best time, etc.

Rae Nishi nishir at ohsu.EDU
Fri Jun 26 11:32:02 EST 1998


In article <199806241352.GAA02108 at net.bio.net>
linden at mail.utexas.edu (linden higgins) writes:

> Any thoughts?  I'm sure that two are not as easy as one, but are 2 twice
> the work?


Two are more than twice the work if they are both young (eg., ours are
3 yrs apart).  The first two years were hell because one was toilet
training and having nightmares, while the other was still not
completely sleeping through the night-- and they never woke up at the
same time!  But now they are 7 and 4 and they are less than twice the
work because what you do for one, you can do for the other at the same
time.  They also play well together and entertain each other.  I'm glad
we had two because they are learning to share things with one another
and to look out for one another-- they are not quite as self-centered
as an only child might be.  We had two because my husband was an only
child and he hated it.  I wasn't so sure if I really wanted another, so
I let biology decide for me-- I figured it would OK either way... But
now that the second one is here, she is wonderful and I have no
regrets...

reply to nishir at ohsu.edu
Rae Nishi, PhD
Professor
Dept. Cell & Developmental Biology
Oregon Health Sciences University
Portland Oregon 



More information about the Womenbio mailing list