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

[Anonymous]

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.

Tell that to our ancestors. Why are you so snowflake?

[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.

Tell that to our ancestors. Why are you so snowflake?

On threads about how many kids to have, DCUM has insane standards for individual attention to be paid to children. But then when posters humblebrag about how little Larlo is such an overachiever, they fall all over themselves trying to outdo each other on how little attention they pay to him. Like "hiring a tutor is so helicopter, we let Larlo play with raccoons in the neighbors' trash all day, but he still taught himself calculus."

[Anonymous]

I don't think this is something you can really engineer in terms of siblings getting along, etc. They don't necessarily pair up. It has more to do with personality and other factors.

If you feel like you can afford it, fine with pushing back the time until you empty the nest and OK with the environmental impact of another kid, then go for it. But don't do it just so the 3rd kid with have a buddy.

Oh and what I was reminded when I had my fourth, people will stop inviting your family on vacations - too many bodies.

[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.

Tell that to our ancestors. Why are you so snowflake?

Well yes, when the average age of death is 35 and infant mortality is through the roof, having more children does make sense. But I think if our ancestors had been told "Your kids are almost certain to survive to adulthood, and oh by the way, you will be responsible for them until they are 22, including helping to pay for something called 'college' which costs a billion leaves and berries per year" they would have gotten real interested in birth control after #2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is something you can really engineer in terms of siblings getting along, etc. They don't necessarily pair up. It has more to do with personality and other factors.

If you feel like you can afford it, fine with pushing back the time until you empty the nest and OK with the environmental impact of another kid, then go for it. But don't do it just so the 3rd kid with have a buddy.

Oh and what I was reminded when I had my fourth, people will stop inviting your family on vacations - too many bodies.

I stopped inviting our friends over for barbecues after they had their third. We'll go over there but I can't deal with them at our place. It's so loud, and the kids just kind of band together and take over everything. Their oldest is an intolerable know-it-all who will try to tell me how to parent my own kids, and their youngest is basically feral. And I will never, ever go out to dinner with their whole family again. I'd rather get a root canal.

[Anonymous]

We have 4. When we had 3 it was great which is why I wanted one more. #4 is adopted though so we skipped the infant years. So far it has been pretty easy to transfer our skills of handling 3 to 4. But leaving the house takes even longer now!