Let's talk about 5 year spacing of kids - Page 2

[greenmama]

I agree that spacing is totally personal, but I also wonder. I read here all the time -overwhelmed mama's and mama's who aren't parenting the way they want to because they are so overwhelmed, and frequently they have 2 & 3 kids under five. I often just think "well no wonder"- of course I don't say that. So what I do wonder is if society is honest with mama's about how much it takes to parent (especially attachment/responsive parenting) a baby/young child and how really hard it can be to choose close spacing. I experience a society that says you should have your children close together and that single children or widely spaced children is "not fair" to the child. That doesn't seem honest to me.

[yaM yaM]

Mine are 5 & 3/4 years apart. Granted, my firstborn's a girl, so it's probably different than for you, but she has always ~loved~ being a big sister. They both adore each other. My youngest is a boy and he's 4 & 1/2. Even though my daughter just turned 10, they can spend quite a bit of time with each other -- just each engaged in different levels of play in the same activity (such as outdoor play kitchen area we've constructed). I too am so grateful to have been fully present for each of my children's babyhood, giving each the attention they needed. For example, I did the sling/in-arms CC style of parenting with my babies. So my back never could have taken that much baby-wearing all in a close time period.

[UUMom]

Well, nothing is easy. That's for sure. My 6 and 12 yr olds have very different needs that can sometimes feel overwhelming, depeding on what is going on in any given week. But dh and I do what we need to do. One needs one thing, the other needs another. It is what it is, no matter if the spacing is 5 or 10 years apart.

Dh and I welcomed each child in a conscious way. Each of our children, no matter the age span, was an adjustment. Thankfully, we get plenty of sleep (usually) these days, as even our nursling sleeps through the night. It's the afternoons, weekends, and evenings that are a little more demanding now-- with activities, sports, music etc. Sometimes I wish all my kids were on one schedule. But given their age range, it's just not going to happen. And given that our children choose their activites, we try to make it work for all of us. Two of our children are muscians, as is my dh, and preforming is important to them. Babies might not sleep well, but they don't need to be at any theaters on a Sunday afternoon.

If it's not one thing, it's another.

But it's what i wanted, and what i chose. You deal, yk?

I feel blessed because they were all joyfully wanted. The two who are 16 months apart (11 & 12--not planned, but wanted) are on a similar schedule. It was hard when they were younger, but they are on the same little league team, go to the same art class etc. Carting them together to their activites (nice they like the same things--not all sibs do) is easy.

Basically I have 3 generations- teen, preteen and preschooler- doing their own things. I have no complaints. I enjoy each of the stages. Thankfully I get enough sleep, like I said. But instead of being up at night, dh and i are taking them to various evening programming. (Community sprots, community drama, music quartets etc). It's not easier, but it's different.

I wish there was a way to make it all easy, but i have not found it. But it's ok. Dh and I share what needs to be done, and we try to get what we need as people. We let the kids choose their activites and we try to make what is reasonable happen for them.

I have not experienced any bias about spacing. Although i have about famioy size. In the end, it's only been since the 70's in 'developed' countries that women have been able to choose when to be, or not to be, pregnant. Of course, i never have paid attention to what others think should be my life, either. i think the norm these days is one or two kids, and if two, they should be spaced 3-5 yrs apart. (So parents can pay for college for one before the other begins). If you vary from that 'norm', you might get comments from contemporaries. Nobody is ever happy, however, so it's best to do what is right for your family.

I have *no* idea why others thing they have a right to comment on family size, spacing or whether or not one even wants kids. I've always been able to tune most of those busybodies out, thankfully.

[maya44]

I think close spacing can be tough in the early years, but it really "pays off" later.

My 8, 9 and 11 y.o. are 15 months and 19 months apart.

It was hard in the begining. But now I think the joy and togetheness we have is as a result of this close spacing.

