s/o should firstborn children be entitled??

[8circles]

...to anything because they are the eldest?

 

poll coming

 

I'd love it if you explained your answers either way.

[snickelfritz]

I voted other. I think some things happen because of accident of age. Older dd has had the much bigger room. She was a pre-schooler and youngest a crib baby when we moved in. Older needed the space and kept it. Older dd gets to do some things, because she is old enough. When younger is old enough, she will too.

 

We are about to move and they will draw straws for first pick of rooms. We don't continue to let older have dibs on things, just because she is older. But mine are just over 2 years apart. If they were 5-ish or more, I could see how older would get much more benefit of age.

 

ETA. We plan to split monetary things. Our will names them equally. When it's time for college, we will figure out what we can do for both. Etc.....

Edited July 2, 2011 by snickelfritz

[Cheryl in NM]

No and I am the oldest. Different kids have different needs. Sometimes after the first child the parents relax. Oh well, such is life.

[OrganicAnn]

I voted no, but I also don't think they should have too much responsibility thrust on them just because they are the oldest either.

 

At each age the right amount of responsibility and entitled to some things that younger kids are not.

[T'smom]

That's a hard one. I DO think that privileges should not be given to the older and younger at the same time. For example, if one child has to wait until they're 16 to date, but the younger gets to date at 14....I think that causes resentment. I know it did for me. Bedtime was a big one for me- when my parents finally let me stay up past 9, it was only a couple months before my sister (4 years younger) also got to stay up. It still bugs me. So, no. I don't think that they are entitled to anything- BUT I believe that rules should be the same for all kids in the family.

[oraetstudia]

First borns are entitled to clothes that didn't get passed down from an older brother or sister. Not saying they are entitled to new clothes though. :D

[Dolphin]

I did other. Our oldest does get special treatment, but he is also very responsible and very good. Our dd is the baby, and loves it that way, but she sometimes misses out as (to be frightfully honest) she can be a little brat.:lol:

 

Is this from personality, birth age, who knows.

[Greta]

I love, love, love my parents, but several times when I was growing up, they did this thing which drove me batty. As the oldest, I was told that I could have some certain privilege or totally awesome and desirable thing when I reached a certain age, say 16. So I waited longingly for it for years, and then, when I reached age 16, they gave totally awesome thing not only to me, but also to my brothers, who were 13 and 10!!! They did this several times, and I hated it. So if "entitled" means that oldest child should have some privileges and freedoms that younger children should not, then I have to say YES! YES! YES! :lol: But, I also realize that's probably not what most people mean. :D

[T'smom]

I love, love, love my parents, but several times when I was growing up, they did this thing which drove me batty. As the oldest, I was told that I could have some certain privilege or totally awesome and desirable thing when I reached a certain age, say 16. So I waited longingly for it for years, and then, when I reached age 16, they gave totally awesome thing not only to me, but also to my brothers, who were 13 and 10!!! They did this several times, and I hated it. So if "entitled" means that oldest child should have some privileges and freedoms that younger children should not, then I have to say YES! YES! YES! :lol: But, I also realize that's probably not what most people mean. :D

 

Just have to say- I feel your pain! And I agree wholeheartedly!

[Starr]

With entitlements also comes more responsibility!

[Jean in Newcastle]

People should have only what they have the capacity to handle - this applies to good things too. Many times this means that the oldest has the capacity to handle certain privileges and their attendant blessings earlier than a younger child. But it isn't a set thing because people mature at different rates and in different areas.

[Peela]

I don't have problem with entitlements for older kids. Seems natural to me.

My 2 are close in age so most of the time we have been able to treat them fairly equally- but I remember dd did get more pocket money than ds for the first few years they received it. When they got older at some time they started getting the same.

 

I think it depends on the context- its not black and white and many parents do stupid things (usually with good intentions, or through carelessness) so I wouldn't make it a rule.

