Did your position in your family affect how you treat your own children?

[confuddledDOTcom]

I was the eldest of three, the middle child has (we believe but because of his age a diagnosis wasn't easy to get) Aspergers so I spent most of my childhood being the big girl, not putting pressure on my parents etc because they had my brother and the baby to look after.

It's made me very aware of how I treat my eldest. My youngest naturally needs more care and attention but I make sure I balance it. She spends about as much time on my lap, I take her out to special places on her own and I give her a lot of praise for being the big girl, I don't expect her to just stand back and let me look after her sister.

So I was wondering if your place had affected how you treat your own children, whether you have a natural affinity towards one or making sure that they don't feel something that you felt or whatever it was.

I was second of four. The eldest and youngest got lots of attention being the first(the apples eye)and last(the baby) but they both also needed tons of parental support. They were both very dependent on our parents as children and even as adults. They have the identical traditional belief system as my parents in relation to religion, sexuality, womens roles, how to raise children etc.

Myself and the other middle child are more independent in thought and action, more reflective and questioning. We both got little attention as children and when we did it was mostly negative. My parents wanted us to be little versions of themselves and I didn't feel valued because i was different (interest wise and believed that being gay isn't a sin/that and that women shouldn't be submissive to men and so on).

The main thing i try to do is treat all my kids fairly and give them lots of my attention/time/encouragement.

I also value them deeply and value what they have to say.

Yeah, they're all equal to me as I'm sure we were to my parents but I want to make sure that my eldest knows that and not just be the big girl who looks after herself so Mummy can look after the little ones.

The interesting thing is now I'm the independent one and my brother and sister still depend on my parents a lot and my parents seem to resent my independence, like they want me to rely on them. It seems like it's treated like a rebellious teenager and my brother and sister are the grown ups. For me my independence is one of the most important things to me, I can't cope with relying on people and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to ask for anything.

That got a little serious considering I started what was supposed to be lighthearted

I was convinced I got the best deal as a middle child (parents neither had the energy to be perfectionist about my behaviour or to pet me all the time), so if I had a middle child I'd probably be quite brisk with them.

But I was also aware that I was far more independent and less babyish as a child than my older brother, so wouldn't necessarily see the older child as put upon (unless they really were). Ime it is more to do with personalities and niches who gets to be the baby of the family: in my family that niche was firmly occupied (or fought over) by my eldest and youngest brother because of their personalities, and my middle brother and I just had to get on with being mature because you can't have 4 people all being the baby. Tbh I thought we were better off: I never wanted to think of myself as the baby.

As it so happens I only have two children so there is no middle child. During most of their life, the eldest has needed more input from us (disability), but now the youngest is going through a phase where he needs more. I am pleased to see that they can swap roles. But under no illusion that they won't each think they got the least attention.

I'm an oldest child, most of my friends are oldest children (although DH is youngest) and I tend to find myself not getting on so well with youngest children. It has helped me make my decision to stick at 1 DC, I always worried I wouldn't love a second as much.