if you have 3 children do any of you feel you should have fourth so theres no 'middle' child?

[moljam]

just wondering as im one of 4 and i have 3.dd-7.ds-6 and ds2-2.normally dd and ds2 are always together or its dd and ds1.and if d isnt here(she has amazingly busy social life for 7 year old!)ds1 and ds2 get on brilliantly which they dont if shes here.is this because theres a middle one,odd number or just the way boys are?would a fourth make a difference.myself and my sisters all got on,we did fight and fall out but there was always 2 of us.if you see what im going on about!

I know exactly what you are saying, moljam, weirdly enough it is one of the main reasons I want a fourth child eventually. I was one of four, and we got on well most of the time, there was always someone to play with. I have two dds and one ds, and am worried one will get left out at some point ! ds is only 8 mo at mo, so he could get left out for being the only boy, or because the dds are much closer in age to each other.
My middle child dd2 is the most difficult at the mo as started to show jealosuy of ds now he is crawling and trying to get my attention more. Whereas dd1 adores him and her sister.
So I know what you mean, I would love a fourth one day, and I am using this reason to badger dh about it !!

there will always be a middle child - i have twins and an older boy - my younger boy one of the twins is the midle child even though he was born last.

as stereotypes go - IYKWIM

besides its bloody stupid to have a kid for that reason.

no way

im eldest of 10 and there are 3 of us who fit the criteria of middle child syndrome.

we always played with the child nearest to us in age, whether it were male or female and even today we remain closest to that sibling.

it doesn't matter how many children you have really.

have my broody moments for another child - but nothing to do with avoiding middle-child syndrome..
anyhow...what if it was twins

not the only reason I would like a fourth, but one of the many reasons I would like a fourth, just wanted to point that out.

My dad was a headmaster and said that in his experience of children / families with 3 there would always be an odd one out and 4 would be more even.

However I have 2 ds and 1 dd who is middle child. If I had another baby there would be no guarantee I would have another girl to even it up so I would still have an "odd one out". However I imagine thats not the case with 3 the same gender.

I think you have to weigh things up carefully. I decided not to try for another baby for lots of reasons, I felt spread thinly beween them for attention and activities already, my age, space in the house, childcare costs, etc.

oooh im not saying id want to just that does anyone ever think that and would it make a difference.im not saying id want another for that reason.

nope.

Agree Psycho!With 4, you just get two middle children and probably twice the fighting!

Surely if you have a fourth, by the time they get to their teenage years, they'll have invented a few new syndromes. There'll be last child syndrome, middle child syndrome, forgotten child syndrome and first born child syndrome. You can't win.

I've got 4 year old twin boys and a 3 year old dd so far haven't noticed the middle child thing at all. However I'm aware it's early days so could kick in any time. Also my dd does like doing things with me so it kinds of evens things out. If I'm busy with one of the boys I find dd plays happily with the other. I do find the boys try and wind her up at times, sort of ganging up to make her squeal but she holds her own. I think being so close in age helps with mine.

I've been pondering this one for a while as I'd love a 4th but 3 feels right, don't think I could spread myself any thinner, money, age and I get stressed enough as it is at times. I also worry a 4th would be like an only child and get left out with the others being so close in age. I think personality comes into it a bit too with family dynamics so having a 4th doesn't guarantee anything.

I've got 4 and there is still one left out all the time. 2 of the oldest 3 always want to play with each other leaving the other out. The youngest is happy to play on her own.

I wouldn't have another for that reason - it doesn't work out

I have excatly the same as pollyanna

I've got 3. There's 19 months between the oldest two and then a 3.6 year gap so I guess the baby is always going to be left out anyway. I'm afraid he's going to have to just get used to it as a 4th is not really an option!

I'm one of six and I'm pretty sure that some of us must have been left out at some point but I can't really remember any specific time so it can't have had too uch of a lasting effect

No, not at all.
three feels absoloutely right for us.

i plan to stop at 3

i was one of 4 and found one could easily be left out with an even number too!

I have twins and an older son and I think it's far easier to raise the self esteem of any child that may be feeling left out/ what ever it is that middle child syndrome is than spread your attention even thinner with another child.
I agonised over if to go through fertility treatment again to have a 2nd child and one of the reasons I went for it was because i had visions of tragic lonely ds1 with no siblings. I ended up having twins and ds1 ended up being dx with aspergers syndrome which means his view of the world won't be anything like i imagined for him. You can't have another child based on how you predict they'll relate to each other!

my parents had a fourth child because I was the third (a girl after two boys) and everyone said "oh you've got your girl now you can stop"
They thought this was supremely hurtful and insulting to son number 2 ,so went on to have a fourth .

NOOOOOOO!!! three is quite enough for me. I am also one of three, and there was a large gap between my sister and me. I think the 'middle child' thing is more of a personality thing than anything else, and another younger child in the family wouldn't make that any better IMO. Don't you just end up with two "middle" ones?!