Making time for kids? Study says quality trumps quantity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all know, deep in our guts, that a certain level of quantity matters.

I know a couple of kids who are now in their 20s that spent a significant part of their childhoods with nannies because their parents had high profile careers and traveled often. A great nanny or caretaker is fine. I think you just need to make yourself feel better; that you mean something to your child.

Yes, just as people who leave their children with others to raise them need to make themselves feel better and want to feel that they mean something to their child despite hours spent away from them.

You are beyond evil for spewing such filth. Stay at home all you want, creep, you aren't doing your kids any favors because you're an asshole. I'd rather be raised by a working mother, which I was, than an asshole any day of the week.

Not true. I've been a working mom or a long time and understand why many parents (both moms and dads) work. I was referring to those who work such long hours (by choice) that they rarely see their kids. Many of them are dating as well because they're single parents. It does matter, whether you want to get mad about it and engage in name-calling or not.

I don't care if you take offense at being called an asshole or not. Serves you right for suggesting that people who work long hours don't matter to their kids. Sometimes the truth hurts, and in this case it's on you.

You clearly didn't read the previous response from which the quote was taken, or do you just promote your own agenda?.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the last time, this article and studies are relevant for 3 and up.
3 AND UP!
Probably explains why Sahms arent replying. That's the normal age for preschool to start and SAHM to start thinking about going part time and/or ramping back up to work FT.
We can still go on thinking putting a 2 month old in daycare for 10 hours/day is not great and why we chose not to.

I don't get why dual career parents are outsourcing
NEWBORN / INFANT / TODDLER care to complete strangers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time, this article and studies are relevant for 3 and up.
3 AND UP!
Probably explains why Sahms arent replying. That's the normal age for preschool to start and SAHM to start thinking about going part time and/or ramping back up to work FT.
We can still go on thinking putting a 2 month old in daycare for 10 hours/day is not great and why we chose not to.

I don't get why dual career parents are outsourcing
NEWBORN / INFANT / TODDLER care to complete strangers.

My parents both worked full time and put me, my brother, and my sister in daycare from the time we were each about 4-6 months old. I'm 41 now. What exactly do you think you could tell about me, based on the fact that I was "cared for by strangers" as an infant and toddler?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has turned into something out of The Onion: "Study Shows You Are Living Your Life All Wrong."

This. I know a lot of moms who work--mostly by choice, not because they have to--and I've never once heard any one of them say anything nasty about someone else's choice to stay home (other than to say that it's just not for them). On the other hand, I see a TON of stay at home moms (including multiple times on this thread) imply that they love their kid more than I do, or are more willing to "sacrifice" or that I'm not raising my own kid, or that they are somehow just doing a better job at this mom thing than I am. Your choice to stay at home does not make you a better mom. It just doesn't.

Their forthrightness does not come out of a place of guilt, it comes out of deep love and concern for the children, because they could not imagine being apart like that from their kids and leaving them with people who might not share the deep bond that they have developed with their kids, which grows rich with time.

PP here. I don't think it comes from a place of guilt at all. I think it comes from a place of unjustified smugness, largely fueled by insecurity.

Of course these women are smug. They have love and concern for the children--not just their own, but the poor kids of those working mothers, who apparently don't love them enough to form deep bonds with them.

Reading that post is giving me diabetes.

I may be a lot of things but smug and insecure I ain't. Loving, concerned, caring, yes. I don't know what SAHMs you know but they don't live in my zip code.

Let's just parse the above, shall we? PP says that someone who is loving and concerned about children could not even imagine being apart from their kids. The concept is so contrary to how loving mothers think, that a caring mother can't even conceive of it. Therefore, someone who CAN imagine it--and DO it--must not be loving and caring. Right?

Just don't blame WOHMs for fueling the mommy wars.

I'm just smiling and cringing, trying to imagine the mommy who can't even fathom being away from her child. I feel sorry for her future son or daughter in law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has turned into something out of The Onion: "Study Shows You Are Living Your Life All Wrong."

This. I know a lot of moms who work--mostly by choice, not because they have to--and I've never once heard any one of them say anything nasty about someone else's choice to stay home (other than to say that it's just not for them). On the other hand, I see a TON of stay at home moms (including multiple times on this thread) imply that they love their kid more than I do, or are more willing to "sacrifice" or that I'm not raising my own kid, or that they are somehow just doing a better job at this mom thing than I am. Your choice to stay at home does not make you a better mom. It just doesn't.

Their forthrightness does not come out of a place of guilt, it comes out of deep love and concern for the children, because they could not imagine being apart like that from their kids and leaving them with people who might not share the deep bond that they have developed with their kids, which grows rich with time.

PP here. I don't think it comes from a place of guilt at all. I think it comes from a place of unjustified smugness, largely fueled by insecurity.

