« In Praise of All Mothers! | Main | Time & The Theory of Relativity »

May 09, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Pro--having kids close in age. I think there is a better chance of closer relationships as they get older if they are only a couple of years apart. If they are 5 years or more apart, they are practically different generations with high school, etc. Again, I may be talking out of my ass on this one. Personally, I decided to try again sooner rather than later because I was going to be 36 and I knew my body wasn't going to be as forgiving if I waited later.

Cons: The baby may be very different. I know you've read my blog enough to know that #1 was a dream baby and #2 was Beelzebub. I've been told by several moms that #3 is the easiest. I doubt we'll be finding that one out.


Ditto what MH said. Ours are as different as night and day, only partially because we've got one of each gender. Don't let that scare you, though, because now that ours are 6 and 3 (2yrs 9 mos apart - good spacing, IMHO) it is a joy to see them play together. Privately (or not, since I'm posting this on the Internet), I felt like we didn't become a "real" family until #2 joined us. Yeah, it's more work, but the learning curve isn't as steep and you are a lot more relaxed with the second one. But three is more than I could handle, so we're done.


Like you need the Korean guy's persecptive.

Why you should have a kid:

1. You know the growth rate of our people is almost regressive? You need to do your part and make sure the world is populated with Korean kids. The fate of our people rests in your loins.

2. You need to have a namja ae. You want to deep inside. Heck, I want you to. I hate to say it, sometimes I feel really bad when my friends have nothing but dahls.

3. Growing up Korean is all about being compared to your sibling's accomplishments. Don't disrupts thousands of years of tradition where children fight for their parent's love. And say you have 2 brilliant kids, that give you even more bragging rights, and then you can passive-agressively stick it to you neighbors when they get on their kids cases, comparing their sub-par children to yours.

4. Peanut needs a co-conspirator. How is she going to learn how to sell people out, and stab them in the back unless she has a younger sibling to blame things on? When she get's older, and she's in a bind and it's her job or Special Jeff's job, you are going to appreciate the Machiavellian opportunities you have given her. And God forbid she has other Korean female friends and Peanut is the one who can't connive.

5. Slave labor. When you get older, 2 kids can do twice as many chores as one kid. And with 2, you can stagger them sort of, so when one keels over from exhaustion, the other will keep working until the other one recovers conciousness.

6. The second kid can be a do over, just in case something awry happens. Nothing tragic, of course. But say...one of them ends up listening to too much depressing music, not good depressing music like the Smiths, but that crap on MTV. And then she hangs out at Hot Topic too much and brings home some skinny guy who wears mascara. You can balance that out with the other kid!

Why not to have kids:

1. Your wallet. No need to explain this one.

2. You could have another dahl. Nothing against dahls, I want to have a couple myself. But yuhj's are bisah. And twice the stress when they both hit the teen years.

3. Dohn. I know I mentioned it already. but its worth mentioning it again.

Suprisingly, my list of reason not to have another kid are pretty short. Not, you come back in a couple years and you talk about a 3rd kid. Then I'll have a longer list. Unless, you're still shooting for a namja with try number 3. Then that's understandable.

It's funny how I try to use Korean to mask my culturally sexist ways.


One other consideration: I don't know how old BossLady is, but it definitely becomes harder to conceive once you pass 35, and more difficult with each year (even if you had no problems at all the first time). If she's 35+, it could take YEARS before baby #2 is on the way -- or not at all. (I am speaking from my own experience here.) I'm just saying that she could be worried about waiting too long...


OK, the closer kids are together in age, the closer they'll be emotionally. My girls are about 2 1/2 years apart and although I know as teenagers they will likely hate each other, right now(at ages 11 and almost 9) they spend most of their time playing together....imagine Peanut with a little sis to lead around, and teach the latest Barbie styles...

But, yea...I guarentee at some point after having #2(whether you get started tomorrow, or in 5 YEARS) you are going to think to yourself, "What the HELL were we thinking?!"

Good luck, whatever you decide...heck, at least you'll have fun trying, right?


I would wait. At two, my kid is a lot of fun, and I don't think I would be enjoying her quite as much if I were dealing with another pregnancy at the same time.


