In my case, we were a a very middle class large family. I felt our parent's time and financial resources would've served us and them better if they stopped at a couple of kids. They tried their best but stretching only goes so far. I felt our friends whose families had fewer kids, were better off in terms of parent-child bonding, sibling bonding, opportunities and life style.

Anonymous wrote:I understand wanting to be a parent and go from couple to a family. I also understand wanting a sibling for the child. I find it hard to understand having thirds, fourths and so on. I get that different people think differently but what's the reason behind it? Is it to fill some personal or marital void?

I had three to bother you.

I understand wanting to be a parent and go from couple to a family. I also understand wanting a sibling for the child. I find it hard to understand having thirds, fourths and so on. I get that different people think differently but what's the reason behind it? Is it to fill some personal or marital void?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My second and third children were literally five minutes apart. No regrets. Some people rise to the occasion, some people would still be overwhelmed with an only child or two children. I think it has less to do with the number of children, and more to do with the parents’ outlook and abilities to make peace with a little chaos.

+100
I had three under three and I would never say this to anyone in real life, but I'm markedly less frazzled than some of my friends with one kid. It comes down to temperament and outlook.

It comes down to standards.

It sounds snobbish but sadly its true. You sure can have multiple children and raise them to adulthood but you are just spreading resources of time, care, supervision, involvement and opportunities too thin so yes standards are compromised. Insisting and pretending they aren't is deluding self not others.

I mean, unless you’re wealthy. My SAHM/big law partner parent combo provided far more resources, time and opportunities for their four kids when I was growing up than I now have in my dual-income/two working parent UMC household with two kids. It’s mostly about money.

It is the ultimate status symbol to have a beautiful smart SAHM with lots of children in private school. You know you made it if you can afford to live a nice life with a wife who doesn’t work with a nanny and have 3-4 kids in private school.

This is different than having a dual income UMC household saving to full pay college for 2 kids.

This describes my family to a T, but you know what? I would be the same parent even without the money and extras. At the end of the day your kid just wants you present and patient. Those of you saying you ability to parent three kids well comes down to the ability to pay for travel sports and vacations in Maui are totally missing the point. If that's what you think you offer to your kids that's really sad.

No, you would not be. As someone who has done it both ways: NO, you would not be. Just the ignorance of this statement.

It's true that at the end of the day your kids want you present and patient. I think you vastly underestimate how far money goes to making that possible. I think I'm a good parent with money and without, but I'm a better parent with money and "extras" because I'm less stressed and have more options.

And that's why some people report lower satisfaction with 3+ kids, because unless you are wealthy, this will raise your stress and reduce your options. And that makes you a worse parent. In a place like the DMV, which has a high cost of living and very high standards for what constitutes good parenting, it's even harder because if you have less money than others, you will always be aware of that gap. It's not about travel sports and vacations -- it's about family stability, housing, schools, the ability for one or both parents to work less or not at all. If you can't see this, you need to get out more.

I think you’re both right, but looking at this from different perspectives. Raising 4 kids in a small apartment or without money to feed everyone sounds incredibly stressful and awful.

But I think PP is assuming everyone on here is pretty comfortable. And so I agree with PP that once you can cover the basics, you can raise happy well adjusted kids regardless of whether they are spending their summer at a local pool or traveling Europe.

It reminds me of that Harvard study on money and happiness. This was years ago. They found that if you have under $70k, money really does equate to happiness. But once you have over that amount, and the basics are covered, money has much less to do with happiness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My second and third children were literally five minutes apart. No regrets. Some people rise to the occasion, some people would still be overwhelmed with an only child or two children. I think it has less to do with the number of children, and more to do with the parents’ outlook and abilities to make peace with a little chaos.

+100
I had three under three and I would never say this to anyone in real life, but I'm markedly less frazzled than some of my friends with one kid. It comes down to temperament and outlook.

It comes down to standards.

It sounds snobbish but sadly its true. You sure can have multiple children and raise them to adulthood but you are just spreading resources of time, care, supervision, involvement and opportunities too thin so yes standards are compromised. Insisting and pretending they aren't is deluding self not others.

