As you know I’ve got illegitimate kids scattered across the country, which kind of makes me an expert on parenting. So I was interested in this study wherein researchers polled thousands of parents to discover which combo of kids made for the most harmonious family life. Now the results of this poll are right here—BUT! Let’s see if YOU can guess what they said first, and if you agree with their findings.
(Obviously the researchers left off the best choice, which would be “no kids”—but pretend someone is using a gun to force you to breed, so we can move on with the poll, okay?)
“No Kids” gets my vote.
How have you gotten to be your advanced age without ever seeing an episode of The Brady Bunch? Sheesh. Furrfu. Three’n’three.
the combination i grew up in, because it is all i know. 3b, 1g.
How can two girls be the best, and four girls the worst?
I grew up in a family with 2 girls (sister and me). We beat the shit out of each other. Can barley stand to be with each other for more than one day. My dad was an alcoholic and mom on anti depressants. I vote for no kids.
@#1 for the win.
@ 1 (and @ 6), you ought to read the whole post…
@4: My guess is that most people who want kids, want two kids – they’ve each got a playmate, expenses aren’t too high.
Two of the same gender means you can hand down clothes, share a room, they will like the same kinds of things.
If they are going to be the same gender, girls are perceived as “easier” than boys – more biddable, less rambunctious. (I know it’s a stereotype. I don’t believe it myself. But many people do.) So, two girls.
As to four girls… four teenaged girls… four teenaged girls with synchronized PMS… Kill me now.
Heh, I was right. The reasoning is
– The fewer, the better, but there’s no single child option
– Girls will be valued over boys in terms of being a handful, helping around the house etc.
– Oposite gender may stress parents due to widely varying interests.
Of course, individual results will vary wildly, but general tendencies can sometimes be found. The study ends at 4. I’ve seen/known of very large broods (8, 9) that actually worked very well, because parenting is understood to be a family-wide team effort, and not the sole responsibility of the parents.
@7
I did, but since it wasn’t an option, I am just agreeing that it is indeed the best choice. And with that I say, “Fuck you gun toting breeding enforcer!”
Inneresting. I come from a brood of 3 girls, my mum comes from a litter of 4 girls….What could it mean?
wow, no ‘no kids’ and no ‘one of either gender as an option, as though two is the bare minimum.
@8 Yeah, I think 4 teenage girls is one of Dante’s circles of hell, right? I see your point, re: the hand-me-downs, etc., and for whatever reason, the people we know who have two girls seem to have those textbook sweet, demure, good girls, hmm. We have one daughter, who made up for being the only girl and tiny to boot by giving me every one of my grey hairs…if I, you know, had grey hairs…
@ 9, one child demands a lot more attention from parents than two. You can’t tell him or her to go play with a sibling…
My first though was two girls (I’ve known lots of sisters who were best friends), but I voted two boys one girl. I figured the girl would distract the boys from fighting with each other, and she would either be happy getting all that older male attention or dote on her baby brothers, so voila, harmony.
Since it was the second most popular choice, I’m wondering if other people had the same idea?
I also wonder how age plays into this.
No kids definitely gets my vote. Disposable income, liesurely vacations, having sex whenever/wherever you want = yes! Emptying your pockets for some whiny, mooching rugrat for the rest of your life = NOOOOOOO.
Three sons. ‘Cause I roll like Fred MacMurray.
Ten hermaphrodites
Zero children.
What @16 said. Also, flat real wages, increasing cost of living, lousy public schools and extremely expensive 4 year colleges are not conducive to being a parent in present day America.
Ima vote for three kids… that gives the children a better chance of maintaining the memories of their parents, and lots of sibling support when the parents die. Anyone suggesting “one child” isn’t aware of the future needs of their children in this regard. Always have a least two children, please. (Or zero.) One is a recipe for uncertainty and sadness.
How about “One kid, no partner.” That’s been working pretty well for me for the last couple years.
And a partridge in a pear tree.
I understand that we’re positing someone threatening to shoot us if we don’t breed, so “no kids” isn’t an option. But in that case, why isn’t “just letting them shoot me” an option? Cause I’d still pick that as my first choice.
One kid. I sort of can stretch my mind around why “no kids” wasn’t an option, but what about “one kid”?
@24 FTW
It seems that age difference would have as much of an affect.
My first two girls, three years apart, fight and make up about twenty times a day, while my eldest and youngest girls, five years difference, don’t compete at all. I’ve read that the best difference in ages is less than one year or more than four. So, I stuck right in the middle with three and two years apart, respectively. And three girls. Screw harmony.
@15 – Along with age difference, wouldn’t birth order play into it, too? Is the boy the firstborn? Is the boy in the middle? Are the two girls ten years apart? Are the three girls triplets? It seems, to my ignorant self, that there’s got to be more involved than gender combos: income, location, access to support, age difference, birth order… okay so I am totally over-thinking this.
What I mean to say is: cute study!
I also wonder about the lack of the choice of “one child”, boy or girl, in the study, not because I think it would be first but because I would like to see how those two options stack up with the “also rans” – is it the worst? Middle? I was one of three boys and my wife was a “solo” who sometimes doesn’t get the sibling thing with her four kids (3b,1g) …..
I have 3 girls, 10 year span oldest to youngest. It is indeed the 8th circle of hell. Invariably, 2 band together in an unholy alliance against the 3rd. Being girls, their loyalties change by day–the alliance one day is against the youngest, the next day it is against the oldest. On particularly hellish days, it is every girl for herself.
I was the youngest in a family with 4 daughters, 8 year span oldest to youngest. I’m not sure how my father survived.
We have two boys and two girls, but it’s like two sets of one-boy one-girl since the oldest boy is 1 and 6 years older than his sisters and 7 years older than his brother. What I don’t understand is why, of the 12 combinations, 1B1G is ranked second best, whereas our 2B2G is ranked 11th. It’s worked great for us! And for those of you who can’t imagine having kids (or would rather be shot)–keep using those condoms!!