The Peanut is about the age Maya was when I got pregnant with Nata. I get where both of you are coming from. I will tell you that two and a half years is a great age difference for kids. They are far enough apart to have each gotten to be enjoyed as newborns. Plus, they are close enough in age to be playmates after a while. Metro, my kids are opposites, they really are. But it is a good thing. One is outgoing one is shy; one was easier as a baby, the other was easier as a toddler. There are no guarantees in life.

I love your comment about the replacement baby. And for women, I have to say it is a hormonal thing. But two kids is a great thing. It was just as wonderful for me to have the first as it was the second. But the second time around we knew more of what we were doing. Sorry for the novel.


I just read your comments. I have to say, I agree with Mike. Plus, he freaking cracked me up.

As long as I'm posting again, you can always tell an only kid in a group of adults. Sorry to all only kids and to all parents of only kids, but it is true.


I'm a big proponent of having kids close together I think it's a lot better for the kids and the parents. My kids are 7 minutes apart and although I wouldn't recommend twins, I like having my kids so close together because developmentally they're so similar. They tend to do things right about the same time, like the same stuff at the same time, etc. As one that grew up in a family with a 16 year difference between the oldest and youngest siblings, I'd much rather have my kids all in a clump and get it over with once and for all. I can't imagine 16 years of diapers. Can you?

I don't think finances are a good reason to say "no" to more kids. Your finances could and probably will change often during your years as parents. There could be lean years and fat years, and if you just go with the flow, you'll be fine.

It's hard to fight broodiness. If you plan to have a second child someday, just do it now and give the peanut someone to lord over before she gets so old she loses interest. THat's what I think, anyhow.


There are advantages and disadvantages to every age. Kids spaced further apart are able to "help" more, but when they're close in age they have someone to play with. I wouldn't worry about jealousy, as I think that's largely avoidable if the parents play their cards right. We had our 3 close together in the hope that they would be close when they got older. One thing is sure, the closer they are together the heavier the workload for the parents.


2 kids wasn't any more difficult that 1 kid was. Mine are 2.5 years apart, and they are like night and day. However, neither one was an angel or a beelzebub. Keep in mind that Peanut may also change, disallowing the immediate comparisons. L. was a good sleeper, a good eater and a general angel until she hit 2. And then she wasn't. So now I find myself comparing stage to stage, age to age, if that makes sense.

But anyway, once over the hump over learning to care for one tiny stranger in my home, the addition of a second wasn't that earth-shaking.


Okay, here's my two-cents' worth...

My Baby Boy was born when the Munchkin was the same age as the Peanut is right now. Imagine that, MD! Honestly, we didn't plan on having them that close together. I'm still under 30, so my clock isn't ticking that fast, and I'd wanted at least 2 years between the kids. Apparently, I am fertile ground and God got the last laugh on that one. Now, I wouldn't trade my son for anything, but I have two kids in diapers at the moment, and it's a lot of work. The Munchkin is beginning the process of potty-training, but, like many things relating to kids, it's a process and a lot of work unto itself. People have actually asked us when we're going to have another kid... I always say, "When these two are potty-trained!"

My kids are the opposite of some of the other commenters - the Munchkin, who is 28 months, is my strong-willed drama queen. She was not like this as a baby - this hit at about 15 months in full force, though she always showed signs of having her own opinions about things. Baby Boy, who will be nine months old on Friday, is quite possibly the most laid-back kid I've ever known. He's a cuddler, but not shy, and rolls with the punches so well that we still plan our lives around his sister's nap schedule and not his. My theory is that he came home, discovered his sister was sucking up all the air in the house with her histrionics, and decided not to bother competing with her.

If the BossLady got pregnant right now, the Peanut would be the same age as the Munchkin is right now. This is a good age, because verbal skills are blossoming and concepts can be introduced (like using an "indoor" voice and being gentle with babies). Plus, she's not a bad little helper sometimes, either. And my two are already starting to "play" together... inevitably, someone ends up crying, but they've had fun for about 10 minutes before the crying begins.

Eventually, though, you'll have kid #2 and won't be able to imagine life any other way. I know that I can't imagine life without my sweet little boy! However, if anyone would like to rent a two-year-old, I'm open to offers. ;)

Motherhood Uncensored

As a parent of one, I have no advice for you MD, however, bossladies with hormones and a strong desire for a baby are hard to contend with - sounds like you can discuss such matters with her.

