Lori Alexander's Quiet Time

[usmcmom]

Today's post is about living a peaceful life. She writes that her kids had to stay in their rooms for two hours to rest or read. Made me think of Kate Gosselin.

I left a very kindly worded comment, asking at what age this quiet time was enforced, but it was not approved.

Two hours seems like a long time to have a child stay in his or her room if it's not nap time.

[ndmomma]

Interesting. My experience is that some people just can't stand noise of kids too many hours a day, yet they HAVE them. I have four fair Irish children, ages 2-10, so mine have to say indoors for two hours during the hottest part of the day in the summer, lest their skin get crispy. I put the youngest down for a nap and have the rest listen to a CD of Narnia for an hour, followed by an hour of quiet reading or hobbies. They need a break from electronic screens and from the sun, and this is a nice routine because we're dealing with autism and ADHD, and they need a soothing ritual. I'm Catholic (raised fundy-to-fundy-lite), and midday is the time we often sit together and listen to a podcast of the day's readings or pray a little. The kids like this and remind me that it's time. It's not "go to your rooms, and I don't want to hear from you for 2 hours". It's "let's enjoy some quiet in the middle of the day together". Then the mayhem resumes :)

Edited because coordinating conjunctions are our friends, and run-ons are not.

[polecat]

Our kids are almost never in their rooms unless they need alone time or they're sleeping. I can understand instituting a "quiet time" routine for kids who are young or who need that extra structure. I encourage mine to spend time reading at least part of every day. We're sort of a together-y family, so whether we're reading or just hanging out, we tend to cluster in the family room (which is really, really big and both the warmest room in the winter and the coolest room in the summer).

[ndmomma]

Haha, yes. I can't take a step in any direction without stepping on a child or dog. We have sufficient room, but we are typically clustered as well. Rooms are mostly for when you need a break here (like the one I'm taking now after spending all day at Mass and Special Olympics). My child with autism is sitting and quietly reading a book while the rest play Monopoly and Climb on Daddy.

[cindyluvs24]

Does the side of her page really say "Grab my button" ????

It's been a long day

[polecat]

Does the side of her page really say "Grab my button" ????

Well, it's not as though Ken's grabbing it. I'm not entirely sure he even knows where it is.

[Want More Babies]

I wonder if those two hours a day were while she had help? I don't think so either. I don't think Lori could handle being a mother, yet she wants to tell everyone else how to do it.

[marion10]

I had my kids (ad I only have two) lie down for an hour in the afternoon whether or not they went to sleep until they were about 5- they had the same rule in daycare so in wasn't a big deal. They could look at books or listen to tapes - but they had to stay in bed and be quiet. Most of the time they fell asleep.

[ViolaSebastian]

Didn't Lazy Lyndsie's friend whats-her-face also keep her children sequestered in their rooms for an extraordinarily lengthy amount of time? Is this a typical thing with fundies?

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

I doubt it is even true. Lori contradicts herself so often who knows what to believe. But then again everything has about Lori and how good she was when she had it so hard. She makes my brain hurt.

[Hisey]

Lori's written about this before. She homeschooled her kids till they were about 13 or so. So she had four kids, very close in age, at home with her all day. She said that she instituted the two-hour thing because SHE needed a break from the kids. SHE needed some peace and quiet.

Personally, I think it is rather selfish. She must homeschool, yet she must have her peace, so stick elementary-age kids in their room for two hours. The last thing an active 10-year old needs is to lie on his bed from 12-2, it's all for mommy.

I have two school age kids, and they don't need naps or mid-day breaks. They wouldn't benefit from such things, as Lori claims. They'd be bored and restless and lonely. My kids are full of energy, all day every day, like most children are. I can't imagine isolating them from their friends and then insisting they "rest."

Bear in mind, Lori had plenty of household help and she did a very minimal job of homeschooling. She's said her "homeschooling" consisted of 1) having the kids read books and 2) having the kids do math worksheets.

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

Lori's written about this before. She homeschooled her kids till they were about 13 or so. So she had four kids, very close in age, at home with her all day. She said that she instituted the two-hour thing because SHE needed a break from the kids. SHE needed some peace and quiet.

Personally, I think it is rather selfish. She must homeschool, yet she must have her peace, so stick elementary-age kids in their room for two hours. The last thing an active 10-year old needs is to lie on his bed from 12-2, it's all for mommy.

I have two school age kids, and they don't need naps or mid-day breaks. They wouldn't benefit from such things, as Lori claims. They'd be bored and restless and lonely. My kids are full of energy, all day every day, like most children are. I can't imagine isolating them from their friends and then insisting they "rest."

Bear in mind, Lori had plenty of household help and she did a very minimal job of homeschooling. She's said her "homeschooling" consisted of 1) having the kids read books and 2) having the kids do math worksheets.

Hang on didn't I read somewhere that when the kids were little she had help coz she was in bed sick all the time? I'm confused..

[HoneyBunny]

Hang on didn't I read somewhere that when the kids were little she had help coz she was in bed sick all the time? I'm confused..

Well, it is hard to keep track of all her issues. Let's see, there was the parasite thing, the car accident, the brain tumor... I forget which ones happened when, and which one required her dad to rub her feet and which one left her yearning for a potato so she asked for soup and didn't get a soup with a potato in it. The lady's life has been a struggle. No wonder she needed her quiet time. All those pesky people trying to help her; that is SO tiring!

[Want More Babies]

Lori's written about this before. She homeschooled her kids till they were about 13 or so. So she had four kids, very close in age, at home with her all day. She said that she instituted the two-hour thing because SHE needed a break from the kids. SHE needed some peace and quiet.