I mean, unless you’re wealthy. My SAHM/big law partner parent combo provided far more resources, time and opportunities for their four kids when I was growing up than I now have in my dual-income/two working parent UMC household with two kids. It’s mostly about money.

It is the ultimate status symbol to have a beautiful smart SAHM with lots of children in private school. You know you made it if you can afford to live a nice life with a wife who doesn’t work with a nanny and have 3-4 kids in private school.

This is different than having a dual income UMC household saving to full pay college for 2 kids.

This describes my family to a T, but you know what? I would be the same parent even without the money and extras. At the end of the day your kid just wants you present and patient. Those of you saying you ability to parent three kids well comes down to the ability to pay for travel sports and vacations in Maui are totally missing the point. If that's what you think you offer to your kids that's really sad.

No, you would not be. As someone who has done it both ways: NO, you would not be. Just the ignorance of this statement.

It's true that at the end of the day your kids want you present and patient. I think you vastly underestimate how far money goes to making that possible. I think I'm a good parent with money and without, but I'm a better parent with money and "extras" because I'm less stressed and have more options.

And that's why some people report lower satisfaction with 3+ kids, because unless you are wealthy, this will raise your stress and reduce your options. And that makes you a worse parent. In a place like the DMV, which has a high cost of living and very high standards for what constitutes good parenting, it's even harder because if you have less money than others, you will always be aware of that gap. It's not about travel sports and vacations -- it's about family stability, housing, schools, the ability for one or both parents to work less or not at all. If you can't see this, you need to get out more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a parent of three but I have had several of them tell/warn me to stop at two so I don't think you're entirely alone in your sentiment, OP.

That’s interesting. Are your two kids of different genders? I had two girls and not only did no one ever tell/warn me to stop at two, I cannot even count the number of times people (both strangers and close friends!) would ask if we were going to have a third in order to “try for a boy.”

I think either way - telling someone to stop at two or encouraging someone to try for a boy - is pretty rude and presumptuous. Unless you solicited that advice from them.

Same to the bolded. We have 2 boys, 3rd is a girl. People were so rude in asking if we were going to “try for a girl”. People still do sometimes ask if we are going to have a 4th but I don’t mind it as there isn’t the implication that we are trying for a specific gender.

I don't know a single person who would ask or expect anyone to have a fourth child. I would like to research your social circle.

I think it’s probably due to my location. Where I live now, having 2 kids is the most common but lots of families have 3 and a solid amount have 4. It’s fairly uncommon to see families with an only child.

When I lived in a very expensive city, people viewed my family size as big whereas here it seems very normal.

I think this circles back to the discussion on standards; it’s much easier and less expensive to provide a good standard of life for a larger family where I live now.

DP here. The onlies we know are usually not by choice. They have limited resources or older and couldn’t have another. Or some marital problems or situations where one parent didn’t want kids and one was the compromise.

Our plan for two and done was blown when #2 was twins. It was so hard for the first 3-4 years, and I would have turned time back and had just 1 more if pressed then. Now, 10+ years later, 3 turned out to be perfect for us. However, even with older kids there are fewer variables, costs, less stress etc. on average for my friends who are parents of two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a parent of three but I have had several of them tell/warn me to stop at two so I don't think you're entirely alone in your sentiment, OP.

That’s interesting. Are your two kids of different genders? I had two girls and not only did no one ever tell/warn me to stop at two, I cannot even count the number of times people (both strangers and close friends!) would ask if we were going to have a third in order to “try for a boy.”

I think either way - telling someone to stop at two or encouraging someone to try for a boy - is pretty rude and presumptuous. Unless you solicited that advice from them.

Same to the bolded. We have 2 boys, 3rd is a girl. People were so rude in asking if we were going to “try for a girl”. People still do sometimes ask if we are going to have a 4th but I don’t mind it as there isn’t the implication that we are trying for a specific gender.