I imagine it's got to be hard for her not to see Peanut as much as she'd like - and perhaps if you brought it up (the staying home - or part time thing) it might be a good way to start a discussion about it.

Okay - that was way too serious for me. :)


wait till peanut's about 5. perfect split... course then you're dealing with kids for longer...

then peanut may want to help with the baby! (my 7 yr old - her brother came a bit earlier than planned - likes to play "mommy" with her siblings and helps out a lot)


I would try and comment but I'm still laughing from your post! Better go answer the call of your wife's utuerus!

dear wife

Well I am still brewing the first, but I plan on having mine farther apart. This desire for more is why I am having an IUD put in ASAP after the birth. The whole farther apart closer debate on how close your kids will be really depends on your kids. My brother and I are five and half years apart and it worked well when we were younger. However it was hard when he went away to school and I became an only child in middle school, not when you want all attention focussed on you. Now my brother and I are not incredibly close, but I think that is just our personalities, not the age difference. I have friends with the same age difference who are really close to their siblings, so I think there is no definate on this.


While my husband and I don't have kids yet, I started thinking about when I was younger- my sister is 20 months younger than I am. Thinking about Peanut's point of view, I love that I am so close in age to my sister. She was one of my best friends when I was little and remains that to this day. She was only one grade behind me in school so developmentally, we were doing many of the same things at the same time. On the other hand, my other sister is 6 years younger than I am and we are really not all that close. She was still a kid when I was a teen, and even now she is still in high school and we have nothing in common... different generations, I guess. Maybe that will change when she becomes an adult but I don't ever think I will have the same relationship with her as I have with my other sister.

When I have my kids (and who knows, I am sure my opinions will change once I am experiencing parenthood myself!), I would rather have them close together so they can have the same kind of relationship I have with my sister.

Papa Bradstein

First, MD, go answer BossLady's uterus. That's a call that can't go unanswered. Since we haven't even had one, we're not in a position to attempt an answer to your final question, but Mama did point out that even if you started trying immediately after you posted this, that it may take awhile for you to get pregnant.

Or not.

Was that helpful, or what?

We struggled for awhile with one of us being ready, and one not. It didn't help that there's a seven-year gap in our ages, meaning that while one alarm clock was ringing, the other was was still ticking happily along. Eventually, we both were ready, and happy that we waited, and we wanted to get pregnant RIGHT NOW!

Then, however, we had to paint our whole place so Mama wouldn't be huffing paint fumes while pregnant, and then Mama was called away to a trip in Nigeria, which required multiple vaccinations, which made us wait even longer.

So, even if you're both ready, fate may intervene and make you wait.

That was helpful too, wasn't it?

So, we'll be looking forward to hearing how BossLady gets you around to her point of view.


Since I have no kids, let alone married, I obviously don't have any parental advice. But I can tell you that my bro and I are 4 years apart, and I was actually in the delivery room and saw the birth of my baby brother. No, it wasn't scarring or scary (other than the fact that I cried because my mom was in such pain), but at that age, I understood I was going to become a big sister and I was excited about it. I am guessing I relied less on my parents in things like getting dressed, eating, andsoforth, and tried helping in every possible way with taking care of my brother. So I think 3-5 years apart can be a good thing.

Also, I resent what Mike said about girls being more expensive than guys. Of couse, I took it with a pinch of salt, and I actually enjoyed his comment. But lemme tell you this: I am attending a normal university, whereas my brother is gonna go to pilot school! Ten billion times more expensive than my education, thank you very much!


Well, since you asked....I say go for it. Your gonna have 2 anyway,and by the time the baby is born, Peanut will be on her way to potty training, and you probably won't be 'diaper free' yet. I've got 3 kids, the first 2 are 19 months apart, and 2 and 3 are 4 years apart....I would say closer is better, and Peanut sounds like she will be a great 'helper.'


I feel like I'm still weighing the options of having another and we're five weeks shy of number two. I'm digging in my heels at the moment and loving Eli up and down because it's about to vanish. I don't know if this is regret or reality. Just don't know.


I'm in no position to provide feedback one way or the other. I'm in the exact same spot you probably were a year ago, and share all your fears and trepidation, and fully expect our next one (if there is a next one) to spit venom and vote Republican.

