Why does 4 kids seem so much more than 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of 4 here.
I think it depends on your parenting style - more kids with more intensive parenting styles mean you either need to hire help or drop standards.
So, I have never sat with a child while they fell asleep, meal times and snack times were set times of day and they ate what was served or didn't eat (until they could get their own food), kids do chores to help out, teens walk/take the bus to some of their activities, etc.

But you were lucky not to have a kid with food allergies who needed special meals, a kid with autism who couldn't sleep, etc.

PP here. We actually have similar issues to what you mention. Medical/special needs get taken care of in our family. But we have to say no to other things.
I am not saying my way is superior, or that you can't parent my way if you have only one child, it's just my observation that larger families have to let some things go. I am at peace with what I have let go, but others wouldn't be. (Like the PP who loves to watch her 2 children fall asleep. That's wonderful! But I guarantee almost no one does this with their fourth child.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had 3 under 3 when Covid hit. Spaced my 4th out and the oldest will she 7 when she’s born. Always wanted 4 and having 3 bigger kids and one baby doesn’t seem that daunting. Logistically I have to be very on the ball though.

OP here - I always thought I would have 4. First two kids are 19 months apart, then 3rd kid is 3.5 years younger than middle. So kids were baby, 3 and 5 when COVID hit. We thought we would then try for baby #4 when kid 3 was 10 months old (like we did with second kid) but COVID was still super in your face and I was traumatized by having 3 kids at home during my maternity leave.

Now I am close to 40 and worried about starting over. Kids are now 3, 6 and 8. Would love another one but also love being able to travel and not having to deal with naps and bottles and diaper. Wonder if I will regret it later on though.

Completely understand this! We’ve been taking some fun trips this summer and enjoying not having to deal with strollers, diapers, bottles and naps. The whole time I’m thinking how different it will be next year. I’ll be 38 when the 4th is born so I knew it was basically now or never and wasn’t even sure I’d get and stay pregnant so threw caution to the wind said what happens happens. Also, when you have three already, you know how quickly those first couple years go by in the grand scheme of things. For me it was worth it to go through that again. And seeing how excited my older 3 are is beautiful. I think a 4th brings a lot of love and joy.

But you don't have a baby yet, right? So it's only in theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With 4, assuming you have them 2 years apart, you will be parenting for 24 years by the time the last one goes to college, 28 years by the time the last one finishes college.

Yes - and to some people that’s a wonderful thing.

The same would be the case if you had two kids, 5/6 years apart

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

It sounds like you need some therapy for your childhood. I came from a large family (7) as did my DH (6) and we have 4 kids. We are low producers out of our siblings. There is a lot of love and time and the 50+ cousins are all doing well with college, just starting careers, etc. There are definitely some special needs which will be continually worked on/with for life. But when you have an amazing childhood in a large family that is exactly what you want to give your own kids.

I'm not talking about material well-being as an indicator of happiness. There is no way that all of those 50+ cousins or your combined 11 siblings are doing well, as defined by their emotional health. And having special needs is definitely not something you can discount from the equation. Have you asked those relatives how happy and wonderful they feel their lives are? Do you know how hard it is to be a sibling of a kid with a disability? And what about all of your siblings? Are you close with each or close enough that they tell you about their inner lives? Or perhaps, like most kids in large families, they learn to keep their mouths shut so as not to rock the boat and just keep doing whatever the hell needs to be done to get by (obviously, some of that is subconscious). Do you know that being raised in a family of 5+ children is considered an Adverse Childhood Experience? Besides, the world doesn't need us to keep making so many humans!

Uhh…not PP, but pretty sure she meant their siblings had lots of kids too. Speaking of jumping to talking about money, lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because 4 is far, far rarer than three in today's society, too.

This - it’s just about what you’re used to seeing. It’s not uncommon to see families with three kids, seeing 4 is rarer these days. They’re certainly around, though!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

As a counterpoint, I grew up as one of four (and as the oldest, no less!) and our home was one of absolute love and joy. I can’t imagine it any other way - I felt (and feel) very lucky to have grown up with 3 siblings

Oldest kids tend to get the most attention in a large family

The PP’s whole point was that (per her) large families only work because the parents offload childcare responsibility for the younger kids to the older ones - I am refuting that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 kids - for some reason when somebody tells me they have 4 kids it seems exponentially more than my 3. Is it truly that more difficult? I cannot fathom adding an additional child to my already insane life but maybe that’s just me. Or maybe people spread their kids out more? I had 3 kids in under 5 years.

All the posts that say after 3 kids adding another is easy seems wild.

Any number over one is more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had 3 under 3 when Covid hit. Spaced my 4th out and the oldest will she 7 when she’s born. Always wanted 4 and having 3 bigger kids and one baby doesn’t seem that daunting. Logistically I have to be very on the ball though.

OP here - I always thought I would have 4. First two kids are 19 months apart, then 3rd kid is 3.5 years younger than middle. So kids were baby, 3 and 5 when COVID hit. We thought we would then try for baby #4 when kid 3 was 10 months old (like we did with second kid) but COVID was still super in your face and I was traumatized by having 3 kids at home during my maternity leave.

Now I am close to 40 and worried about starting over. Kids are now 3, 6 and 8. Would love another one but also love being able to travel and not having to deal with naps and bottles and diaper. Wonder if I will regret it later on though.

