Anonymous wrote:You do you OP. If you want a 4th, go for it. Just remember that each child is a HUGE expense and takes attention away from the others.
Anonymous wrote:I am in the same boat! I fantasize about having a fourth, but as a PP said I think logistically we are maxed out at three (both work FT). I know a bunch of happy three kid families. With unlimited money and help I’d have a fourth, but alas.
Anonymous wrote:Once we went for the third, I knew I would need a fourth. We have a big gap between #2 and #3, so I wanted #3 to have a buddy, hence #4. Plus I was just in a crazy baby stage. Once I had #4, it died down and was sated.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I am from a family of 4 and I just want you to consider what it means for kids to "pair off nicely." This sounds nice but is it really better for kids?
In my experience, being in a family where you are easily grouped doesn't really improve your experience as a child. It means you are never an individual, you are always grouped in with "the older kids" or "the little ones" or the girls or the boys. It often feels like your parents don't actually see you, because you are always one of a set. Also, even pairs can contribute to competitive vibes depending on personalities and interests.
Like it sounds very even and tidy -- two sets of two. But if it were me I'd stick with 3, where kids get to be individuals a bit more and where they can mix and match in different ways (all together or pairs based on actual interests instead of just ages).
I also think if you don't have extra adults around (whether family or a nanny who will stick around well into elementary school) three is much more manageable in terms of ensuring all kids get some 1:1 adult time and no one feels ignored.
Four kids is... a lot of kids. Having lived it, it is not something I would choose.
OP here. I appreciate this perspective. I am one of two siblings (both girls) close and age and I actually didn't like that for similar reasons to what you suggest. Fewer kids, but I hated the lumping together. It is helpful to keep this in mind and I can see how the potential for trouble here could be potentially worse with even more kids, and you're reminding me of part of what I like(d) about 3.
Anonymous wrote:I don't know how old you are but I hit a wall at 35 and have only experienced 3 years of losses and pain. I'm on our last attempt before we throw in the towel and I just have to accept all that pain was for nothing. I don't recommend pushing your fertility. It can really drag you down.
Anonymous wrote:I am from a family of 4 and I just want you to consider what it means for kids to "pair off nicely." This sounds nice but is it really better for kids?
In my experience, being in a family where you are easily grouped doesn't really improve your experience as a child. It means you are never an individual, you are always grouped in with "the older kids" or "the little ones" or the girls or the boys. It often feels like your parents don't actually see you, because you are always one of a set. Also, even pairs can contribute to competitive vibes depending on personalities and interests.
Like it sounds very even and tidy -- two sets of two. But if it were me I'd stick with 3, where kids get to be individuals a bit more and where they can mix and match in different ways (all together or pairs based on actual interests instead of just ages).
I also think if you don't have extra adults around (whether family or a nanny who will stick around well into elementary school) three is much more manageable in terms of ensuring all kids get some 1:1 adult time and no one feels ignored.
Four kids is... a lot of kids. Having lived it, it is not something I would choose.