[Kirch]

I love, love, love my parents, but several times when I was growing up, they did this thing which drove me batty. As the oldest, I was told that I could have some certain privilege or totally awesome and desirable thing when I reached a certain age, say 16. So I waited longingly for it for years, and then, when I reached age 16, they gave totally awesome thing not only to me, but also to my brothers, who were 13 and 10!!! They did this several times, and I hated it. So if "entitled" means that oldest child should have some privileges and freedoms that younger children should not, then I have to say YES! YES! YES! :lol: But, I also realize that's probably not what most people mean. :D

 

:D I still remember my outrage when my parents let my little sister wear pantyhose years before I was allowed to and to get her ears pierced earlier as well (I had BEGGED for years). Of course, as a parent now I realize that as you grow and learn you realize that some of those things aren't really as important as you thought they were at the time!

 

I've actually been thinking about this a bit lately, because I really think my oldest would benefit from a little more responsibility and a few more privileges based on age. But mine are pretty close together (21 months), and I'm afraid that the actual implementation would be a bit sticky. :001_huh:

[Parrothead]

Yes, elder children are entitled to more ice cream. And staying up later and sitting in the front seat and the bigger bedroom. These go with the territory of having to be the ones to break the parents in.

 

I got more ice cream, my younger brother got a car.

 

I stayed up later, my younger brother got to say out later.

 

I got the bigger bedroom, my younger brother got more relaxed parents.

[Greta]

Just have to say- I feel your pain! And I agree wholeheartedly!

 

Oh, I had not read your post when I wrote mine -- how funny that we had the same experience!

 

It's hard being the oldest, isn't it? :001_smile: My parents, who are truly wonderful people (I am so blessed!) have actually acknowledged and apologized for the fact that they were harder on me than my brothers. Really, it wasn't all bad. There is something good about having a lot expected of you, and waiting and working to earn things.

 

My daughter is an only. So she doesn't even realize how badly I am messing things up with her, because she has no younger sibs to compare to! :lol:

[Parrothead]

It would be interesting to know how many of the "no" votes are coming from younger siblings.

[8circles]

Well - I'm the OP & I voted no. I am a younger sibling, so I'm sure that gives me bias but certainly no more than an older sibling who voted yes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anywho (:lol:) an older child being allowed to do something earlier than the younger doesn't count IMO - they reach the appropriate age sooner so it follows... that isn't what I mean by being entitled. I mean getting things/treatment that the other children will NEVER receive.

[Greta]

:D I still remember my outrage when my parents let my little sister wear pantyhose years before I was allowed to and to get her ears pierced earlier as well (I had BEGGED for years). Of course, as a parent now I realize that as you grow and learn you realize that some of those things aren't really as important as you thought they were at the time!

 

Oh, I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in this world as important as being allowed to stay up past 9pm or have a tv in one's bedroom! :lol: My oldest child angst is part of who I am, and you can't take it away from me!!! :tongue_smilie: :D

[8circles]

I voted no, but I also don't think they should have too much responsibility thrust on them just because they are the oldest either.

:iagree:

BUT I believe that rules should be the same for all kids in the family.

:iagree:

 

It's hard being the oldest' date=' isn't it?[/quote']

 

Isn't it hard to be a kid no matter where you fall in birth order?

[BakersDozen]

No. My oldest sister got and still gets things because of her being #1. My little sister gets things because she is/was the baby. My brother gets special treatment/things because he is the only boy. Guess where that leaves me? :glare: I have no patience with children getting anything special/entitlements because of when they were born or what body parts they were born with, lol.

[cindergretta]

Yes, elder children are entitled to more ice cream. And staying up later and sitting in the front seat and the bigger bedroom. These go with the territory of having to be the ones to break the parents in.

 

I got more ice cream, my younger brother got a car.

 

I stayed up later, my younger brother got to say out later.

 

I got the bigger bedroom, my younger brother got more relaxed parents.