Completely understand this! We’ve been taking some fun trips this summer and enjoying not having to deal with strollers, diapers, bottles and naps. The whole time I’m thinking how different it will be next year. I’ll be 38 when the 4th is born so I knew it was basically now or never and wasn’t even sure I’d get and stay pregnant so threw caution to the wind said what happens happens. Also, when you have three already, you know how quickly those first couple years go by in the grand scheme of things. For me it was worth it to go through that again. And seeing how excited my older 3 are is beautiful. I think a 4th brings a lot of love and joy.

But you don't have a baby yet, right? So it's only in theory?

No not in theory because the love and joy is already there with the way the kids talk about her, ask if they can feel her kick, think about the future with her etc and just the happiness in general (on my part) of loving someone.

[Anonymous]

I doubt it’s that much harder, but it does mean less individual time with each kid, and probably less activities each child can do. Plus it is more expensive. I always wanted four, but ultimately stopped at three mostly out of concerns for the amount of time I’d be able to spend with each kid (I already felt stretched thin at times), and because I wanted extra money to travel and do lots of cool adventures with the kids I already had. If money wasn’t something I had to think about, I definitely would have gone for the fourth.

[Anonymous]

2 kids are the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have 3 kids - for some reason when somebody tells me they have 4 kids it seems exponentially more than my 3. Is it truly that more difficult? I cannot fathom adding an additional child to my already insane life but maybe that’s just me. Or maybe people spread their kids out more? I had 3 kids in under 5 years.

All the posts that say after 3 kids adding another is easy seems wild.

+1. I have three kids, all two years apart, and I would not have another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

It sounds like you need some therapy for your childhood. I came from a large family (7) as did my DH (6) and we have 4 kids. We are low producers out of our siblings. There is a lot of love and time and the 50+ cousins are all doing well with college, just starting careers, etc. There are definitely some special needs which will be continually worked on/with for life. But when you have an amazing childhood in a large family that is exactly what you want to give your own kids.

I'm not talking about material well-being as an indicator of happiness. There is no way that all of those 50+ cousins or your combined 11 siblings are doing well, as defined by their emotional health. And having special needs is definitely not something you can discount from the equation. Have you asked those relatives how happy and wonderful they feel their lives are? Do you know how hard it is to be a sibling of a kid with a disability? And what about all of your siblings? Are you close with each or close enough that they tell you about their inner lives? Or perhaps, like most kids in large families, they learn to keep their mouths shut so as not to rock the boat and just keep doing whatever the hell needs to be done to get by (obviously, some of that is subconscious). Do you know that being raised in a family of 5+ children is considered an Adverse Childhood Experience? Besides, the world doesn't need us to keep making so many humans!

The statement that being raised in a family with 5+ children is considered an ACE is false. This is my area of research and this is not considered an ACE.

Personally though can't imagine having more than 2 kids. But I do know happy families of 4 kids - it just would be too overwhelming and chaotic for me as a parent. Even as a child staying for a short time with a family of four it was too much.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Taking care of 4 kids is easy for people who just love kids. You sound a person who only likes your own kids. Nothing is wring with that. My neighbor with 4 kids loves to have all the kids over and plans events for all the neighborhood kids. He’s the fun dad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had 3 under 3 when Covid hit. Spaced my 4th out and the oldest will she 7 when she’s born. Always wanted 4 and having 3 bigger kids and one baby doesn’t seem that daunting. Logistically I have to be very on the ball though.

OP here - I always thought I would have 4. First two kids are 19 months apart, then 3rd kid is 3.5 years younger than middle. So kids were baby, 3 and 5 when COVID hit. We thought we would then try for baby #4 when kid 3 was 10 months old (like we did with second kid) but COVID was still super in your face and I was traumatized by having 3 kids at home during my maternity leave.

Now I am close to 40 and worried about starting over. Kids are now 3, 6 and 8. Would love another one but also love being able to travel and not having to deal with naps and bottles and diaper. Wonder if I will regret it later on though.

Having a 3 year old is not starting over…you are still in thick sh*t with a 3 year kids years. Might as well keep the party going!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who grew up in a family of four-- I think people who say that adding additional kids after 3 is "easy" do not think of their kids as individuals (or at least not all of them), probably rely on a good bit of childcare from their eldest, and better pray none of their kids has special needs in any way. Not just something like ADHD, ASD, or a learning disorder, but even subclinical issues like being slow to warm, mild sensory processing issues, etc.

Look, love is not a finite resource and kids need a lot less space and material goods than modern American consumerist culture currently dictates. But time and energy ARE finite, and the idea that adding a while other person to your family, a child who will be at peak "need," is no big deal is deranged.

I don't trust people who treat that cavalierly.

This may be the most sane post I've ever read on this website. I am one of six, and I firmly believe that no one needs more children than two. I don't care how much you want a big family. There is no way to take care of a child's emotional well being when there is so much need. It's batshit crazy to me that in this time of climate crisis (and when most children make it to adulthood) anyone should be having large families. Just don't do it.

I am one of two. My DH is one of seven. We both had wonderful childhoods. All of our siblings talk about what a wonderful childhood they had. It’s not family size that matters when it comes to how your childhood is. Perhaps you need therapy to deal with your issues.

Regarding your comment on the climate crisis, please move on. Google fertility rate and you will see all these articles about how dangerous a declining fertility rate it and how all these governments including ours are freaking out. The economist devoted an entire issue on the subject.

Yeah. It’s dangerous to the ECONOMY. That’s why The Economist did an issue on it. A declining fertility rate is not dangerous to climate change; quite the opposite. When the world is on fire the economy won’t matter, and your children will all be climate refugees. But so glad that little Brayden had an additional sibling!