Making time for kids? Study says quality trumps quantity

[Anonymous]

Why did I even click on this thread?

Income affects brain development. And college costs money. So there are two plainly obvious reasons why a family might choose dual incomes. For some families, it's a no brainer. I SAH and this is clear to me.

[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?

I originally posted that. I think we were there all day (9-4 or so). We stayed with a neighbor with three kids of her own. We each started preschool at 3. I am still in touch with our sitter--she came to each of our weddings. I am friends with her kids on Facebook. I remember the names of my preschool teachers and am still friends with some of the kids I went to preschool with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't get why you are so concerned with what other people are doing for their kids. Stop being a weirdo. If your life is so great why are so concerned with mines? Unless...

Neglected little children often turn out to be a BIG problem for society.
That's why.

A child being in daycare is not neglect. You are being over the top. I used to work for a social services organization in Virginia and quite frankly your comment disgust me. I saw kids being abused and hurt all the time. Comparing kids in daycare to kids who are truly neglected is a real disservice to children who actually really do need help and intervention services. Many of the kids I worked with also had moms who didn't work.

I'm giving you applause! Thank you pp. This poster is pretty dense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding that someone doesn't agree with what you wrote, context and all.

+1 Some people just don't understand that it's alright to make points about SAHMs needing to make themselves feel better about their parenting skills by staying home with their children.

[Anonymous]

So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

+1

Its simply not how life works to have scheduled and predictable times when everyone has to be ready for quality time. I see so many threads here with people that can't figure out how to put dinner on the table and clean up, and hire nannies for half days on the weekend to run errands, and then try to say they spend an hour in the morning on quality time with their kids. We all need to eat, shower, dress, bathe, heck you have to shop (online or in store, you're still counts). We get sick, our families call last minute and need help with the dryer that broke or Aunt Geet broke her hip.
It sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work out so neatly, so quantity does factor in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone define "quality time"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

"Just enjoy your time with your children"?
What about the unpleasant work of parenting?
Dump the hard part on the nanny or teacher?

There we have it.

[Anonymous]

I agree completely that there's no single formula for success but that we all wish there were. I think that's what can make this whole debate so emotional. We all love our kids fiercely, want to do right by them, and hope that they turn out to be great adults so it would be lovely to believe that we can control that if we just do everything "right." Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way but we still all do our best, whatever that looks like.

Because someone keeps insisting on a definition of quality time, I'll share mine, inexact as it is. I believe that quality time can pop up at any time, not under any one set of circumstances. It's when my kids want to talk about something that bothered them at school and I put everything aside to listen. It's when we run to Target and have fun together picking out what we need and laughing about silly things we see. (It's also when we discuss the nutritional consequences of getting another slushee.) it is when we're on vacation together or when she sees us reading the newspaper and asks about it. You can see where I'm going with this. It is in the moments when we give each other attention, when we teach by example, when we ignore our phones and computers, etc.

I think that those moments happen between loving, attentive, caring parents and their kids whether those parents both work full time or not. Flame away if you must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

"Just enjoy your time with your children"?
What about the unpleasant work of parenting?
Dump the hard part on the nanny or teacher?

There we have it.

At some point, your kids will figure out what a judgemental jerk you are, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

"Just enjoy your time with your children"?
What about the unpleasant work of parenting?
Dump the hard part on the nanny or teacher?

There we have it.

So now you're arguing that parents shouldn't enjoy time with their children? Not sure where you're going with this - but I have a feeling you don't know either. I do want my children to be influenced by their teachers - is that a bad thing?

I agree, pp. I do understand why it would be hard for SAHMs to accept that. But the bottom line is that kind, involved, and loving parents exist in both the working and the stay at home group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

"Just enjoy your time with your children"?
What about the unpleasant work of parenting?
Dump the hard part on the nanny or teacher?

There we have it.

You're about to be reported for your consistent non-sensical posts on this thread. Yes, we know they're all yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I've SAH and worked part time. The rub for me is that you can't predetermine what the hours you spend with your child will actually be like. That is, how can you "plan" for "quality" time? Usually, the best hours with my kids happen randomly, or during our unscheduled time, or for 30 blissful minutes before someone does a 180 and starts to have a meltdown. I think it's a BS study. But I think all of the studies and books are BS. If you are a researcher or have your PhD in child psychology, I'm sure you will tell me I'm wrong. But I don't care. I know my kids and I know that our quality time is totally unpredictable and precious. Which is why I try to be around them as much as possible.

Look, I've stayed home, I've worked part-time, I've been a student parent, and I've worked full-time. All had their pluses and minuses. I don't really have much of a stake in the mommy wars as I've been all over the place, but what PP wrote above is the sort of thing that is used to throw shade on working moms and try to make them feel guilty. In my experience good parents have great connections with their kids regardless of what they do and when they do it. Different schedules enable different kinds of connections at different moments. The random good moments will happen if you work or don't work. I think some parents who haven't done both for extended periods of time (or with the right supports in place) just don't understand this.

I think the outcome of this study is totally obvious to anybody who spends a lot of time with older kids and teens. Steady, loving, emotionally available and involved parents often have kids who are kind, emotionally healthy children, but that doesn't have a lot to do with working or not. I realize as SAHMs it can be hard to accept that conclusion, but I think it can be very freeing too. Just enjoy your time with your children, don't make it about how X number of hours equates to Y level of emotional health or Z level of child accomplishments, because that's just nutty and crazymaking. Staying home is great for its own sake, no need to turn it into a formula or something.

"Just enjoy your time with your children"?
What about the unpleasant work of parenting?
Dump the hard part on the nanny or teacher?

There we have it.

So all the unpleasantness can be planned, and then methodically dumped on someone else??!! Damn, why did no one tell me this earlier?!