I want to know as much as you, and would love to know while I have the luxury to weigh in on it...


I don't know if this will freak you out, but I'm the oldest in my family and my sister and I are so different, people are often stupefied when they learn we're related. We don't look alike, think alike, or act alike. The only physical similarity we share is our voices. While I was the model child, I almost wrote model minority, but I was that, too, my sister was the devil child, the classic middle child. (We have a younger brother, as well.) That said, having a sibling will be a good experience for the Peanut. I think it might be a little lonely for only children, even if they have lots of friends. Besides, who will Peanut have to pick on when she gets older?


Go for it.


Havine your only child out of diapers and then contemplating going back? It's like being furloughed from prison and having the choice about whether or not to go back. See, after she's potty-trained, it'll feel like this: DIAPERS=TAKING IT UP THE ASS.

Knock her up now. You'll have nine months to work out the particulars. Plus, I have this theory that people who make really cute, smart kids have a responsibility to make up for the brainless hicks who knock out six without thinking about it.


My kids are 3 & 1. The 3-yr-old still has a 3 hour nap in the afternoon and sleeps 12 hours at night (7:30-7:30, if you're wondering), she eats anything and sings her way through life. The 1-yr-old sleeps 13 hours at night (7-8, if you're wondering), has two naps during the day, eats anything (except bananas - go figure) and would sing his way through life if only he could figure out how to get more than two notes in a sequence. Are they polar opposites? Nope. Unless sex counts.


Ours are 2 1/2 years apart. But if you're going to wait, at least wait long enough for Peanut to be old enough to help change diapers!

And if it makes you feel better, our second child is actually more mellow than the first. Hope it works that way for you.


As a mom of another 19 month old who wants to have another baby, I would say if she's willing and you're pretty much willing - go for it!

That's what I want my husband to say. I don't want to wait until Tae is 5 and in school to have number 2. I don't want to wait too long, and have Tae feel like an only child.

I also feel like the longer we wait, the harder it will be on Tae. She saw me holding another infant, and she got really jealous and needy.

I would think first about what it would mean for your family, and then think about all the other logistics.


chin up!

[email protected]

Cityslicker mom

I'll agree with the second one being opposite of the first one. my second one is very opposite, even opposite looking! They are 22 months apart, and I remember thinking that it would be forever before they could really play together. But it happened so fast, and they bond as siblings so well when they're close in age, in my opinion. Plus, it give YOU a break--my boys will play for hours on end. It's nice.


Believe it--Stacy's diaper pail point is huge. Not yet mentioned: the probability of having twins grows as Bosslady gets older. Imagine twins, evil, vomit spewing twins. Could you do that at 42? Me neither--I'm getting the chop!


I am with you in the fears department... but as you know my persuasive spouse has got me a die-hard "Only children are nice" advocate singing lulllabys for two very soon. We will have 2 under for 8 weeks or so this summer.

Of course we will keep you posted on what it's all about Alfie. Ultimately, I just can't ever resist the opportunity to 'apply prior learning' .. cause I am a bourgeois shmuck.

Also -- 2, 3, 4, years even 5... there are pros and cons to them all... 34, 35, 36.. Mommy aging.. that just gets worse as pregnancy goes. You are a good man to let BL get it over with if that's what she wants. But you are a cad to report here her motivations; I demand a BL rebuttal post!


You sound just like me and Sandra. We had a really difficult child birth with Daniel but he turned out to be the easiest, happiest, healthiest kid I have ever seen. And that's a problem. Now we are expecting our second one in August and we are spoiled by he's constant good mood and easy manners. Just like you, we're fearing the second one will be the opposite of Daniel, a complete nightmare. To make us even more nervous, the second one is a girl.

You and wife are of course young but I say go for it! Just get it out of the way. I was actaully hoping we would have twins this time. I seem to have some secret fascination with twins for some reason. Just imagine Peanut with twins........ Or did I scare you now?:-))


Phat Daddy

The wife and I decided to wait until Monkeyboy was 3 before pulling the goalie. Three seems like a good age. The kid is past the terrible twos. They are more independent and can actually grasp the concept of being the older sibling (by 'grasp' I mean they request that the younger addition to the family be thrown in the trash can). If you and BossLady think you're ready, I say go for it. We need more positive contributions to the gene pool.


