Child’s cognitive skills linked to time spent with mother

[Deleted]

Where is your data that it is feasible for most?

Well, Tennis seems to just wants to get women back behind the stove. I really expected better of him.

[Hotmail]

mothers should be barefoot in the kitchen after having kids. check.

Better than the "Tender years doctrine" which results in sissy boys who will end up expecting participation prizes throughout their entire lives.

[Deleted]

Well, Tennis seems to just wants to get women back behind the stove. I really expected better of him.

He's a misogynistic white knight. He continously patronises women and belittles them.

[Faenskap]

Interesting, is it the same/similar if the father spends time and helps study, etc?

Well, if you ask the Mother mafia, the answer is "no, any woman will always be a better parent than a man, always! No exceptions!!!!"

It's weird to think that we've survived and even prospered as a species because women didn't sit on the floor playing Lego with their children 30 years ago. And 150 years ago, children were labour and a retirement insurance

Also waiting for some "alpha males" to comment, because being married to a housewife dependent on them would be their dream situation. But wait, children to better when the mothers are educated and i dont think most educated women would willingly work reduced or not at all for 7 years lest their children might not function optimally in social settings

[Deleted]

That is my career. I am a DevOps (Automation) Engineer...

Can't you turn it off occasionally?

[Symphonic]

Would you say that stay-at-home mom's are giving their children an unfair advantage over kids who don't get that quality time with their mom?

Sounds like it. And that's too bad, I respect any mother who has to work to support her kids, and any mother who has decided that her full-time job is at home. And it is a full-time job. I always tell my wife how she has the harder job, I edit videos for work, and she has to take care of two children, who are constantly in need of help... it can be stressful and requires a lot of someone to take care of them.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

What you quoted talked more about the level of education of the mother, yet you choose not to even mention that in your own comments. Why?

[Deleted]

-snip-

Ask any mafia and the answer is going to be our way or the highway.

The problem with taking info on this from the past is that roles and "jobs" were different back then.

We should focus on growth now while keeping an eye on past data and see if its proven/debunked over the years via in-depth studies on both genders as close parents.

[Faenskap]

Ask any mafia and the answer is going to be our way or the highway.

The problem with taking info on this from the past is that roles and "jobs" were different back then.

We should focus on growth now while keeping an eye on past data and see if its proven/debunked over the years via in-depth studies on both genders as close parents.

You are of course right, but these extreme mothers, just.. I'm not Christian but god give me strength.

[Unhinged]

With the way the economy, cost of living and income it is just not affordable for the middle class to not have both parents working full time.

[Tennis]

Interesting, but Tenni, can you change the color of the orange quote? It's hardly readable and hurt the eye (I had to select the text to be able to read it)

Thanks for the feedback. I will keep that in mind.

[callipygoustp]

So you are saying you expect women to be nothing more than chattel, giving up their careers and staying at home to accomodate the husband and children? What is this, 1815?

Only if they love their children. If they don't love their children, then, no.

- - - Updated - - -

You're a girl! Admit it!

I've jogged, closely, behind her many times. Definitely female!
(or a very VERY small package. jogging pants leave little to the imagination.)

[sheggaro]

Who would have thought?

[Tennis]

What you quoted talked more about the level of education of the mother, yet you choose not to even mention that in your own comments. Why?

2 reasons. Firstly, I am a busy person so I don't have time to type out walls of text. The second reason, you can guess.

[Fojos]

So you are saying you expect women to be nothing more than chattel, giving up their careers and staying at home to accomodate the husband and children? What is this, 1815?

So don't have kids then. Why even have children when you barely interact with them and the only ones raising them are other people?

[zebreck]

I'd be much more inclined to give a shit about any of these studies, assuming any of them are methodologically sound in any way, if they did correlation between whatever they're trying to support and, say, IQ at 20, or employment rate, or average lifetime income, or anything that matters in the slightest little bit.

[Tennis]

So don't have kids then. Why even have children when you barely interact with them and the only ones raising them are other people?

Exactly. Nobody is forcing them to have kids. It's a serious responsibility.

[Stormdash]

So you are saying you expect women to be nothing more than chattel, giving up their careers and staying at home to accomodate the husband and children? What is this, 1815?

Saw this species of reaction coming a mile off.

[Tennis]

Tennisace logic = Kids should be living in poverty rather than the mother work

Nonsense. Live within your means and you can make ends meet.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

2 reasons. Firstly, I am a busy person so I don't have time to type out walls of text. The second reason, you can guess.

Of course I can guess. Here are some guesses:
- You yourself didn't read it.
- The primary point of what you quoted doesn't fit with the narrative you want to create, so you ignored it.
- The actual conclusion of the study isn't something you want to discuss.
- You just love to cherry-pick data.
- Having multiple factors is confusing to you, so you just went with the one that said what you wanted to hear.

Those are my guesses.

As to the first... ok, I'm not asking you to type out a wall of text. Its just that the majority of what you posted from the article isn't even talking about the point you were trying to make... so why post it at all. Its like if I posted a block of text from an article about endangered animals that talked about the dwindling cheetah population, then said we need to do more to protect elephants from poachers. Sure, they're connected, but why didn't I post a quote about elephants if that's the topic I wanted to get across?

Do you even brain?*

*This question is rhetorical. Nobody on Gen-OT brains.