 

:iagree: My oldest is very responsible and really steps in and helps out without being asked or expected to. Ditto my oldest dd. So yeah, they get more privileges. IMO, they have earned them. They matured faster than any of the younger dc, too. My oldest was more mature at 7 or 8 than my 3rd is at almost 11. Why? She had a lot more "help" staying a baby. She was required to do chores at an older age than the oldest 2. The oldest 2 were required to clean up their own messes from about 2 while she is just recently :glare: realizing she needs to CLEAN up after HERSELF!!!!!

 

There are pros and cons no matter where you fall in birth order. Older siblings tend to have more uptight parents than younger siblings. Older siblings grow up with younger siblings getting into their things and interfering with their friends while younger siblings have no one getting into their belongings and horning in on friends. In our particular family, the way things are shaping up, the older dc are growing up with a LOT less money than the younger ones will. (By that, I mean our current teens are living the life of a cash strapped larger family while the youngers will live the life of a more affluent smaller family when they are teens, kwim?)

 

(For the record, I was the younger of two sisters.)

Edited July 2, 2011 by cindergretta

[Diana B]

Well - I'm the OP & I voted no. I am a younger sibling, so I'm sure that gives me bias but certainly no more than an older sibling who voted yes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anywho (:lol:) an older child being allowed to do something earlier than the younger doesn't count IMO - they reach the appropriate age sooner so it follows... that isn't what I mean by being entitled. I mean getting things/treatment that the other children will NEVER receive.

 

 

I'd say no. There should be no "entitlements".

 

I think that certain things just naturally fall to the older (like the biggest room ~ they were probably there first and/or need more space!) or the old family car (although it should stay the 'family car' and be available when the next start driving too...). You shouldn't leave more $ in a will to the oldest child just for being the oldest.

[Parrothead]

Well - I'm the OP & I voted no. I am a younger sibling, so I'm sure that gives me bias but certainly no more than an older sibling who voted yes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anywho (:lol:) an older child being allowed to do something earlier than the younger doesn't count IMO - they reach the appropriate age sooner so it follows... that isn't what I mean by being entitled. I mean getting things/treatment that the other children will NEVER receive.

There are things that the eldest children will never receive but the younger children do.

 

The first gets organic baby food. The last gets Kraft in the blue box.

 

The first gets bedtime stories. The last gets an extra hour of TV.

 

It goes on and on. The elder gets jealous of the mac and cheese. The younger gets jealous of the organic baby food. There is no winner.

[OnTheBrink]

I'm the oldest; my brother is 9 years younger, and I said "no" in the poll. I don't think children are "entitled" to anything other than love, food, clothing, shelter, and an education. I do believe privileges are dolled out according to age, maturity and attitude. I do believe in "rights of passage" that one must be a certain age to do/have certain things. Yes, the older child can stay up later, but he's certainly not entitled to that. The older is naturally going to do things before the younger child/ren because they're reached the age or maturity to do those things. It's not an issue of entitlement, though, because privileges can be taken away in a heartbeat no matter the age or birth order of the child.

 

Oh, and as seen in my siggy, my kids are 10 years apart and yes, the older did things the younger couldn't until she reached that age.

[Night Elf]

I answered no.

Yes, I'm a younger sibling.

No, none of my children get special treatment because of their birth position.

 

I agree there are things that are age appropriate and naturally the oldest child will get to do/have them before the siblings. However, I cannot think of anything that should specifically be reserved for the oldest child that the younger sibs will never get to do or have.

[JaniceO]

My oldest is 13 and he does get certain privileges, not only because he's the oldest but he's also the most responsible and obeys the most. He gets to sit up front (although by law, he's the only one old enough to). He doesn't get the biggest room, but he does get his own room (the biggest goes to the 2 that have to share). He has a cell phone when the others don't. He has more freedom in the neighborhood than the others do. Just things like that.

[happi duck]

Mrs Read: DW, you can do that when you're Arthur's age

DW: but I'll never be Arthur's age...he'll always be three years older than me!

