s/o should firstborn children be entitled??

[Mrs Mungo]

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: I also agree that being the eldest comes with more responsibility. It is impossible to make that even. Youngest will never have to babysit younger siblings or drive them to activities.

 

Eta: that doesn't mean the youngers will never receive benefits, just not at the same time as eldest.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[abacus2]

I voted other, mostly because I'm the eldest and love ice cream. I don't think the eldest should be entitled to things because they are the eldest, but all kids should have things and do things at age appropriate times which means the eldest gets to things first.

[AuntieM]

I wouldn't use the term entitlement (at least that wouldn't apply here). But there are certain privileges that one earns at certain age levels. The eldest child just gets there first!

 

As far as room assignments, etc, we consider individual needs. Oldest currently has the smallest bedroom. In fact, now that I think about it, we have to watch that the youngest doesn't appear to be entitled. She came along later and is a wee bit spoiled...

[Tohru]

I think it depends on the age gap between first and second born.

[ereks mom]

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

 

:iagree:

[ereks mom]

Maybe it's because of my age (50) that I interpreted the poll as if it referred to "adult children": whether the oldest child in the family should inherit more property than the younger ones. I have 2 siblings, and I am the oldest, but I do NOT think that I should inherit more than they do just because I am the oldest. Throughout history, that's how things were done, but I don't think it should be that way today.

 

Then I read some of the other responses, and I realized that by "entitled", the OP probably meant privileges during childhood. And my answer to that is the same as GreatLynne's:

 

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!

[arghmatey]

No way. I'm an only child, and I don't believe we are entitled either.

[silliness7]

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.

 

 

Oooohhh....in that case, absolutely not. Not unless it's an accident of birth. Like my older 3 got to go to Disney with their grandparents. Nobody else was even born yet. But the others are not likely to get such a treat. When will we be able to afford to take the fam to Disney? Ummmm....never.

 

I'm an oldest and I tend to think that the youngest has it made. The parents are broken in, the rules are relaxed. They live in a house with older kids and older kid rules. And typically mom & dad will have more disposable income as the years go by.

 

But there is a reason that first borns are statistically more successful. They have it harder and that does build character. When my oldest was my youngest's age I was pregnant with my 3rd. He was already helping and fetching and taking on his uber responsible role. My baby is still being carried around and has things fetched for him. Sad but true. :tongue_smilie:

[8circles]

But there is a reason that first borns are statistically more successful. They have it harder and that does build character. When my oldest was my youngest's age I was pregnant with my 3rd. He was already helping and fetching and taking on his uber responsible role. My baby is still being carried around and has things fetched for him. Sad but true. :tongue_smilie:

 

True, statistically speaking they are more successful (in one sense) but from another perspective I'm not sure they are always pushed more but are given more opportunities. I definitely see this playing out with my kids. Of course, each family is different so anecdotes shmanecdotes.

 

Thanks for the responses!

[Mrs Mungo]

I've read the thread and people are voting using very different sets of criteria.

 

We have a rule that the oldest child in the car gets to ride in the front seat. That is just a hard and fast rule for our family. I'm not listening to a fight about it every time we get in the car.

 

Eldest gets to stay up later than her siblings. She gets to watch movies and have ice cream with us after the youngers are in bed. She has a phone. She has the biggest room (but middle dd has a bigger closet, she has more clothes). She gets more allowance. BUT, she also babysits. She has more chores.

 

Does the eldest inherit more? Well, my younger sister already lives in my parents' hand-me-down house. :P

[8circles]

I've read the thread and people are voting using very different sets of criteria.

 

 

I agree. In hindsight I should have explained more in the OP. The comments have been interesting though.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

No, not because of birth order, but because of maturity and responsibility. Often this means that the oldest will end up with more privileges, but the rights don't come strictly with birth order.

[Kim in Appalachia]

I'm the oldest in my family, and my dh is the oldest in his. But being 1st born should not give you "entitlements".

 

Now, older children should have greater responsibility and freedom, also older children tend to need more stuff (computers for school, a phone if they drive, etc...) But this will be the same as each child is older and not a little kid anymore.