Of course these women are smug. They have love and concern for the children--not just their own, but the poor kids of those working mothers, who apparently don't love them enough to form deep bonds with them.

Reading that post is giving me diabetes.

I may be a lot of things but smug and insecure I ain't. Loving, concerned, caring, yes. I don't know what SAHMs you know but they don't live in my zip code.

Let's just parse the above, shall we? PP says that someone who is loving and concerned about children could not even imagine being apart from their kids. The concept is so contrary to how loving mothers think, that a caring mother can't even conceive of it. Therefore, someone who CAN imagine it--and DO it--must not be loving and caring. Right?

Just don't blame WOHMs for fueling the mommy wars.

I'm just smiling and cringing, trying to imagine the mommy who can't even fathom being away from her child. I feel sorry for her future son or daughter in law.

Neither extreme of parenting is good for helping kids become mature, confident, and well-adjusted adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My concern has never been the quality and quantity of time I spend with my kids. My concern is the quality and quantity of time they spend with others. Am I going to warehouse my children 10 hours a day so that they can spend 2 hours in a luxurious home with me? Am I going to drop them off to a middle class daycare in a home where I would not be comfortable for 10 minutes?

It's such a small amount of time to sacrifice to raise your children to school age. What good is your career satisfaction if your kid is being warehoused by people who do not love them during the most formative years of their lives? I didn't love being a SAHM, but I loved my children and I made that sacrifice for them. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't your very first choice in the world, but you do them because they're right.

If men and women chose to make that "sacrifice" in roughly equal proportions, you might have a point. But the expectation about 99% of the time is that women will make that sacrifice--in part because the government propagandized the importance of women "being at home" in the 1950's to get them all back out of the workforce and open up the jobs for men. And now we're in this vicious cycle where women are paid less and mommy-tracked and otherwise financially penalized for being mothers while facing vastly disproportionate societal pressure to intensively parent (at the cost of personal time for the mother)....which makes it easier for women to "make the sacrifice" to stay home--after all, they get paid less, face a glass ceiling, and are stressed out from the expectations associated with raising kids and keeping house.

I wish there were more studies that said you shouldn't feel pressure to SACRIFICE yourself.

I've never understood using the word "sacrifice" to describe staying home with your own children. For me, it's an absolute privilege to be home with them. Some of you may think of it as a "sacrifice" you're just not about to make, but please understand - there are many people who jump at this opportunity. I know I'm fortunate every single day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My concern has never been the quality and quantity of time I spend with my kids. My concern is the quality and quantity of time they spend with others. Am I going to warehouse my children 10 hours a day so that they can spend 2 hours in a luxurious home with me? Am I going to drop them off to a middle class daycare in a home where I would not be comfortable for 10 minutes?

It's such a small amount of time to sacrifice to raise your children to school age. What good is your career satisfaction if your kid is being warehoused by people who do not love them during the most formative years of their lives? I didn't love being a SAHM, but I loved my children and I made that sacrifice for them. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't your very first choice in the world, but you do them because they're right.

If men and women chose to make that "sacrifice" in roughly equal proportions, you might have a point. But the expectation about 99% of the time is that women will make that sacrifice--in part because the government propagandized the importance of women "being at home" in the 1950's to get them all back out of the workforce and open up the jobs for men. And now we're in this vicious cycle where women are paid less and mommy-tracked and otherwise financially penalized for being mothers while facing vastly disproportionate societal pressure to intensively parent (at the cost of personal time for the mother)....which makes it easier for women to "make the sacrifice" to stay home--after all, they get paid less, face a glass ceiling, and are stressed out from the expectations associated with raising kids and keeping house.

I wish there were more studies that said you shouldn't feel pressure to SACRIFICE yourself.

I've never understood using the word "sacrifice" to describe staying home with your own children. For me, it's an absolute privilege to be home with them. Some of you may think of it as a "sacrifice" you're just not about to make, but please understand - there are many people who jump at this opportunity. I know I'm fortunate every single day.

Your children are most fortunate, as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My concern has never been the quality and quantity of time I spend with my kids. My concern is the quality and quantity of time they spend with others. Am I going to warehouse my children 10 hours a day so that they can spend 2 hours in a luxurious home with me? Am I going to drop them off to a middle class daycare in a home where I would not be comfortable for 10 minutes?

It's such a small amount of time to sacrifice to raise your children to school age. What good is your career satisfaction if your kid is being warehoused by people who do not love them during the most formative years of their lives? I didn't love being a SAHM, but I loved my children and I made that sacrifice for them. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't your very first choice in the world, but you do them because they're right.

