How to Tell a Great Mom from a Lazy A$$

There is a very interesting article in the upcoming issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education about some recent studies on parenting. The short version of the findings is that genetics seems to matter more than nurture in the long run in terms of shaping the adult a child will become (with some exceptions for abusive/traumatic events in childhood).

The most interesting part of the article to me, however, was the finding that parents now (both mothers and fathers) are spending more time with their children than they did 30 years ago, often to the detriment of their own sleep or happiness because they are so overextended -- but there is no appreciable benefit for all this sacrifice. Here are the concluding paragraphs of the article:

. . .It turns out that there is some really good news and some mildly bad news. The really good news is that we can stop worrying about the horrible fate of the next generation. The bad news is that parents today are making large "investments" in their children that are unlikely to pay off.

Now if parents enjoyed every minute of child care, there wouldn't be any bad news. Parents' huge time commitment would be successful consumption, not failed investment. If you study parents at the next children's event you attend, though, you will probably notice a lot of tired, grouchy faces. Happiness researchers confirm that impression. According to a study by a team of scholars led by the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, mothers enjoy child care just a little more than housework, and a lot less than watching television. As an economist, I have to suspect that a major reason for parents' lack of enthusiasm for their role is simply diminishing marginal utility: Average enjoyment of parenting is low because parents are overdoing it.

You might respond, "Yes, but at least parental attention makes the children happier." It's striking, then, that even kids don't seem to want all this parental attention. One notable study by Ellen Galinsky of the Families and Work Institute found that while most parents believe their children want more face time, only a tiny minority of children actually do. In contrast, about a third of children wish their parents were less stressed and tired. What kids seem to want from their parents isn't more time; it's a better attitude.

Ironically, then, a bird's-eye view of parenting research suggests that it would be good for the world if parents stopped trying so hard. Parents would be better off, because they would be doing less of something that — through excessive familiarity — has lost its charm. Children wouldn't be worse off, because parental "investment" has little payoff anyway. In fact, if we take children at their word, they'd be better off. Kids know better than anyone that if mom and dad aren't happy, nobody's happy.

Now, I haven't read all the studies cited here, so I'm hardly in a position to refute these researchers' claims on the basis of my experience with my own personal two children. But I do find it striking that anyone is willing to write publicly that "mothers enjoy child care just a little more than housework." While there are plenty of people who will throw up their hands and cry foul at such a generalization, here's the thing: I think it's true. Doing creative projects, going for sledding expeditions, reading stories, cooking dinner together for daddy...these are all extremely enjoyable. But "child care" -- changing the 10th poopy diaper of the morning when the infant has rotovirus, cleaning up the third glass of (expensive) spilled organic milk of the morning, mediating the squabbles of siblings who are calling each other "Baby Diaper" as if it is a slur -- these things are certainly a lot less fun than folding laundry. At least, if you have laundry that never talks back.

And whether or not you differentiate between activity time and child care, whether or not you prefer sweeping a quiet floor to explaining a matter of principle to a smart-aleck four-year-old, the last paragraph of that article is really stunning: LESS time, BETTER spent is actually preferable to MORE time frittered, grumbled, and worn away.

This, intuitively, I know to be true. When I am happy, my children are happy. When I am over-tired, they are crabby and push all my buttons. If I let them watch three episodes of Little Bear so that I can take a nap, we lose an hour and a half of together time. But we typically gain an entire afternoon of harmony and activities, whereas before, we would have hit Critical Meltdown Mode at 4pm, occasioned by a lot of raised voices and crying (mine, theirs, who can tell the difference any more?).

While I am not sure I buy all of the conclusions of these studies, and I think a healthy dose of skepticism, or at least "is this right for my family?-ism" is necessary when reading any such results, I will admit to feeling somewhat liberated by the notion that I don't have to enroll my children in twelve sports, and I don't have to hover 24/7, and in fact, we might all be happier and better adjusted if I don't. I will say that this concept fits well with my predisposition to want my children to grow up to become independent thinkers, people who are capable of enjoying time spent alone without contrived entertainment. In short, I want them to be creative and inquisitive, and I think it requires not being led all the time to develop that.

Then again, maybe I just want to take a nap.

And how to I tell the difference between a cop out and good parenting? How do you?