3 ms·

Yes, I've raised kids. Mine were only up maybe 30 minutes every 2-3 hours when born. And there are 16 hours when a mom isn't working to have all those benefits

Yes, I've raised kids. Mine were only up maybe 30 minutes every 2-3 hours when born. And there are 16 hours when a mom isn't working to have all those benefits you discussed. And if you can find a study that says there's a discernible difference in childhood outcomes based on those additional 8 hours of contact between a child and mother, I'd love to see it because I can't imagine in all the factors that involve childhood, those 8 hours difference (for a few months) are detectible.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Subtract commuting time, pumping time, getting ready time, etc out of those 16 hours. And no, there is not going to be a study that shows a discernible difference in childhood outcomes. That’s an immeasurable metric. But it is known that babies extract milk and regulate milk production much preferably compared to pumps, from the woman and the baby’s perspective. And that benefit alone is worth the 0.1% a nation shaves off its GDP. Sounds like you had some awesome babies. My kids took at least 1 hour to feed each time between latching, burping, puking, pooping, being fussy, and falling asleep while feeding. Seeing what my wife went through even with 6 months of leave, I would want my daughter to have better. Obviously we can toss the kids in daycare and put the moms back to work and put the pumping burden on them. And then watch the data show the length of time kids drink breastmilk go down. Or we can step back and evaluate why the most “advanced” and “prosperous” society cannot give its women a year to raise their infant and protect their job.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  Why wouldn't we just give the moms a choice? They have unique duties for child rearing so it makes sense to accommodate that as a society. But not all moms might want to partake since there are consequences to their careers (you don't gain experience in your job when you're not doing your job), plus some people hate being stuck home all day.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    We did and do give the moms a choice. Look at where it has gotten us. Kids don’t breastfeed as long as they should, labor markets are such that women feel they need to go back to work and pump. The theory is nice, the reality is less so.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

Subtract commuting time, pumping time, getting ready time, etc out of those 16 hours. And no, there is not going to be a study that shows a discernible difference in childhood outcomes. That’s an immeasurable metric. But it is known that babies extract milk and regulate milk production much preferably compared to pumps, from the woman and the baby’s perspective. And that benefit alone is worth the 0.1% a nation shaves off its GDP. Sounds like you had some awesome babies. My kids took at least 1 hour to feed each time between latching, burping, puking, pooping, being fussy, and falling asleep while feeding. Seeing what my wife went through even with 6 months of leave, I would want my daughter to have better. Obviously we can toss the kids in daycare and put the moms back to work and put the pumping burden on them. And then watch the data show the length of time kids drink breastmilk go down. Or we can step back and evaluate why the most “advanced” and “prosperous” society cannot give its women a year to raise their infant and protect their job.

merpnderp 5y ago
Why wouldn't we just give the moms a choice? They have unique duties for child rearing so it makes sense to accommodate that as a society. But not all moms might want to partake since there are consequences to their careers (you don't gain experience in your job when you're not doing your job), plus some people hate being stuck home all day.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  We did and do give the moms a choice. Look at where it has gotten us. Kids don’t breastfeed as long as they should, labor markets are such that women feel they need to go back to work and pump. The theory is nice, the reality is less so.