My kids are all close in age (20 months apart and 25 months apart). It works well. They are all close and are best friends and except when they are trying to kill each other (they are all boys) they get along great. The early years are rough but as they get older it rocks. Oh, and they always have someone to play with.


PS- I shall say nothing of the having an angel the first time and what the second one is like... Let's just say NOW he's wonderful.


Our two are 22 months apart (currently 43 and 21 months).

You will have that "what the hell were we thinking" moment ... regardless of the age difference.

The first couple of months will be hard, until Peanut adjusts to the concept of competition, until the family gets into the groove of handling both children at the same time, until the newborn is going more than 90 minutes between feedings ... regardless of the age difference.

There's a chance BabyTheSequel will be incredibly difficult ... regardless of the age difference.

Finances will be a concern ... regardless of the age difference. (If you can afford it, and there's no reason to think your finances will change significantly, either positively or negatively, in the future, that's not a strong reason to wait, in my opinion.)

We went through all of these same concerns in deciding to try for the second, and came to the conclusion that those concerns would exist no matter how long we waited. There was only one major issue that would change the longer we waited -- we also had the "mom's going to be over 35" concern as well, and I wasn't going to get any younger while our daughter aged.

We knew we wanted two. We knew that one of us (my husband, if it matters) would be out of the work-force for a substantial period of time, and decided closer ages would minimize that interruption. And changing two diapers is not such a big deal.


I think it is the wise move to have kids close in age. Built in friend for a couple of years. My wife and her only sibling are 5 years apart and they are not close at all.

Good luck. Aim straight.


There's never a "right" time to have a second child. I tihnk you'll find that everyone's experience differs in some way or the other. But you and BossLady don't sounds like you're that far apart. Why not split the difference?


With all that advice, you don't need mine, so here goes because as a father of three I am uniquely qualified. Firstly: why stop at two? Just because number one is black, it doesn't mean number two will be white. Having three will show you that kids come in all colours of the rainbow and I'm sure in your case they'll be pretty psychedelic. Four or five will be even more fun, especially in a New York apartment. Secondly: just because you start now, it doesn't mean you'll be finished nine months later. I'm talking from experience. Aiming for a quick second child, we were at it more often than the Pope could ever seriously approve of in the cause of blessed procreation. You might have your work cut out for you, but there are worse jobs out there.
I have no advice to give on the subject of lots of children and living on no money. I haven't figured that one out at all.


Just get it over with. My husband's siblings are 5 years younger than him and 10 years younger than him and he was adamant that we were having ours close together. His sister is trying to have her first baby while our oldest is looking at colleges.

Our two are 21 months apart and I'm glad now that I did it that way now that they are 14 and 16. The first couple years were a little rocky because the second one didn't need much sleep. He still doesn't sleep much while the older one needs a good 10 hours every night.

JJ Daddy Baby Momma

Echoing R2dad, I was done at one, but JJ Daddy wanted a sibling for Little Mary Sunshine. I was happy to belly up to the bar again, and wasn't I surprised when I came up twins? (OKAY! Mr. Moscovitz!) Only then did I find it was a function of being of "advanced maternal age". Mine are 3 1/2 years apart, which is good, as LMS can help, and do the useful stuff (potty trained, dress herself, brush her own teeth, general housekeeping and yard work). As a friend and mother of 5 told me, any spacing is good spacing. There's no right or wrong. If you're going to do it anyway, just do it.


If my husband were a bit younger, I would've waited to have number 2 (who is due pretty much any minute now). The funny thing I've noticed is that most women get the urge for baby number two right around the same time - when our first babies are 18-24 months old. And now that I've gone through almost nine months of being pregnant while caring for a two year old all day, I can tell you that the pre-age-two baby urge is a curse! If any of us waited until our delightful little angels hit the terrible twos, we might have decided NEVER to have more children. That Mother Nature? Is a cruel bitch. The difference between an 18 month old and a 30 month old is akin to demonic possession.

But if someone had tried to warn me what a huge pain in the ass my angel baby would become once he hit age two, I never would've listened. So go forth and procreate! The world needs more good parents.


