3, or 4 kids.

[Anonymous]

I know plenty of families Of 4 with an odd man out. I think it comes down to personalities more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re overthinking this. Have another kid if you want but having 3 does not mean that one is the odd man out. (Parent of 3, and one of 3 kids myself).

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having 3 kids but it’s delusional to claim it doesn’t create the odd man out dynamic. It’s like people who have only children insisting their child is NEVER lonely. These things are not insurmountable but they are a very obvious downside to your chosen family structure.

I posted before, but keep in mind that it can be more about personality than the number of kids. We have three and it’s rare that one of them truly feels left out by the other two. Usually if two of them are doing something together, the third is happily occupied doing something else, either with other friends, alone, with parents, etc. But all five of us are pretty good at enjoying our own company, so that’s probably part of it.

[Anonymous]

I'm having my 4th in a few weeks. I say go for it! If you're even open to a 4th it means you're open to all the fun of having a big fun family.

[Anonymous]

Have a 4th! I'm almost due with #5. Grew up one of four. Not much difference between 3 and 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a 4th! I'm almost due with #5. Grew up one of four. Not much difference between 3 and 4.

The difference is each kid will get less time, attention and money the more u have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a 4th! I'm almost due with #5. Grew up one of four. Not much difference between 3 and 4.

I'm one of 3. My mom said, "one is fun, more than 1 is work." She said there was no difference between #2 (that was me) and the 3rd (My brother).

[Anonymous]

I just had my 4th. We have similar spacing as OP. My older 2 already leave out the 3rd.

Also, once you're having 3 you might as well have 4.

[Anonymous]

We have four, and there's a 9 year gap between #2 and #3. It's nice that 1 and 2 are buddies with each other and 3 and 4 are buddies with each other. 3 and 4 have shared a room their whole lives and are basically best friends. 1 and 2 didn't really get close until high school.

[Anonymous]

I'm one of 3 and that seemed most common when i was growing up. But it was not unusual for there to be families with 5. Those families all seemed to be really close with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a 4th! I'm almost due with #5. Grew up one of four. Not much difference between 3 and 4.

The difference is each kid will get less time, attention and money the more u have.

They give attention to each other as well. I think that's silly. There are lots of advantages to having siblings.