[bendmom]

Our first was SO high needs, we decided to not have anymore ever. About 2 years ago dh got baby fever, and had to talk me in to it, but I'm glad we did it this far apart. They both get to be only children while they are babies, so to speak.

[guerrillamama]

I was just talking to my sister and she pointed out that in traditional hunter-gatherer societies, 4-5 yrs spacing was the norm. Makes sense, you would want to make sure that oldest child is capable of running away from predators and helping out w/ the hunting/gathering before you have another one to sling around everywhere.

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by greenmama

I experience a society that says you should have your children close together and that single children or widely spaced children is "not fair" to the child. That doesn't seem honest to me.

Every few weeks my FIL brings up that it's better for siblings to be born closer together because they'll be closer friends, and talks about how DH was too much older than their other children (only 4 years) etc...and I always find myself wondering if that's just his opinion in general or if he's subtly making his recommendation about what we should do. The thing is, DH was unemployed for over a year beginning just after DS was born, and now we LIVE with my in-laws in order to save money while DH gets a business going...surely FIL does not think NOW is a good time for us to expand our family? I have never quite come out and asked him, but I did say to my MIL one day shortly after one of these conversations that I think we need to be more "settled" before having another. Maybe she'll pass it on

[UUMom]

I think it's more the 'culture' of the family that determines sib closeness. I love watching my teen and yougest together (10 yrs difference). They melt my heart. The don't have anything 'in common' right now, but it doesn't mean they are not loving and appreciative of each other. My boys are 5 yrs apart and I love that as well. they share a room and a love of music. I love hearing them chat at night. My youngst ds enjoys falling asleep as his brother reads or does homeowrk. he says it's very cmforting. My girls are 6 yrs apart, but they play together every day and also share a room. Right now they are snuggled together listening to a book on tape, the younger watching the older knit.

My two middle chidlren, the closely sapced ones are like twins. It's only now they are doing things without the other. While it's true they are very close and depend on each other very much, all of my children have special relationships, in various ways, with each individual sibs. I think the age difference will matter less as theyget older- i mean what's the big diff between 40 and 50, say? Or 60 and 70?

Anyway- we do not stress competition among sibs, we try to respect individual differences- fi, I've never said 'why can't you be like...." or 'Well, your sister never..." or whatever other awful things some parents say to kids. That's sets up sib relationships for horror, envy and competition. I also made a mental shift when they were tiny to think of my close-in-age babes as twins. I didn't expect the 16 mo old to need me less, or not be a baby because I had a newborn. But that was hard, and I don't recommend it. But I also wouldn't say it's the worst thing a family could do, either. I know a lot of women in their 40's having babies and it's not like they actually have time to space kids 5 yrs apart. If once can and wants to, it's lovely.

I guess I'm one of those who can look back on those tough early times and say it's now wonderful. (Although it wasn't horrible back then). Still, even they were spaced further apart, I think they'd be close anyway, since all my kids get along. the age spacing currently makes it easier for activities, and given they have similar interests. (Lucky me). They share the same 'generation', which helps. They can be in some of the same activites, which meet at the same time and at the same place, be in the same UU sunday school class, go to camp the same week etc, which comforts them and helps with some (not all) logistics.

I think it's personal. I think their are bennies either way. Just as I think there are *tremendous* bennies to having an only. No spacing is insurmountable in this day and age. I think enjoying each babe as they come is very important. I also think it's very important to repsect each child for who they are. But we all here know that already. Looking at my kids now, I wouldn't actually change their past, or our odd spacings. They are wonderful to watch together and I feel blessed.

[yaM yaM]

Originally Posted by guerrillamama

I was just talking to my sister and she pointed out that in traditional hunter-gatherer societies, 4-5 yrs spacing was the norm. Makes sense, you would want to make sure that oldest child is capable of running away from predators and helping out w/ the hunting/gathering before you have another one to sling around everywhere.

Plus, I'd like to add, it gives you (the mother) the opportunity to be very focused on each child's early needs in a more individual way.




Works for me!