========

our oldest is always the guinea pig, always the test case...

things that work great we continue

things that don't work great never move on to youngest

Our kids are close enough in age that privileges aren't different

I think oldest gets the short end of the stick but she doesn't complain and realizes it's just how it is

 

 

(I'm a youngest)

Edited July 2, 2011 by happi duck

[cindergretta]

I might have misunderstood... :blush:

 

No, older dc shouldn't be entitled to a larger inheritance or the first choice of family heirlooms, etc. All the children should be equal when it comes to things like that.

 

Now, my dh is Okinawan. He is the oldest of 3. And in my mil's eyes, he is entitled to everything. He is also repsonsible for everything. There is a balance there that is cultural. To the oldest go all privileges and all expectations of responsibility. (To clarify - oldest *sons.*)

 

M children are all equal in all things but the olders do have privileges related to their responsibilities.

 

:001_smile:

 

(My mother has been having a 9 year hissyfit over the fact that she is married to the oldest of 3 children. Dad, brother, sister. Well, of all things!! When my grandmother died, her diamond engagement ring went to the youngest, her dd. NOT my mother. My mother is still irate over not getting that stoopit ring, as she is the wife of the oldest. Ugh and yuck! I would leave it to my dd and not the wife of my oldest, too!)

[meggie]

Yes, the olders are entitled to not have to bear all the burden and responsibility just because they are the oldest. And I say that as the middle of 5. My older sister was always held to a higher accountability that none of the rest of us were, even when we got to the age she had been. As my children grow up, responsibilities will be passed down to the next child and the older can get a new responsibility.

[Miselainia]

My siblings and I laugh about this all the time, who got what when. It's just a part of the order of things. The oldest generally gets the bigger clothes because she's the biggest (until she stops growing and her siblings outgrow her). :) It's not because she's entitled to bigger clothes.

[Kirch]

Oh, I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing in this world as important as being allowed to stay up past 9pm or have a tv in one's bedroom! :lol: My oldest child angst is part of who I am, and you can't take it away from me!!! :tongue_smilie: :D

 

:D I meant that *as parents* we often realize later that certain things really weren't that big of a deal--certainly not worth the drama and effort that went into restricting/monitoring them.

 

As far as from my perspective as an oldest, while my parent-brain accepts that truth, I'm with you--there's still a bit of righteous indignation lingering in there too . . . :tongue_smilie:

Edited July 2, 2011 by Kirch

[kolamum]

I'm with Cheryl. Different kids have different needs. I can't say that I feel my eldest is more entitled to anything then my youngest. That said I think each child is entitled to certain things based on the story behind it.

 

For instance.. in my family my mother has a beautiful wooden rocking chair. It was purchased by Dad when I was an infant so she could nurse me in it. When I had children it was given to me, and it broke my heart to leave it behind. I hope to eventually have it sent to me. I'd be crushed if it were given to another sibling.

 

For my children I used the same crib and bassinet for each of them. If I passed them on to them as they had children it would probably depend on which child wanted what and who had children first. That said, my eldest did ask recently if the bunting I hang up at their birthdays could be given him so he could hang it for his own children's birthdays.

 

I smiled slyly and told him no because I'd hang it up so he could bring his children to visit me for their birthdays. :lol:

[Ester Maria]

I was an only child, so the whole sibling dynamic was a new thing for me.

 

We do not think that there are things which are specifically reserved for only one child, only the eldest, because she is the eldest. However, if some things are age-based, then each child gets them when they are of age appropriate for it: even if our big daughters are less than a full year apart, they do not have equal allowances or even fully equal curfews for the most time. Things which are opportunity-based, maturity-based or just generally individual (think travels) are generally not "measured" on that scale but considered individually, and we recognize that different children have different needs, so we do not consciously attempt to have them fully equal when it comes to that.

 

Inheritance is theoretically equal, but it can also turn merit-based, and if we strongly disagree with some of their choices, that can reflect in inheritance too.

