Firstborns really do have to break-in their parents
Categories: Siblings, In the news
I've been feeling kind of bad for my three-year-old lately. This year, my older kiddo picked up a lot of new activities, most of which toddlers are not invited to participate in. She started preschool, began a dance class, and this spring, started playing soccer. On Saturdays, my three-year-old whines, "I don't like soccer games." She's tired of being a tag-a-long.But while I'm feeling sorry for my baby, Newsweek tells me that it's my firstborn that gets the short end of the stick. It's a commonly held tradition that firstborn kids have to "break in" their parents, and therefore have to live with stricter rules and harsher discipline than their younger siblings. Recent research backs up this folklore; older siblings are less likely to make mistakes because they are used to being held up to higher standards, while younger siblings are more likely to be risk takers.
Trying to apply these findings to the people I know, I can't really find a pattern. I know a lot of firstborns who are risk takers (and mistake-makers), and plenty of family "babies" who live comfortably inside their comfort zones. Yet, among my own children, I can see a hint of it. And looking at my parenting techniques, I just might recognize a little of this in myself.
What about you? Do you think you were treated differently by your parents because of your birth order? Do you see that in your own parenting?
Recent Posts
- Menthol used to hook kids (7/20/2008)
- Feist's Sesame Street appearance (7/19/2008)
- Minnie Driver set to be a chubby mommy (7/19/2008)
- Dad called pervert for taking pictures of his own kids in public (7/19/2008)
- Gas containers must now be child resistant (7/19/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
caitlin 5-16-2008 @ 11:52AM
My parents were much stricter with me than they were with my younger siblings. Even though I never gave my parents a reason to distrust me when I was living at home, I was always the one who had to prove I was responsible and trustworthy. My siblings got to piggyback off that and when they broke the rules, my parents would shrug it off and give them a slap on the wrist if they did anything at all.
As frustrating as it was as a child to never gain my parents' trust, I wouldn't change it much. I think that's a large part of the reason why I'm the only one who is self supporting and my siblings (mid 20s) are still living at home, doing min wage jobs, while my parents pay for everything. I think a certain level of strictness and high expectations can benefit children. As for being stricter with my son... well, he's an only, so if I err on the side of too strict, I won't have to listen to "Why did you let [imaginary sibling] do that when you said I couldn't do that until I turned [X] years old?" :)
Reply
queenoqueens 5-16-2008 @ 6:50PM
I sooo see this to be true. The first one is more prone to the parents stress because they are so worried about everything. The 2nd one is more relaxed because the parents were more relaxed. As a result, the first is more type A personality, the second a B type.
I've seen so many of examples of this personally as to believe in it. Of course there are exceptions as well. I think it's a nurture vs. nature. There's the personal tendencies emphasized / neutralized by environment.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Reply
CLM 5-17-2008 @ 8:44AM
It is absolutely true. My parents were infinitely more strict with me than with my younger brother. My brother got away with MURDER!!!! The difference was so pronounced that even extended family members commented on it. Now, I have to agree with queenoqueens about nature and nurture. My brother is much more mellow than I am about a lot of things, but we are both freakishly workaholic.
Reply
Shan 5-17-2008 @ 10:39AM
I think this is absolutely true! I am the oldest with a sister who is 5 years younger than me. Our parents were crazy overprotective with me. I couldn't go to any parties, date, or even go to the mall by myself until I was 16 years old. I am thankful for this now because it protected me when I was too young to make wise choices. My sister, however, was pretty much allowed to run the show. She could go anywhere she wanted, have boys over, and talk to my parents any way she wanted. Not only that but she was a risk taker, so even though she wasn't allowed at parties, she was there anyway. She tried drugs, had sex too young and ended up pregnant at 18 with HPV. So as far as our family is concerned, this has proven true.
Reply
lilou 5-17-2008 @ 1:16PM
sometimes though its backwards, some parents arnt strict enuf with their firstbornes, and trying to learn from ther mistake, lock down hard o the rest of them. just cuz your first daughter starts smoking at 13, and is pregnat by 17, dosent mean your youngest cant be involved in after school activities (cus thats wher the first met her "bad" friends) or some other such nonsence. each child is a distict individual, needing personilised dicipline.
Reply