What is the obsession with 2 under 2?

I had a 14 month gap between my first 2, and then a 19 month gap between 2 and 3, so 2 under 2 and then 3 under 3. I wouldn't change it. There are big age gaps between me and my siblings and we had nothing in common: I was determined to have my own kids close in age.
They are currently 3, 2 and 7 mo. Yes, things are chaos, but I realise it will only last a few years, and I've no regrets. The house is permanently a complete mess, but soon enough there'll all be in school and I'll fix it, and overall I think this is better. The kids are going through similar phases, interests etc, can play with each other and so on. I didn't have this with my siblings, and always felt as the eldest that my needs were put second to much younger siblings who were always younger and needed help more.

A lot of friends did this but not all of them planned the second one so quick! The general feedback was they don't remember the first year of having both!
We couldn't afford 2 in nursery at the same time and have 3.5 years between ours, they are really close and oldest one is super patient. But we had the luxury of time as I had first at 32. And no family assistance with childcare so I would have fallen apart!

Yep seems completely mad to me to actually aim for it! Frazzled parent and kids too close in age! And unable to give individual time to them on quite the same way/competing for attention/things.

I understand practical concerns re work or when contraception slips or when people think they're immune when breastfeeding (!). Just didn't realise people actively aimed for it!!

It depends on a lot of factors - career, age having children, financial situation, of course personality. Financially it’s sometimes better to have them close, some people just want to get those baby years out of the way, some are unplanned, some are worried about fertility, some just want them close together.

For me personally, I’d have hated to have had 2 under 2. I’ve nannied for families with 2 under 2 and it’s just chaos and exhausting and frantic. The parents just seemed overwhelmed constantly in those early years. I wanted to fully enjoy my DS early years and have plenty of physical and emotional energy to give to him. Only now that he’s reached 2 am I even thinking I’d be able to share that out with another baby. I also want him to understand basic safety and instructions before we have a second. But people are very different and some thrive on the chaos.

No idea but everyone I knew with 2 under 2 was completely frazzled, yet all used to say to us, oh you should do it, you just HAVE to.

We didn’t. 4 year gap and it’s been perfect for us. Not frazzled in the slightest. No jealousy either, completely different stages so not fighting over the same things.

Until this thread (and my kids are quite a bit older now) I've never really thought people actively planned it this way...

Is it more to do with time out from work these days?

I always feel a larger age gap is better, sometimes I feel the older one doesn't have enough time being the baby if they are close in age. In the end, unless gaps are massive, it probably doesn't make all that much difference.

Ah qwerty that makes sense. I was pretty sure "they" (research) thought sibling rivalry was worse if there were 2 under 2 and that would match with my circle of friends tbh!!

A smaller age gap means children spend more time around similar developmental stages which is logistically simpler.

I suppose it depends if you are having another baby for you or the first child. There are eighteen months between my brother and I and to be honest I think my mother was mad! 😂

Gosh really?? We actively avoided having 2 that close in age! Partly because my brother and I are 18months and we didn't get on but also to actively avoid them having to compete /be compared all the time.

We aimed for 2.5-3.5 and it worked really well. Proper time spent child 1, then start in pre school just before child 2, proper time with child 2. So easier on me too!!

From friends we've seen this has born out too. Kids v close in age seem less likely to get on/more likely to compete.

For us just under 3 years has been perfect as they get on really well and we've been able to encourage as individuals as well as together.

Honestly I'd think 2 under 2 is worst of all worlds!!! I'd assume peoples hormones were just raving after recovering after the first...

The scientific research on this, which I read some time ago, was that a bigger age gap is better for jealousy/sibling rivalry. More than 3 years was proven better.

I think it's the opposite, when my children were young age gaps of less than 2'years were totally the norm, now I see threads with posters asking if they are mad to even consider such a thing as if it's unheard of

It works better IMO because they are closer in age and therefore the elder child doesn’t really remember life without the younger one - ergo much less jealousy. And then they play together and share more common ground early on.

I think it is primarily logistical and financial for childcare. It’s cheaper ver the long term to take a short term hit for maternity and childcare costs than to string it out.

Also people can’t afford to start having kids until their 30s so don’t have enough time to have a 5 year age gap.