<p>Not even a Frenchman! LoL.</p>
<p>Those finidings confirm with my sense that the past 80 years have been the grand experiment, the grand deviation from the norm of human history. The fact that a large percentage of women have slowly returned to full-time work should be seen as a permeatation of that experiment–not the other way around.</p>
<p>Cheers:</p>
<p>Aries was indeed French! The book was translated into English. </p>
<p>I remember a friend of mine asking of a Renaissance painting whether the child in the painting looked like a miniature adult or a real child, and I had to say the boy looked like a miniature adult. After reading Aries, I understood why.</p>
<p>In a previous post you mentioned my “colleagues.” The parents of S’s friends are a varied lot professionally. We were lucky that most have flexible schedules, so that we could participate in school events. And none of us had long commutes. But we also had full-time jobs that took us to 6pm.</p>
<p>Curious, are they varied intellectually or would most be classified in the upper deciles?</p>
<p>I wish I had known this sooner: Instead of working when my youngest entered first grade, I could have stayed home and done the housework and sent him out to work for 10-12 hours a day in the coal mines. Now those were the real good old days. I’m quite sure he’d be in the upper decile, too.</p>
<p>Cheers:
Some of the mothers are lawyers, physicians, artists, people working for non-profit organizations, and a few who worked at MIT or Harvard, etc… A few are first-generation immigrants (from the PRC). One runs a hole in the wall restaurant near our home. There are several adopted children, some by single mothers. One or two Af-Ams, children of Ivy-educated parents (and headed to an Ivy this fall). Obviously, it’s not typical of the population as a whole or of the city. But S made friends and kept friends mostly by participating in academic ECs at his school, so that was a rather self-selected group.
What may be more imore important in terms of this particular survey is that while the parents have been working full-time, they have also devoted lots of time to their children, which is how I got to meet them, whether helping with projects, attending school functions, having the kids over to our house or bringing our kids over to friends’ houses, etc…
Anyone overhearing our conversations evolve over the years from brands of diapers to college applications would probably feel ours was a pretty child- focused group.</p>
<p>I think the history of childhood is very interesting. I especially think the fact that the term “teenager” wasn’t invented until extremely recently (post WWII) is facinating. But I can’t believe that anyone would attempt to argue that due to, among other reasons, high infant mortality rates, extreme economic conditions, and the customs of the upper classes, children were not looked after as we imagine children should be today, means that our society obsesses over children at the present time.</p>
<p>Almost 70% of women with children under the age of six are working full-time in the labor force today. I’m not sure of the number, but a large percentage of these have children under the age of two. Study after study has shown that woman would prefer to spend more time with their young children, but companies are resistent to offering them more options. And in no way is the government at this time about to step in to provide daycare, nor do I think that should be their role.</p>
<p>Berry Brazelton, the noted pediatrician, for example, has stated that most daycare conditions are deplorable. What regulations there are concerning daycare are usually weakly enforced. The educational level of daycare workers is usually low. </p>
<p>Studies showing that children who spend most of their time in daycare at a young age exhibit more signs of stress (as well as anti-social behaviors, including violence), are usually glossed over and wrapped up with feel-good statements such as “of course, what happens in the child’s home is of primary importance.”</p>
<p>Well, guess what, what happens at home is often a single mom struggling mightily to survive. What happens is often a kid who has little parental supervision and even less guidance. </p>
<p>John Bowlby’s attachment theory is coming more and more into play as more and more kids are exhibiting “attachment disorder.” This is a serious problem which society has pay for with more special ed in the schools, more money spent on mental health services, more drop-outs, and more delinquent behaviors.</p>
<p>The OP raised some very real and very important questions here. I just find it amazing that any debate about possible repercussions of mothers’ spending a possible 19, 30 or even 60 minutes a day with their children has been shut down not only on this thread, but in everyday general debate in our society.</p>
<p>One person’s experience, because that person’s child attends Harvard, can’t be held up as the answer to these questions. For every anecdotal story such as that one, there is the opposite. I have a cousin whose mother worked since she was an infant. This person was valedictorian of her high school class and graduated from Harvard. This person suffered a breakdown only after she graduated, having fulfilled the academic expectations set before her for her entire life. When she married, she decided not to have children. She explained to me that she felt very strongly that you cannot “have it all.” In her case, she suffered greatly from the absence of her mother. In the end, though she married, she decided not to have children. </p>