[bettyandbob]

You do things differently with each child because each child is a different person. So, there may be a time when child 1 gets a privilege at a certain age because he has demonstrated responsibility and good judgement. When child 2 gets to that age and he has demonstrated neither responsibility nor judgement and so he doesn't get the privilege. The situation may be reversed at other times in the same family.

 

There are going to be times when child 1 gets more (attention, financial support, etc). As a parent you have to realize how that will be percieved by child 2 and plan for that so that both children are having needs met.

[MelanieM]

I voted no. Every kid is different, and I strive to parent based on their individual needs rather than their age, gender, or birth order. And if they grow up and whine to me about it, I will likely roll my eyes and tell them to get over it. We all have things we can use as our excuse to be bitter or unhappy or contrary... My kids will have their turn to pick their woes as well, no matter what I do or don't do as a parent. That's called "so what".

 

I am the oldest of two. In a lot of ways, I had a very different upbringing than my brother, even though he's only 2.5 yrs younger than me. Some of it was due to age, some to gender, and some to birth order. But I'm sure a great deal of it was due to personality.

[Stacie Leigh]

If there is significantly more responsibility then more privilege should follow, imo. If not, than not so much.

[Chris in VA]

Well - I'm the OP & I voted no. I am a younger sibling, so I'm sure that gives me bias but certainly no more than an older sibling who voted yes. :tongue_smilie:

 

Anywho (:lol:) an older child being allowed to do something earlier than the younger doesn't count IMO - they reach the appropriate age sooner so it follows... that isn't what I mean by being entitled. I mean getting things/treatment that the other children will NEVER receive.

 

You mean like the right of succession or something? LOL

 

No, I don't think olders are entitled as you describe it. There are both benefits and nonbenefits to being older--one thing my oldest brother had that we never received is more time with the grandparents. But I know that's not what you mean.

[twoforjoy]

I'm not really sure of the question.

 

My DS is six years older than his little sister, and will be seven years older than his little brother. He gets lots of privileges they don't get, obviously. He also has significantly more responsibility.

 

If we're talking about things like the first-born inheriting everything or something, then no. But I do think an older child shouldn't be limited to what their younger siblings are able to do, so in that sense I'd say they are "entitled" to things the youngers can't do, at least not yet.

 

I also had the same experience others mention of my sister being allowed to do things at a younger age than I was. Things I had to wait until I was out of the house to do, she was able to do at 16 and 17.

[Soror]

I voted yes, am the oldest, I didn't really get any entitlements though we were pretty close in age. I think being older has certain responsibilities and as such should also have certain privileges as well. Although I think it is more determined by the individual than anything else.

[elegantlion]

I didn't vote. I'm the youngest of two. My sister and I were so different the only thing I wanted that she had was the bigger bedroom. But the house was weird, the secondary bedrooms had very different sized rooms.

 

She really didn't get any entitlements that I wanted. I loved it when she went to college and I had two whole years without her around much. :D I'm spoiled. I was also the one that got in trouble, staying out late. My sister had little social life so she never did those things. I used to get mad at her because she was supposed to "break my parents in" like all my friends older brothers and sisters had. :lol:

 

I'm glad I was the baby of the family.

[JudoMom]

I'm the oldest; my brother is 9 years younger, and I said "no" in the poll. I don't think children are "entitled" to anything other than love, food, clothing, shelter, and an education. I do believe privileges are dolled out according to age, maturity and attitude. I do believe in "rights of passage" that one must be a certain age to do/have certain things. Yes, the older child can stay up later, but he's certainly not entitled to that. The older is naturally going to do things before the younger child/ren because they're reached the age or maturity to do those things. It's not an issue of entitlement, though, because privileges can be taken away in a heartbeat no matter the age or birth order of the child.

 

Oh, and as seen in my siggy, my kids are 10 years apart and yes, the older did things the younger couldn't until she reached that age.

 

:iagree:

[8circles]

There are things that the eldest children will never receive but the younger children do.