[KrissiK]

No. My oldest doesn't get squat because he's whiny, acts foolishly and is extremely self-centered and irresponsible. My youngest is very responsible (she's 5 and occasionally does her chores without being reminded, but even when I have to remind her she does it cheerfully and quickly), has a tremendous amount of common sense and gets to have and do a lot. Drives my oldest crazy, but what can I do? I don't trust him.

[readinmom]

I would say my oldest ds was the guinea pig for all of the things we did/did not do with our other children.

 

I wouldn't say my son is "entitled" but he had different interests that required more than we have given the other dc to date. (baseball, baseball, and more baseball)

[Murphy101]

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.

 

This is what I thought you meant until I started reading posts and then I thought maybe I was off the mark.

 

I agree with you. With age comes certain rites of passage and privileges. Eventually they will all reach those ages and stages, so I don't view that is differential treatment.

 

But if my sister says she is entitled to take stuff bc she is the oldest and the oldest dd to boot - I'm gonna go postal on her. It's not even about whether I want anything. It's that crappy attitude of entitlement and the view that younger siblings must be lesser unworthy beings.:glare:

[Bee]

Privileges are earned. But older dd usually gets to ride in the front seat because her legs are longer. As for adult children, I can say from experience that parents entitling oldest child to everything because he/she was oldest has led to some very bad family dynamics. Even if someday everything on the surface appears ok between everyone, it never will be. My children know that, no matter what, everything we have left when we die will be shared evenly between them.

[Audrey]

They should be entitled to not be saddled with having to care for and/or raise their younger siblings.

[SweetMissMagnolia]

depends on the situation really......

[Impish]

They should be entitled to not be saddled with having to care for and/or raise their younger siblings.

:iagree: and add to that, entitled not to be automatically on the hook for caring for elderly relatives either. :glare:

 

Oh, and gender shouldn't factor in either.

 

I've been told that since I'm the only girl, *I* am the one that is expected to take care of my parents when/if that day comes. :glare:

[cin]

:iagree: and add to that, entitled not to be automatically on the hook for caring for elderly relatives either. :glare:

 

Oh, and gender shouldn't factor in either.

 

I've been told that since I'm the only girl, *I* am the one that is expected to take care of my parents when/if that day comes. :glare:

 

 

Oh Dear Lord, this was SO where I was. I was the ONLY though. When I learned to drive, I was gifted with a car (older and used, but MINE, nonetheless). I should never have taken that car, but gee, I was 16 yrs old! I also inherited the position as chauffeur of my mom, who didn't/couldn't drive. Grocery Store, library, Dr. appts. yup. my car, their name on the title, and a whole new set of chores.

 

Now, do I think that, in the case above, I should have gotten the car and been set free? No. (although, in my family unit, that would have been the best thing for the kid!) I don't think it's wrong to occasionally ask the kid to run to the store/library/dry cleaners, etc. But not EVERY time.

 

In addition, I think that age has some bearing, but I also think that maturity plays into it ALOT. I have a 10 & 7 yr old. Right now, I'd trust the 7 yr old more with a car. Maturity and skill set. And my 10 yr old just does NOT have a skill set for driving. Foresight is NOT in her genre of skills. It just isn't there. My younger, OTOH, can tell you what will happen next WEEK if the butterfly flaps it's wings in the next 5 minutes. Interesting pair.

[Murphy101]

They should be entitled to not be saddled with having to care for and/or raise their younger siblings.

 

:iagree: and add to that, entitled not to be automatically on the hook for caring for elderly relatives either. :glare:

 

Oh, and gender shouldn't factor in either.

 

I've been told that since I'm the only girl, *I* am the one that is expected to take care of my parents when/if that day comes. :glare:

 

I don't think any of that should be gender/oldest dc based.

 

However, I do think family should take care of family - which means if I drop dead or get critically ill, the kids are going to have to step up and help more.

 

But otherwise, I agree.

[Crimson Wife]

I haven't read all the responses, but I voted yes. Being the oldest means that the child has the responsibility to help out with younger siblings, and in return, there are special privileges.

[Lawana]

I do think the oldest should be entitled to some privileges for one reason only. The oldest generally has additional responsibility by virtue of birth order, and it should be compensated by additional privilege.