If men and women chose to make that "sacrifice" in roughly equal proportions, you might have a point. But the expectation about 99% of the time is that women will make that sacrifice--in part because the government propagandized the importance of women "being at home" in the 1950's to get them all back out of the workforce and open up the jobs for men. And now we're in this vicious cycle where women are paid less and mommy-tracked and otherwise financially penalized for being mothers while facing vastly disproportionate societal pressure to intensively parent (at the cost of personal time for the mother)....which makes it easier for women to "make the sacrifice" to stay home--after all, they get paid less, face a glass ceiling, and are stressed out from the expectations associated with raising kids and keeping house.

I wish there were more studies that said you shouldn't feel pressure to SACRIFICE yourself.

I've never understood using the word "sacrifice" to describe staying home with your own children. For me, it's an absolute privilege to be home with them. Some of you may think of it as a "sacrifice" you're just not about to make, but please understand - there are many people who jump at this opportunity. I know I'm fortunate every single day.

Your children are most fortunate, as well.

Your children are fortunate and so are you. I DO understand this. I also understand that you are fortunate not to have to sacrifice food, shelter, and your retirement in order to make that choice. I don't understand people who can't fathom THAT.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Just heard on NPR that this study will be featured on the Diane Rehm Show at 10am today. Please post details if anyone's able to listen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time, this article and studies are relevant for 3 and up.
3 AND UP!
Probably explains why Sahms arent replying. That's the normal age for preschool to start and SAHM to start thinking about going part time and/or ramping back up to work FT.
We can still go on thinking putting a 2 month old in daycare for 10 hours/day is not great and why we chose not to.

I don't get why dual career parents are outsourcing
NEWBORN / INFANT / TODDLER care to complete strangers.

My parents both worked full time and put me, my brother, and my sister in daycare from the time we were each about 4-6 months old. I'm 41 now. What exactly do you think you could tell about me, based on the fact that I was "cared for by strangers" as an infant and toddler?

Any idea how many hours a week you were in the daycare?

Or how many primary caregivers you had during your first three years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no SAHMs have posted since that most recent study was quoted.

*crickets*

Perhaps they're too busy doing their parenting work?
While you're surfing the net at the office.

Care to address the content of the study?
Didn't think so.

Why do you suppose the study omitted babies and toddlers?

Birth to age three are the all critical foundation years.

Once again, care to address the study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the last time, this article and studies are relevant for 3 and up.
3 AND UP!
Probably explains why Sahms arent replying. That's the normal age for preschool to start and SAHM to start thinking about going part time and/or ramping back up to work FT.
We can still go on thinking putting a 2 month old in daycare for 10 hours/day is not great and why we chose not to.

I don't get why dual career parents are outsourcing
NEWBORN / INFANT / TODDLER care to complete strangers.

My parents both worked full time and put me, my brother, and my sister in daycare from the time we were each about 4-6 months old. I'm 41 now. What exactly do you think you could tell about me, based on the fact that I was "cared for by strangers" as an infant and toddler?

Any idea how many hours a week you were in the daycare?

Or how many primary caregivers you had during your first three years?

Not the PP but I remember very little about the first three years of my life. Very impressed that you do. My only memory is choking on a quarter, but my dad was there for that, wasn't like I was left with complete strangers.

[Anonymous]

Please define "quality" time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no SAHMs have posted since that most recent study was quoted.

*crickets*

Perhaps they're too busy doing their parenting work?
While you're surfing the net at the office.

Care to address the content of the study?
Didn't think so.

Why do you suppose the study omitted babies and toddlers?

Birth to age three are the all critical foundation years.

Once again, care to address the study?

And once again, the study is relevant for ages 3 +, which is the age most SAHMs start to send their children to Preschool and start to ramp back up or go part time. That is a crucial detail of the study, and in no way supports or is relevant to anything prior to that. That IS addressing the study and an important distinction to be made

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all know, deep in our guts, that a certain level of quantity matters.

I know a couple of kids who are now in their 20s that spent a significant part of their childhoods with nannies because their parents had high profile careers and traveled often. A great nanny or caretaker is fine. I think you just need to make yourself feel better; that you mean something to your child.

I grew up with parents who both worked tremendous hours - my mother could easily have stayed home with my brother and me. (And I say my mother because my dad made an enormous salary and there was no need for her to work). Instead, she chose to pursue her own career. Nothing wrong with that, taken at face value. However, she traveled constantly and when she was in town, she was constantly at her office, or at home working on "projects" - both of them worked late every night. We were left with a nanny, actually three by the time I started high school. I grew up never really knowing either of my parents that well and my brother and I grew quite resentful as we got older and realized the raw deal we were getting. I decided to SAH with my children and my mom simply can't understand why. It's really pathetic that she still doesn't realize how their absences (and I'll be honest - mainly her absence) negatively affected our childhood. I've talked with her about it before, but she just shrugs it off. Very sad.

Mothers simply cannot win. When children grow up, they always blame the mum and the dad gets off scott-free. It will be interesting to hear what your daughter has to say about you when she gets of age. What will she resent about you?