# Argument that Parents Should Space Kids by 3+ years



## Theoretical (Feb 16, 2009)

A friend and I were having a debate over my interest in having a large family. One of the points she raised was that apparently some child psych research suggested that families should space children by at least 3 years, whether adopted or natural, to allow them to become fully integrated into the family. She said the research showed that kids would have identity struggles and too little nurture if born too closely.

Now I stated my disagreement with this, but was wondering if the PB brain trust knew of any good counters to this thinking.


----------



## Zenas (Feb 16, 2009)

My God said their psych study is wrong.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 16, 2009)

I would guess that study reflects Mom working full time, in which case yeah, she'll be stressed and not so nurturing.

If Mom is home with preschool kids all day they will be just fine.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 16, 2009)

Just look at the case study of my dad's family. 10 children, all closely spaced. You'll never see a more balanced well adjusted family; and extended families now.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Feb 16, 2009)

lynnie said:


> *I would guess that study reflects Mom working full time, in which case yeah, she'll be stressed and not so nurturing.*
> 
> If Mom is home with preschool kids all day they will be just fine.



What a great insight. I bet that is the reason. I totally agree with previous posters that it's enough for us to say that God's plan is different, but it's also helpful when we can counter the arguments on their own terms. (And this might be one of the rare cases that would not require complete demolition of the other person's worldview to prove the point.)


----------



## Archlute (Feb 16, 2009)

I could tell you what I think about some child psychologists, but I've probably already answered your question.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 16, 2009)

I just have to laugh. Tell that to my kids.


----------



## Brother John (Feb 16, 2009)

Zenas said:


> My God said their psych study is wrong.





Joshua said:


> Theoretical said:
> 
> 
> > Now I stated my disagreement with this, but was wondering if the PB brain trust knew of any good counters to this thinking.
> ...





Archlute said:


> I could tell you what I think about some child psychologists, but I've probably already answered your question.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 16, 2009)

I would be curious what "studies" show about inter-sibling relationships for those further separated. My guess is that those are not as strong when there is greater separation. I wonder why there is no emphasis on that (even within the psychological framework)


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 16, 2009)

Some great points. This person was arguing this issue of "identity and lack of full nurture" even with the wife being a full-time stay at home mom.

I especially like the counterpoint of siblings perhaps being less bonded if they are more separated, so any "benefits" to the separation are countered by equal "drawbacks", as one might expect.

And yes, I understated in the OP how much I despise a lot of psychology's recommendations. This seems like yet another example of it.


----------



## Augusta (Feb 16, 2009)

I was much closer with my sister who is only 14 months younger than me, than I was with my sister who was 3yrs older than me. We had nothing in common because of age.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 16, 2009)

My children are 5 years apart (not by choice), and we often wish they were closer in age. Statistics say that the most difficult age span to homeschool is 5 years apart. If you were into planning a family (which I am not, I think you should take what God gives you.), I would think that 3 years would be the very maximum age difference with 2 years being preferable. But, hey, I'm no child pyschologist, just a mom.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 16, 2009)

My first two are 2 years apart, the next two are 3 years apart, with one following 7 years later. 

Anecdotally (the singular of "data"), if they are boys, 2 year spacing is tough on the parents (boys tend to be retarded in the area of toilet training). However, 3 year spacing or more can make it more difficult to be "close." If I could do it over again and thought myself wise enough to usurp God's sovereign role, it would be five at 2 year spacing. "Somehow" I think he "might have" known best.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 16, 2009)

There can also be some argument that the Mom's body recovers more fully with more space between kids. But generally, I think kids are better off when they're raised in larger families with fairly close spacing; two years seems about right, and that's what often happens naturally once a child stops nursing as much.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2009)

Theoretical said:


> She said the research showed that kids would have identity struggles and too little nurture if born too closely.



Having children close together does tend to make them more conscious of others and less self-involved.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 16, 2009)

> Having children close together does tend to make them more conscious of others and less self-involved.



Hence the 'problem'. A lack of Narcissism leaves people open to all sorts of horrid things, like religion and caring for one's fellow man (while not on Obama's 'America serves' bandwagon - there are fewer sins greater than that, save intolerance).

I think you will find that 99.9% of such studies are faulty in that 99.9% of said studies do not recognize the sovereignty of our Lord.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Feb 16, 2009)

My Emma and Jack are 18 months apart. She has been a doll with my son in the month he's been, and I've not run into any sort of regression or jealousy on her part, unlike stories I've heard of more heavily spaced kids, both in and out of my own family. (May the Lord continue to be gracious in this!)


----------



## brymaes (Feb 16, 2009)

Oops, guess we already blew that one.

Maron (3), Jackson (1), Katie (4 mos).


----------



## AltogetherLovely (Feb 16, 2009)

> Having children close together does tend to make them more conscious of others and less self-involved.




I can't give thanks yet, but thank you for pointing this out. It really clarifies the issue. The very things they are describing as bad may, in fact, not be problems at all.


----------



## Theoretical (Feb 16, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> > Having children close together does tend to make them more conscious of others and less self-involved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right to the heart of the issue and beautifully put.

Kids won't be as narcissistic, where's the problem in that? 

That's a big giant "and how is this a bad thing?" question, isn't it?


----------



## Confessor (Feb 22, 2009)

Ex Nihilo said:


> (And this might be one of the rare cases that would not require complete demolition of the other person's worldview to prove the point.)


----------