I don't know a single person who would ask or expect anyone to have a fourth child. I would like to research your social circle.

I think it’s probably due to my location. Where I live now, having 2 kids is the most common but lots of families have 3 and a solid amount have 4. It’s fairly uncommon to see families with an only child.

When I lived in a very expensive city, people viewed my family size as big whereas here it seems very normal.

I think this circles back to the discussion on standards; it’s much easier and less expensive to provide a good standard of life for a larger family where I live now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My second and third children were literally five minutes apart. No regrets. Some people rise to the occasion, some people would still be overwhelmed with an only child or two children. I think it has less to do with the number of children, and more to do with the parents’ outlook and abilities to make peace with a little chaos.

+100
I had three under three and I would never say this to anyone in real life, but I'm markedly less frazzled than some of my friends with one kid. It comes down to temperament and outlook.

It comes down to standards.

It sounds snobbish but sadly its true. You sure can have multiple children and raise them to adulthood but you are just spreading resources of time, care, supervision, involvement and opportunities too thin so yes standards are compromised. Insisting and pretending they aren't is deluding self not others.

I mean, unless you’re wealthy. My SAHM/big law partner parent combo provided far more resources, time and opportunities for their four kids when I was growing up than I now have in my dual-income/two working parent UMC household with two kids. It’s mostly about money.

It is the ultimate status symbol to have a beautiful smart SAHM with lots of children in private school. You know you made it if you can afford to live a nice life with a wife who doesn’t work with a nanny and have 3-4 kids in private school.

This is different than having a dual income UMC household saving to full pay college for 2 kids.

This describes my family to a T, but you know what? I would be the same parent even without the money and extras. At the end of the day your kid just wants you present and patient. Those of you saying you ability to parent three kids well comes down to the ability to pay for travel sports and vacations in Maui are totally missing the point. If that's what you think you offer to your kids that's really sad.

I have 3 kids and totally agree. My kids play rec sports, our vacations are more beach house in OBX than European ski chalets, and we are saving for them to be able to attend state schools. I still think we’re doing a pretty good job parenting them because we’ve built our lives around having flexible jobs that allow me to be active in volunteering at their schools and for DH to coach their sports teams. We take the time to do 1:1 things with them and really prioritize family. Sure I’d love some sort of windfall where we could take them on some nicer vacations, upgrade to a slightly larger house, or whatever. But those are icing on the cake, not the main ingredients.

I’m an only child and my dad worked really long hours with lots of travel. He made up for his absences with spending lots of money and buying me things. Think new car in the driveway on my 16th birthday and all that. I do have a good relationship with him, but the stuff isn’t the reason. It was the time he spent with me, making it to cheer on my sports on the weekend, that I remember the most.

Nope not at all! They are a little pack of energy but a lot of fun!

Anonymous wrote:Three gets low satisfaction ratings because it's the transition from man-to-man to zone defense, and a lot of people have trouble with that, and the ones who handle it well often go on to have 4+.

Not for me. I love having three kids! I have two boys very close together and then a bigger age gap with the three, and am very happy with my family. No regrets, and completely satisfied.

No. I love having three, and I always wanted 4. My DH was on board for a fourth because I really wanted one, but I knew it would probably push him over the edge in terms of stress and patience, so we ended up stopping at. Sometimes I still wish I had gone for the 4th, but then I remind myself I likely had a very romanticized version in my head of what that would look like.

No, but I am glad we had the amount of money we had when three came around. It’s a LOT harder logistically, and like a lot of problems, more money helps mitigate its impact.

Anonymous wrote:Three gets low satisfaction ratings because it's the transition from man-to-man to zone defense, and a lot of people have trouble with that, and the ones who handle it well often go on to have 4+.

Speak for yourself. After being a mom of 2 boys, I loved having a daughter. She is such a daddy’s girl. Our third completes our family. She is a total delight and brings so much joy to our family.

Three gets low satisfaction ratings because it's the transition from man-to-man to zone defense, and a lot of people have trouble with that, and the ones who handle it well often go on to have 4+.