 

The first gets organic baby food. The last gets Kraft in the blue box.

 

The first gets bedtime stories. The last gets an extra hour of TV.

 

It goes on and on. The elder gets jealous of the mac and cheese. The younger gets jealous of the organic baby food. There is no winner.

 

I hear what you're saying but I don't think this is what I mean. I don't think you'd describe any of those things as "entitlements" would you?

[8circles]

You mean like the right of succession or something? LOL

 

 

Yes, I guess. kind-of like that. :lol:

[Violet Crown]

You mean like the right of succession or something? LOL.

:lol: Oldest dd likes to tell her younger sisters that she will inherit all the family lands, estates, and fixtures, and that they will have to enter the convent or go out into the world to seek their fortunes.

 

It is true that she's likely to inherit someday the ancient Saturn with the broken AC and intermittent first gear.

[ColoNative]

For the most part, no. If they have extra responsibility - then perhaps extra privilege comes with that. But I remember a ring my Grandma had. I really wanted it - and my sister didn't really care. She got it by virtue that she was the "oldest". I always thought that wasn't right. I didn't get to pick the birth order! :001_huh:

[beaners]

I was entitled to the front seat in the days when short people were allowed to ride without booster seats. (Come to think of it, I'm still not tall enough to ride in the front seat...)

 

Being the oldest and the first to marry and have children, I'm sure there are some things that have happened or could have happened that would anger my siblings. We got married in a courthouse, but I'm sure my parents would have chipped in money if I was married in a church with a big reception. There might not have been enough money to do that for my younger brother and sister. My mother offered me the rings that she and my father wore before they divorced. We had already picked out our own. I have the first grandchildren and that might cause jealousy once my siblings have their own, if everything doesn't seem equal in their eyes.

 

It's not a matter of entitlement in my eyes though. It's just the way things work out. There are also responsibilities that I have for my family that my siblings don't at this point. If anything were to happen to either of my parents, my family would be taking care of medical or financial needs. It works both ways.

[Impish]

There are things that the eldest children will never receive but the younger children do.

 

The first gets organic baby food. The last gets Kraft in the blue box.

 

The first gets bedtime stories. The last gets an extra hour of TV.

 

It goes on and on. The elder gets jealous of the mac and cheese. The younger gets jealous of the organic baby food. There is no winner.

:iagree:

the only thing the eldest is entitled to is a slightly larger therapy bill for being the prototype kid with more neurotic parents than the younger kids got :tongue_smilie:

[kchara]

I voted "other." Yes, I think there are things that the oldest is entitled to. Heaven knows I've probably screwed her up enough. The oldest (at least when I was growing up, and in my family) tends to have much more responsibility and pressure. I think with that, they deserve extra entitlements. For example, my oldest stays up late with us more often (OK, the ones younger than her NEVER do). It comes with being the oldest, and helping out like she does. She needs extra time to unwind every once in a while. She also tends to get more one on one time, because she needs it and she's earned it.

 

Then, there are things that she gets that will be passed down. Someday, we hope to have a home with enough bedrooms that one child will be able to have their own. That will be the oldest. When she moves out, it will be passed down to the next oldest, and so on. But she gets it first.

[Pretty in Pink]

When it comes to my siblings and I, as the eldest I certainly want to be entitled!

 

When it comes to my children I frequently mediate arguments that begin with, "Because I'm the oldest, that's why!" So, no, generally speaking I don't think that my eldest is entitled to much by virtue of his birth order. Sometimes we do give him first choice though.

[catz]

I think the older you are the more freedoms and privedges you may be able to handle. And with that comes more responsiblity. This varies by child and family of course.

 

I was an oldest girl with a younger brother. My brother got to do many things at the same time as me and it was really unfair. Not to mention, due to that my brother got himself in quite a bit of trouble because he was unable to handle that level of responsibility given his age and personality. If my parents would have been thinking, he would have gotten some of those freedoms later than I got them due to personality!