<p>Yes, in the end, the proof is in the pudding. Trouble is, since indeed this is all rather a new experiment, we do have to wait a bit longer to see how all of society’s puddings turn out.</p>
<p>Very thoughtful Hereshoping. I agree with every point you made.</p>
<p>Here, the OP asked simple direct question which drew anecdotal answers. She did not ask for a debate on the merits of working mothers or opinions regarding ‘attachment disorders’–unless I missed something.</p>
<p>Honestly, I didn’t read any shut-down attempts—just a plea for tolerance and respect for working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. I read some amazingly honest answers, most especially marite’s. </p>
<p>We are in agreement. We do have to wait for historical evidence. This is a big experiment. </p>
<p>Perhaps one of the reasons that I am not convinced that ‘attachment’ and stay-at-home moms are the cure all has to do with the range of neurosis I see among my boomer peers, siblings and relatives-- :eek: the majority of whom were raised by stay-at-home moms. Not sure about all those crazy puddings, I can tell you! Also, please don’t tell me we’re going back to blaming mothers for mental illnesses. My mother would be gutted. She has a severely bi-polar son. </p>
<p>If it’s okay with you, I will believe my research psychiatrist friends who tell me that mental illness is mostly inherent in the biology of the brain.</p>
<p>I don’t know Cheers, there’s a whole lot of back slapping going on here between working mothers and a general unwillingness to look at anything other than a disbelief in the statistics of the survey. </p>
<p>Try looking at what the mothers are saying in the survey and put aside your own experiences and then maybe you can see it with an open mind. You use a lot of language that shows a lack of acceptance for women who choose to stay at home- calling stay at home moms an anomoly and comparing them to June Cleaver are just two examples. </p>
<p>Even your recipe for how to make it all work is just unrealistic for many women - they just don’t have all those options and opportunities. </p>
<p>If there is any neurosis in baby boomers I think it has more to do with the shift from an adult centered/ "do as I say, not as I do " society to one that is more democratic, where all members of a family have equal value.</p>
<p>HH: How can there be a meaningful debate about the issue of working/nonworking moms (it does seem to come down to the moms still ) and the time children need with actual parents as opposed to competent care takers on this forum? The people you are most concerned about, those whose young children are subject to long hours (say 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) in substandard day care are simply not on this board to add their voices to the discussion. And somehow, I don’t think the “Nanny Diaries” type neglectful parent is on CC either. All any of us who are readers here can do is offer our personal experiences and our own opinions. </p>
<p>How can anyone predict how “puddings” will turn out when there are far too many variables involved in child-raising: parental time, of course, but also parental income, the genetics passed down, health, level of resiliency, the influence of grandparents, relatives, neighbors, and later, teachers, coaches, after-school activities, peers. Many things will affect whether the puddings turn out lovely or a mess. We can all point to the kids of full-time working parents who are terrific kids — independent, accomplished, good students, perfectly capable of tackling any challenge. Same for the children of SAHMs. We can also cite the kids of both working parents and non- or part-time working parents who have floundered, fallen in with the wrong crowd, turned to drugs or binge drinking and failed or dropped out of school. I don’t think the key factor to how our puddings turn out is whether or not both parents work fulltime, although I do think that having excellent child care in place for the after-school hours is very important. </p>
<p>IF one has the means to obtain high quality, trusted child care, I don’t think any mother should feel guilty about working full time. In good hands, the kid is just fine. IMO, the women in the survey who say they would rather be working part time or be at home are more expressing their own longing to be with their kids than concern about the effect on their children of being in day care. I hope that came out right. For myself, I know that I chose to be home after school because I wanted to be with them, not because I didn’t think they would be just fine in the after-school programs available to working parents at our school. </p>
<p>Certainly, there are parents out there who spend too little time with their children. If they see themselves in media articles they may wake up and change their habits or their lifestyles to improve the situation. But that’s something parents have to see and decide for themselves and work out their own individual solution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jazzymom:</p>
<p>Thanks for posting these words of common sense and tolerance.</p>
