Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll post the links again but I'm not doing the math again. You end up with the same numbers.
Cornell Science News: Child-rearing time by parents This study is from 1997, however, given that how mothers spend their time changes slowly, it's still relevent (plus there isn't a newer study) - Sorry, the difference is 23 minutes a day not the 21 or 22 I posted earlier.
1. This is not a study, it is a summation of several studies where information was cherry picked. Do you have the actual study or not?
2. You completely misrepresented the findings.
The PARENTS as a unit spend only 20 some odd minutes less, NOT MOTHERS. This is because fathers where the mother works outside the home, are increasing THEIR time.
"When mothers work throughout the child-rearing years, parents put in 56,177 hours -- 23 minutes less a day than families with at-home moms. Dads contribute about 40 percent of the time -- about one hour for every 2.6 hours of the mom's."
The authors find SAHMs with the most education are spending 25+ hours a week with their kids and WMs with the most education are spending 14.4. Over ten hours a week works out to over 2 hrs each weekday. A FAR CRY from the 22 minutes you keep claiming.
Additionally, they also found:
"As previous time-use researchers have shown, married women and women with young children spend more time in child care than single women or women with older children."
Which means for SAHMs with preschoolers that number is even higher.
Newer study that states that today's working parents actually spend more time with their kids than parents in previous generations. (Note this is poll results not a study. So the participants are stating how they use their time. People tend to overestimate when they answer polls.)
Blogs are not studies and are not particularly relevant.
I'll post the links again but I'm not doing the math again. You end up with the same numbers going at this by looking at total hours gained and then being realistic about how people really use their time (the more we have the more we waste).
Cornell Science News: Child-rearing time by parents This study is from 1997, however, given that how mothers spend their time changes slowly, it's still relevent (plus there isn't a newer study) - Sorry, the difference is 23 minutes a day not the 21 or 22 I posted earlier.
Ok, I haven't been paying much attention to the hours thing, because I don't really think it's relevant, nor have I argued that being a working mom is ultimately detrimental.
But just explain to me how it works, because I don't get it - for example, there's a kid that goes to daycare, is dropped off at 7.30 am and picked up at 6 pm. Say the kid is 4. He/she goes home and eats dinner, has a bath etc and goes to sleep at around 8.30. Counting the hour it takes to get up and out of the house in the morning, how is it that that kid spends only 23 minutes less a day with their parent/s than with an at home parent, who's home? How is that physically possible?
My husband is the working parent right now, and I know for a fact that he doesn't spend anywhere near as much time in actual physical proximity to our child than I do. How could he? So how is any of this relevant?
Seriously? You're going to toss in a small 30 year old study and you think it negates a large one that is less than half that age???
And there's no unwillingness to share. I posted it before with a breakdown of hours..why am I being asked to prove it again?
"Child Rearing Time by Parents: A Report of Research in Progress"
NEVER got published. Go look. It is a summation, NOT PEER REVIEWED, of cherry picked data. You are really using that to discount a larger study that was peer reviewed?
Second the basis of the data is the "time longitudinal study" which had 620 respondents, of which Bryant and Zick used less than half. So far the "older" study is a much larger sample. The other major data set they use is the Time Use SURVEY from 1977-1978, and as you pointed out survey's are not reliable since people overestimate their time.
Additionally the paper Bryant and Zick did publish
"An Examination of Parent-Child Shared Time"
found, at least according to the abstract ( I will be picking up the pdf at work monday) changed what they said in their prelim. Apparently SAHMs did spend more statistically significant time engaging in both direct and peripheral child care.
Ok, I haven't been paying much attention to the hours thing, because I don't really think it's relevant, nor have I argued that being a working mom is ultimately detrimental.
But just explain to me how it works, because I don't get it - for example, there's a kid that goes to daycare, is dropped off at 7.30 am and picked up at 6 pm. Say the kid is 4. He/she goes home and eats dinner, has a bath etc and goes to sleep at around 8.30. Counting the hour it takes to get up and out of the house in the morning, how is it that that kid spends only 23 minutes less a day with their parent/s than with an at home parent, who's home? How is that physically possible?
My husband is the working parent right now, and I know for a fact that he doesn't spend anywhere near as much time in actual physical proximity to our child than I do. How could he? So how is any of this relevant?
Because the "study" Ivory claims shows WMs are only spending 23 minutes less a day is actually showing that PARENTS are only spending 23 minutes less a day mostly due to an increase in the amount of time parenting by fathers.
Additionally, the study was using data from 1977-1978 from journals kept by only a couple hundred families, limited to two children homes, and did not differentiate between part time employment and full time for the mothers.
Ok, I haven't been paying much attention to the hours thing, because I don't really think it's relevant, nor have I argued that being a working mom is ultimately detrimental.
But just explain to me how it works, because I don't get it - for example, there's a kid that goes to daycare, is dropped off at 7.30 am and picked up at 6 pm. Say the kid is 4. He/she goes home and eats dinner, has a bath etc and goes to sleep at around 8.30. Counting the hour it takes to get up and out of the house in the morning, how is it that that kid spends only 23 minutes less a day with their parent/s than with an at home parent, who's home? How is that physically possible?
My husband is the working parent right now, and I know for a fact that he doesn't spend anywhere near as much time in actual physical proximity to our child than I do. How could he? So how is any of this relevant?
I have been trying to figure that out too. We all share the same number of weekend hours (If we are talking about M-F jobs). There is no way someone can convince me that I spend the same number of hours or less than 1 hour fewer between 6 & 8:30 as a SAHM does between 7:30am and 8:30 PM. Is someone really trying to say that in that 10.5 hours extra with their kids that the SAHMs are really only spending less than an hour of that time with them? Just from my weekend experience, I know that isn't possible ESPECIALLY when the kids are toddlers or infants.
Seriously, what do you do all day that you call it busting your arse? I've never stayed home with small children but I've worked part time (three days a week) and there wasn't enough to do to fill the day.
And yet you are an expert? How could you possibly be arguing that there is nothing to do, when you in fact have not done it yourself. One would have to assume, due to your confessions in other posts, that social interaction were at best minimal, and that would be torture for young children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
Did you stay at home for a time with her? One reason I support women going back to work when their babies are little is that I think (no studies here) that if day care is a child's normal from the beginning, they don't go through this kind of separation anxiety.
The same could be said for babies born in prison or in abusive families? Justify, justify, justify......
And yet you are an expert? How could you possibly be arguing that there is nothing to do, when you in fact have not done it yourself. One would have to assume, due to your confessions in other posts, that social interaction were at best minimal, and that would be torture for young children.
The same could be said for babies born in prison or in abusive families? Justify, justify, justify......
My thoughts exactly. Not only that, but because of all the things I do, have always done, with my kids and around the home, I can't imagine having time to sit down and watch a television program. For some of us SAHMs, we're putting in 12-14 hr days. When my kids were young, I was physically and emotionally interacting with them on almost a constant basis. I find it odd that someone who NEVER spent every day, all day, with small children in the home would even bother to quote something off of the internet without any personal experience to back it up.
As I've said before, if I'm not working full time away from home, I also grow a HUGE garden and have extensive mixed flower/vegetable gardens. Please.... I put in more hours a day, working at home than most full-time work (away from home) mothers do. I'm just appalled at the generalizations that have been made here.
I have to ask....where are the dads?? Why don't we ask the same of dads tht we ask of moms? Why are MOMS being judged here on how many hours they spend with kids and dads aren't???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How could you possibly be arguing that there is nothing to do, when you in fact have not done it yourself. One would have to assume, due to your confessions in other posts, that social interaction were at best minimal, and that would be torture for young children.
