I've thought, read and talked with friends a lot about the "ideal" spacing for children lately. Sort of funny, considering the fact that you could count on one hand the number of days that Mark and I have both been able to get a full night of sleep. Not so much because we're ready to jump on the band wagon and get moving to try for our next child - but because the decision affects so many other things... how long I work part-time, how we balance childcare when it's time to go back to work fulltime, etc...
In what I naively thought would be a simple decision - I've learned is really a complicated answer with no perfect solution (which I should figure out, is like every other decision you make as a parent). We bounce back and forth daily, if not hourly, on whether we'd like to space our children closely together or further apart. And this is all assuming it's our conscious choice.
I'll write more later on what's pulling me in each direction, but in the meantime, for those of you who are not bored to tears with all my parenting-issue blog entries, here are a couple of links that argue each side of the case. In my reading so far, it seems that the popular advice by "experts" is to space your children further apart. However, most of my friends have been consciously practicing spacing their children closely (ie around 2 years apart). I would LOVE to hear all of your opinions out there!!
The first is a link for the space-your-kids far apart (by the infamous Burton White, himself!):
http://www.empathicparenting.org/closely.html
Here is a rather unique link I found to counter this argument:
http://parenting.ivillage.com/ttc/ttcprep/0,,8x7k,00.html
So what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think that you should already be pregnant by now. How are you going to have 18 kids if you dont keep on schedule? Kitchen is waiting.
My sister and I are almost 3 years apart. We fight a LOT (not sure if that is age or personality related).
My brother is 18 months younger. He and I get along very well. When we were little, it was he and I who always played together.
i am in the middle of reading the second article, but i definitely have some things to say. stay tuned for future comments. i seriously feel like i need to be taking notes while i'm reading so i don't forget everything i want to comment on! :-)
and zimbabwe, too! (in response to 54 bazilion patchlings comment)
It's freaking me out that you and Mark are talking about this - Erik and I am too - I wanted 3.5-4 years (not in HS or college together) but Erik and his brother are 2 years apart and he likes it -but they are both boys.
I think it depends on how many you want - 3 or more - keep them 2-3 years apart at the most - or you'll be 10 years older from when you started having kids!
having said that - I want at least 2 - and while I want Danielle to be the center of attention FOREVER, I would have another one tomorrow!
Here's my 2 cents...your first baby CHANGES YOUR LIFE in a way that you cannot comprehend until they are here. Future babies change things, but it's not at all as drastic as the first. So, whether they are close together or far apart in age, things will not be nearly as hard to handle with the second, third, etc.
We chose to have ours pretty close together (21 months between 1 and 2 and 2 years between 2 and 3) and so far I am happy with this. My first two are each other's best friends. I hope it stays this way. Of course we have sibling rivalry and problems sharing, etc. but I see these as good "teaching opportunities." The third baby is still so tiny to see how she'll react, but my first 2 adore her, want to help with her, hold her, etc. At this point in our family life (which I realize is still very early) I am happy with our spacing.
I think it's time for some PHOTOS! Where are you? It's been over a week!
Post a Comment