<p>If one looks at the data again, the parents spend 2.4-2.8 hours in front of the tube as opposed to 3o minutes with children 10-15 and no time at all, apparently with children over 15. This has little to do with whether one works or not, or whether one works full-time or part time. It says nothing about whether “society” is child-friendly. It does suggests that the parents are “TV-friendly” insofar as they prefer to spend their time in front of the tube rather than with their children. So I agree with you, some parents may see themselves in the survey and may be motivated to rethink their priorities.</p>
<p>When we lived in the NY area, H worked til 7pm most nights and then had an hour and a half commute. He didn’t see the kids during the week. If we both worked like that, neither of us would see them. This study makes sense to me. How many parents live 5 minutes from their job and leave at 5pm? I don’t know many. Career + Commute = 19 mins with kids before they have to go to bed.</p>
<p>dke:</p>
<p>Thanks for the example. Did your children go to bed early? Mine, for some reason, went to sleep fairly late, so we were able to spend quite a bit of time with them. Of course, if the children go to bed at 7pm, parents have far less time, and perhaps the 19 minutes makes sense. </p>
<p>The problem I have with the survey data is that the older the children are (and hence the later they can stay up), the less time the parents spend with them. As well, since the survey was done randomly, I assume that not every parents worked in London, where a 1hr-ihr-30 commute one way is not unknown.</p>
<p>Yes, Marite. they were in bed by 7-8pm in those commuting days as they were 2 and 5 yrs. old. Now they’re 10 and 13 and bedtimes are still early…830-930pm during the week.</p>
<p>Dke:</p>
<p>Thanks again. My kids never did seem to want to bed before 9. S1 discovered when he was not even one year old. He loved the music and refused to go to sleep until each episode was finished. By the time the series ended, he was firmly on a 10pm schedule. But if the kids had been the kind to go to bed early, I’m sure H and I would have pursued different careers that would have allowed us to see them for a decent amount of time. </p>
<p>In the survey, the parents spend more time with the children when they are very young; so the kids going to bed as soon as the parents come home does not seem to be a factor. As the children grow older, and presumably go to bed a bit later, the parents spend less time with them. This is what seems to me very puzzling about the survey data.</p>
<p>Apologies if my posts in this thread appeared to be ‘back-slapping’. They weren’t meant to be. The post did solicit the opinions of working mothers…</p>
<p>I clearly stated that my solution was the rarity–unavailable to most women–though I do emphasize that I CREATED that situation for myself. No one handed it to me. I am happy with it. It’s worked for me. My puddings seem decent at the moment. Let me wait to see how they raise my grandchildren before I give a final pronouncement… ;)</p>
<p>The reason I was so interested in marite’s solution was because it more closely resembles the majority of working women. I was laos interested in her observations becasue she’s gotten some great results–not just academically. If berurah was posting on this thread, I’d be quite interested in her story as well–because six kids more than equals 1 job and a nanny if you ask me. She’s another one who seems to be getting great results under pressure. jamimom’s story also interested me, back in the day, for the same reason. 9 kids to launch. </p>
<p>No men have posted their stories but Ihave two brothers with children. One worked nights so that he could be the stay-at-home dad for his children. He’s done that for 24 years now, with a few more years to go. My other borther ran his own multi-million dollar business when his first daughter was born. When she was 5, he closed the business and now he is the full time stay-at-home dad to his two daughters.</p>
<p>Also, my father and my FIL worked those 12 hours days and six hours on Saturday–did yours? My father and FIL also travelled extensively for business. They were gone every other week. My husband–a FAR better parent than I could ever hope to be–hasn’t had to sacrifice his fatherhood to his career–because I have provided more than half of our income. That’s been another benefit for me and my family. My boys spent a few hours every day, fromthe day they were born, with the most amazing dad I know.</p>
<p>I didn’t remember that I started the June Cleaver analogy because, frankly, I don’t believe there is a June Cleaver–sitting at home, immaculately groomed in her perfect pinnie looking at Ward with those springer spaniel eyes. I certainly don’t know any June Cleavers in real life–though Bree on DH is a 2006 take off? I don’t know any real live Brees either. My friends who are stay-at-home moms are CRAZY busy in their communities.</p>
<p>As for anamoly, that is the historical reality–looking at the matter from a historical perspective. Does a desire to look back at history corresponds with a desire to go back to Victorian days of child labor? Of course not. That’ is ridiculous.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why the 50’s generation of stay-at-home moms produced the wobbly but innovative boomer generation–certainly the two world wars and a depression had a big impact. All the same, ours was the single generation raised primarily by stay-at-home moms in uraban and suburban homes. Was it a good thing-- now that we see how the puddings have turned out?</p>