I don't want to scare you, MD, but our first child was an absolute angel. Like the Peanut, she was an absolute joy from the moment she entered the world. Her younger brother (3 years later)? He's like a tornado wrapped inside a hurricane. Sometimes, the wife and I even refer to him as Satan (jokingly, of course). I'm not sure whether it's the Opposites Theory or simply the difference between boys and girls. Either way, it's damn hard work! Take your time and wait a little while. or go for it now. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. You've got to do whatever you BOTH feel comfortable with.


I'm going through it too, my friend, and mixing my Raising Arizona quotes to boot with, "This one here is gettin' too big to cuddle! with "Gotta get me a baby, Hi!"


Let me get back to you - I'll let you know the answer(s) in about 3 months ;)

BTW - the comment about Star Jones made me laugh outloud at my desk like a hyena. Professional. Thanks, man.


MD, I haven't had a chance to read through all the comments yet, so I may be repeating some sentiments here.

My kids are 19 months apart, which means when my first was Peanut's age, we had a freaking newborn. I honestly do look back and slap myself in the forehead over that. BUT, now that we are through the very difficult baby stages, (they're 4 1/2 and 3 now), things are pretty fun around here. They play together, they like each other (for the most part), we don't have to worry about feeding schedules and conflicting naptimes anymore, etc.

The pros for having kids close together are that you get through the baby stages all at about the same time, and there is a greater likelihood that they'll be close siblings.

The cons are that the baby stages are much more difficult, scheduling things is hard, and yes, the second child is always different from the first.

No matter what the age difference, though, adding a second child is a huge, huge change to your life - you just can't know it until it happens. Specifically, two kids less than two years apart, like what we did? Very difficult, but it has its advantages once they're older.

My brother and I are 2 1/2 years apart and my parents thought that was a pretty good age difference. From the few comments I was able to read here, it sounds like people still think that's a decent age difference. That's about what Peanut and the new baby would be if you got pregnant pretty quickly. So, it all depends on how soon you're ready for your life to drastically change! :-)


Dude, this is just as personal as the SAHM v. WM debate, only people don't get nasty and vicious with this one.

My personal experience: after my son was born I said, "I'm never doing this again." My pregnancy was horrible, the delivery was horrible, and he was just *difficult* from the get-go. But 2 1/2 years later, that baby lust came on and we started trying for number two. I got pregnant almost immediately and things went downhill from there!

No, not really, though I almost died and I almost miscarried. Delivery was a piece of cake, though, and my kiddos (boy and girl) have been best friends since the moment they met in the hospital. They're three years and two months apart and we made the sibling relationship a priority.

Whatever happens, you'll make it work.


My rugrats are 3 years apart. This worked for me, I was able to do the single mother thing without a whole lot of problem. Also, both of my girls were very easy babies (they were sleeping through the night at 6 weeks and 4 weeks respectively), very easy toddlers (I never had my kids throw a temper tantrum in a store. Ever.), and are just now getting to be difficult at the ages of 7 and 10. The seven year old is a bit of a drama queen and the 10 year old, I believe, is in the beginning stages of raging hormones.

Be brave, MD. Either you have a kid soon or you have a Boss-Lady in longing.

dutch from sweet juniper

start scouring the Times for Jersey real estate, dude. it'll be a buyer's market by the time the next one pops out!


I don't know if I can say anything that hasn't been said before. It is funny, but my husband and I were having much the same conversation just last night. We have an 18 mo. old boy and although it has not been completely smooth sailing, he is just a joy to have around. Like you, we fear that the next, and last one, will be the complete opposite of #1, and that scares us. But we compromised going into this grand experiment (I wanted 4 children, he wanted 1 or none) and I am sticking to it.

As for spacing, I am in the camp of close, but not too close. A recent women's health article that I read stated that 18 mo. to 5 years was the ideal spacing, not for child development, but for the woman's health. Too close, and her body hasn't recovered enough nutrients, too far apart and chances for the baby to develop health problems, or the woman to have complications, increases. Just a little food for thought.

Whatever the outcome, I wish you all the best. Even if your children are complete opposites, just think of all the great stories you will have to recount later in life.

The comments to this entry are closed.

I also blog at...

Bookmark and Share

September 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad