Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.
As a parent of three, both my middle child and I would agree with this. I wouldn't say we lost the bond, but she rightfully feels like the stereotypical middle child at times.
It's incredibly common. It's about family roles and the need for children to have defines roles and a sense of belonging.
The first child is always the oldest and that position can never be threatened. Even when first children experience envy or jealousy of younger siblings, their role as the eldest is assured and it provides a sense of security. If you have 3+ kids, one of the most important things you can do is ensure any middle children have clearly defined roles and that their value to the family is clear. Many parents instinctively overlook middle children without really thinking about it or realizing they are doing it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m a mom of 5 children and the answer is absolutely no! I world assume every parent with more than one child already knows this to be true.
I would be curious to know how your 5 kids view their individual relationships with you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My bond to each is definitely different but of equal (and breathtakingly strong).
This!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It's the middle child you lose the bond with, if you had it to begin with. The baby is often the favorite, or the one you are most connected to. The middle loses their role.
Maybe for you, but this is a generalization that does not account for ages, temperaments, etc. This question also wrongly presumes that a parent cannot be strongly bonded to three children. OP is a troll.
It's rare for parents to be equally bonded to all children, especially once you are in the 3+ category. It's ideal, but not that common. Some kids handle it better than others.
Anonymous wrote:My bond to each is definitely different but of equal (and breathtakingly strong).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:In most families:
1st: used
2nd: ignored
3rd: spoiled
What happens to the 3rd when there is a 4th? Do they also become ignored, even though they were previously spoiled?
Anonymous wrote:In most families:
1st: used
2nd: ignored
3rd: spoiled
Anonymous wrote:I’m a mom of 5 children and the answer is absolutely no! I world assume every parent with more than one child already knows this to be true.
Anonymous wrote:I'm a 3rd. My brother was the oldest. My sister is 1.5 years younger and the two of the are close. I am 5 years younger than my sister. When my siblings went to college, I was still in middle school and ended up spending a lot of time with my parents. I hung around with my parents and their friends often on weekends and I learned our family tongue. My siblings can understand if we speak to them, but I am the only one that is fluent. I am also more bicultural for our family heritage than my siblings. That is one of the reasons that I am closest to my mom even though I'm a guy. My mother always thought she would be closest to her daughter and she is close, just closer with me because of the language and cultural ties. I also acquired my mother's love of cooking and that bonds us as well.
That said, my parents were amazing parents. They managed to convince all three of us that we were their favorites. My brother is the eldest first-born son, so from the family patriarchal heritage, he *KNOWS* he's their favorite. My sister is the only girl and she was always Daddy's girl and she KNOWS that she was my parents favorite. But I am their baby and the one that is culturally more like them and the one that speaks to them in their mother tongue, so I know that I'm the favorite. And, of course, I know that I'm right and they are wrong.![]()