<p>As for this current generation of children, forget working vs non-working, surely the biggest impact is the high rate of divorce. I feel certain that is the aspect of home life historians and sociologists will examine.</p>
<p>Did the study filter for one-parent vs two-parent homes?</p>
<p>OP: <do you=“” think=“” american=“” parents=“” spend=“” more=“” time=“” with=“” their=“” children=“” than=“” this?=“”></do></p>
<p>marite: <this article=“” is=“” another=“” attempt=“” at=“” inducing=“” guilt-tripping=“” among=“” mothers.=“”></this></p>
<p>OP: <finally, whether=“” you=“” agree=“” or=“” not,=“” studies=“” like=“” this=“” are=“” about=“” children=“” -=“” not=“” fathers=“” mothers.=“” it=“” concerns=“” me=“” that=“” people=“” so=“” willing=“” to=“” view=“” through=“” a=“” feminist=“” prism=“” views=“” mothers=“” as=“” “victims.”=“”></finally,></p>
<p>I have no idea why raising concerns (based on research) about possible child-care scenarios for at least 70% of our country’s children is somehow viewed as “intolerant.” I find the idea that people who are interested in such issues can be so quickly dismissed as not being “tolerant” kind of scary.</p>
<p>Thread title: IF you work, how much time do you spend with your child each day?</p>
<p>Geez…I dunno. That question was answered clearly–and very honestly-- by working CC women who happen to LOVE mothering. Seems like some folks didn’t get the guilt and angst-ridden replies they were expecting. I believe a poster asked why working women bothered to have children–a less than tolerant question, in my view, particularily in light of the numbers of women who must work to support their families.</p>
<p>Perhaps another interesting thread would ask the same question of stay-at-home moms.</p>
<p>
I still think that is an artifact of the way the survey is structured, and that the problem with the survey is that it is only including one-on-one, caretaking activity within the 19 minutes. So if your kid needs help bathing and getting dressed, more time is spent with the kid – but when the kids are old enough to fend for themselves – the survey is not counting all the time spent in the presence of the kid, but doing something else (eating, cooking, cleaning, watching t.v. etc.). Since most teenagers aren’t too fond of one-on-one conversations with their parents, the time diminishes to 0.</p>
<p>Here are some interesting statistics: <a href=“http://www.mothersandmore.org/press_room/statistics.shtml#work_lifebalance[/url]”>http://www.mothersandmore.org/press_room/statistics.shtml#work_lifebalance</a></p>
<p>And in my own defense, I didn’t think bringing up a change in our work culture was so off topic. It seems like a natural area of exploration if parents are complaining that they don’t have enough time with their kids.</p>
<p>I was trying to refrain from using my own experience because it is after all anecdotal. I went back to work full time in May in a new field after being at home with my kids for the last sixteen years. I still have one 16 year old at home. I work for a woman who has never had children and is quite a ruthless boss. She recently changed the paid leave maternity agreement on a co-worker 2/3 of the way through her pregnancy. She told another worker when he had to leave to go pick up his sick child at daycare, “Can’t your wife go pick her up?” ( his wife is a surgeon) That’s just one workplace but I’m sure there are plenty more like it.</p>
<p>Without going in to detail of my daily life, I will say that it is a radical change and I cannot imagine doing this everyday and coming home to a baby, toddler or child. Even at this point with a sixteen year old leaving for college in two years, I would give my right arm to have a part time job so that I could have the mental and physical energy to give to my daughter when I do see her. Somehow, I don’t think I’m all that different from the women in the survey who said they’d like to spend more time with their kids. I rarely watch TV anymore but before I worked it was easy to rack up 2 hours between Jim Lehrer news hour and Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. ( How’s that for a lefty TV line up?)</p>
<p>From my own personal experience and from talking to many women over the years in all kinds of work situations, I think that part time work is the ideal. I understand that your ideal may be staying at home or working full time, but mine is part time - the best of both worlds. Personally, I think we work too much in the U.S. and are to obsessed with success in terms of toys and titles. I’m guilty of it too. I think our way of life needs some rethinking. I think maybe we got a little off balance with the women’s movement because after all, to have the power of men, we had to act like men. </p>
<p>But there is hope… I got a kick out of a male co-worker who was complaining that he was asked to attend a shower for our co-workers - one getting married and one having a baby. The shower is being held after work and he said, I see you guys more than I see my family and kids… I just want to go home! That’s a step in the right direction and the best thing to come out of this grand experiment - Dad’s who want to be present!</p>