I have been saying for 7 year that staying home was for ME. It was I wanted to do. I wanted (and still want) that time with my kids, and I fortunately had a husband and financial situation supportive of that. I do not think my children would have been harmed by going to (the right) daycare, but I would have been heartbroken. And there are obvious side benefits to my husband, such as he does very few errands (which he hates and I don't mind) and he doesn't have to sick days or pick ups, etc.

Not all (not even many) SAHP families think less of 2 working parent families or feel bad for the kids or think their own kids are better off.
I think I am personally less stressed.

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.

.

Goodness. I can't think of anything that would prove the point that quality matters any more efficiently. I hope your minimize the amount of time your child is exposed to mean spirited lashing out to balance out all the time you spend with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the opposite courtesy of Sweden: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lynzybilling/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-men-are-allowed-to-take-60-d#.ukpDYDoqG

This is wonderful. But why is it that men who stay home with their kids are celebrated but women are vilified (at least here on DCUM). I agree with every thing those dads were quoted as saying.

Really? There are a lot of instances on this board (and thread even) of SAHMs trying to make working moms feel bad for taking their kids to daycare. Why must we fight among ourselves? Everyone is doing the best they can and trying to make the best decisions for their family. We need to stick together.

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.

Okay, I think the SAHMs are losing this battle of the Mommy Wars, because you're not just convincing yourself that your child is better off; you have to convince yourself that other children are worse off. Just as I think the breastfeeding hardliners lose their battle, for the same reason.

Using childcare doesn't mean others are raising your child, twit. It takes a village, and that's the way it's always been.

Can everyone just smugly go back to silently reassuring themselves that their choices are the only right ones?

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree wonder if these same posters would think it's fine to have minimal but "quality" time with their spouses and significant others. Very likely some are justifying their feelings of not really wanting to be with their kids all that much.

I disagree I think quality does matter. I would tend to side with the research on this. What about those marriages where people are together, but not really together in their hearts. Quantity matters, but quality matters more. Who cares if you are in the room with your child or spouse but you are totally checked out on your phone or facebook. Nothing is worse than seeing a couple out to dinner and they've both checked out to their cell phones.

I believe the same applies with children. With my daughter is just off doing her own thing it's not like we are connecting. I've been a SAHM and it's impossible to give your child constant attention. As a matter of fact it's quite draining to try and do so. I felt I often checked out especially as she got older and more rambunctious. But when I take her to tennis or some of her other activities and i'm there cheering her on or we are out doing some other activity, I feel like those moments I enjoy being a parent the most.

Also, the article states working moms are spending as much time with their kids as SAHMS did in the 1970s so make no mistake many working moms are spending lots of time with their children. Unfortunately people like you have pushed so much mommy guilt on women a lot of working women aren't taking time for themselves and are stressed out.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree wonder if these same posters would think it's fine to have minimal but "quality" time with their spouses and significant others. Very likely some are justifying their feelings of not really wanting to be with their kids all that much.

?? Who quits work to stay home with their spouse all day?

The study shows what it shows - that working mothers do not harm children. Sorry this interferes with your ideology. But hey, I still would have loved a year maternity leave, so I expect you will be helping to make that happen politically?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This study has nothing to do with the way children perceive their childhood, with how close they feel to their parents, with how safe and well taken care of they felt during their childhood, with what kinds of emotional and social problems they might have experienced with little parent time, etc. etc...and those are all the actually important things when it comes to "Did I raise my children well?" Sad.

YES. Thank you.

Well said. My sentiments exactly.

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

I agree wonder if these same posters would think it's fine to have minimal but "quality" time with their spouses and significant others. Very likely some are justifying their feelings of not really wanting to be with their kids all that much.

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.

I work. I also spend a lot of time with my kids. I haven't read the study in detail but I will say that I think many SAHMs believe there is a great value to hours 4+ with their kids during the day and I don't believe it. I am close to my kids, know them well, and they are happy and secure based on my spending around 4 hours a weekday focused on them, their father spending 2-4 hours, and their loving nanny/teachers the rest of the time.

If you've only ever stayed at home I can see how easy it would be to think that the next 4 hours after the first 4 make a big difference but having seen it from my side, I just don't think it does.

There! Now the SAHMs feel better, too. Well done.

Anonymous wrote:This study has nothing to do with the way children perceive their childhood, with how close they feel to their parents, with how safe and well taken care of they felt during their childhood, with what kinds of emotional and social problems they might have experienced with little parent time, etc. etc...and those are all the actually important things when it comes to "Did I raise my children well?" Sad.

YES. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:feel better?

Hopefully, parents won't use this study to justify minimal time spent with their children. It makes sense that quality time trumps quantity, but how about giving our kids a large quantity of quality time? From years spent educating children, I see far too many children who rarely see their parents. They're dropped off at school around 7:30 and picked up from after-school care around 6. In a recent meeting with a single mom who works full-time and is going through a divorce from her 11 year old son's step-dad (yes, this child has had two father figures in his life, and mom now has a new boyfriend), the mom expressed her frustration that her son is doing so poorly in school and required two weeks of in-patient psychiatric care. Not saying this scenario is typical, but it's much more frequent than it should be. On a basic level, this child is not being parented with the loving guidance and care that he needs.

Totally agree with this. Pains me to read this article and think of how some parents think quantity doesn't matter. It does, and I think it matters more than this ONE study gives credit to. Stanley Greenspan and others have written about how quantity does matter, and simply being present is significant.

Anonymous wrote:And the opposite courtesy of Sweden: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lynzybilling/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-men-are-allowed-to-take-60-d#.ukpDYDoqG

This is wonderful. But why is it that men who stay home with their kids are celebrated but women are vilified (at least here on DCUM). I agree with every thing those dads were quoted as saying.

Anonymous wrote:Why did they omit the first three years,
"The Foundation Years"?

Because the truth would not be popular. There is no study in this world that would suggest leaving an 8 week old baby in a daycare center for 10 hours a day is a good thing.