Personally, I think it is rather selfish. She must homeschool, yet she must have her peace, so stick elementary-age kids in their room for two hours. The last thing an active 10-year old needs is to lie on his bed from 12-2, it's all for mommy.

I have two school age kids, and they don't need naps or mid-day breaks. They wouldn't benefit from such things, as Lori claims. They'd be bored and restless and lonely. My kids are full of energy, all day every day, like most children are. I can't imagine isolating them from their friends and then insisting they "rest."

Bear in mind, Lori had plenty of household help and she did a very minimal job of homeschooling. She's said her "homeschooling" consisted of 1) having the kids read books and 2) having the kids do math worksheets.

If I were her child, I would want to be sent to my room too. Two hours away from Lori is a fucking monster!

[16strong]

2 hours of quiet time is a great start Lori, but 24 would be better.

[Myfanwy]

I could no sooner have got my kids to stay in their rooms for two hours a day than I could walk backwards through a wall. It must have been the lack of biblical beatings. Mind you my kids went to school and had friends and did activities after school and played outside so...epic parenting fail in the Myfanwy house I guess.

[Luvmyskinnyjeanz]

Today's post is about living a peaceful life. She writes that her kids had to stay in their rooms for two hours to rest or read. Made me think of Kate Gosselin.

I left a very kindly worded comment, asking at what age this quiet time was enforced, but it was not approved.

Two hours seems like a long time to have a child stay in his or her room if it's not nap time.

I can kinda understand why Kate Gosselin would do it, at one stage she had two 6 year olds and six 2 year olds, and she didn't lay in bed all day with maladies.

[Rebelwife]

I had my kids (ad I only have two) lie down for an hour in the afternoon whether or not they went to sleep until they were about 5- they had the same rule in daycare so in wasn't a big deal. They could look at books or listen to tapes - but they had to stay in bed and be quiet. Most of the time they fell asleep.

My oldest gave up sleeping right when she turned two years old. I did have her play quietly in her room every day for about an hour and a half until she was five. The difference was, she's a big introvert who needs her quiet time. I tried it with my youngest, when she also gave up her naps at two. That was a nightmare though because she's a totally different child, and to her it felt like a punishment. So, I stopped.

I guess where I was doing it wrong was that I did what worked for the kids not me. I would have loved to of had that break from my high-energy youngest.

ETA: I just realized that this post could sound like I was disagreeing with you. It was actually the opposite, that I don't have any problem having kids rest in their room if it works for them.

[2xx1xy1JD]

So let me get this straight:

Kids desperately need their mothers (and only their mothers) to be home all day, every day, in order to get the proper nurturing that they need to thrive. She says that pretty clearly here: lorialexander.blogspot.ca/2014/04/babies-and-children-need-full-time.html

Somehow, though, babies and children don't need that direct nurturing at night, or during the 2 hours/day that they are exiled to their rooms. Because children come equipped with some mystery internal clock that somehow shuts off the need for maternal - or any human - interaction when it's not convenient for a tired mother.

Now, I'm not totally knocking the idea of quiet times. Our family goes a full 25-hour period without work or driving or electronic screens each week, and I find that it allows both kids and adults to relax and recharge - but I don't expect my kids to be alone the whole time. They play cards with each other, spend time with friends, etc. and I only mandate naps if someone is clearly tired and cranky or if we are going to have a late night.

One of the other benefits of quiet time is having the time to simply cuddle and chill out with my kids. For Lori, it's about banishing instead of bonding.

I'm willing to look at my daily schedule when my kids were little vs. Lori and Ken's schedule when their kids were the same age, and add up and compare the time that the kids spent with each parent, 24/7. For all that Lori demonizes working moms, I'm willing to bet that our kids had more interaction with us than Lori's did with her and Ken.

[usmcmom]

I can kinda understand why Kate Gosselin would do it, at one stage she had two 6 year olds and six 2 year olds, and she didn't lay in bed all day with maladies.

Except Kate made her toddlers stay in their cribs for FOUR hours and if they climbed out early she added 45 minutes to their "nap" time.

[polecat]

Except Kate made her toddlers stay in their cribs for FOUR hours and if they climbed out early she added 45 minutes to their "nap" time.

Holy crap, seriously? My newborns didn't even sleep that long at a time.

[usmcmom]

I'm certainly not knocking the need for quiet time when the kids are little. I had mine nap until they went to kindergarten. Our routine was kind of a comfort for me, though; we'd lie on my bed and read until my kids fell asleep. Then I'd let myself doze off for a bit before easing myself off the bed. My kids certainly had time in their rooms alone, also.

What seems odd to me, is the length of time and the apparent "older" age of the kids. If a child is old enough to be reading alone in his/her room for two hours - then how much trouble can they be sitting in the living room with Mom playing with age appropriate things? If a child is not old enough to read alone, then two hours seems like a long time to be left alone to entertain himself. An hours seems more realistic to me.

[usmcmom]

Holy crap, seriously? My newborns didn't even sleep that long at a time.

Yep, in the episode where she revealed that, the "babies" were in cribs but starting to climb out. They were scolded for climbing out and then told they had to stay even longer. Like two-year-olds could comprehend that consequence....

She clearly had her afternoon planned so that the babies were in their cribs most of the time and then were only up for about an hour before Jon got home from work.

[usmcmom]

By the way, there's no way Ken will stay out of the conversation on her blog today. She's back on the "Men Control Your Wives" kick.

Couldn't read it all....

[docmom]

If I need quiet time, I go to my room. My children can do whatever they want in the rest of the house/garden and can come to me for cuddles, advice etc. But if they come and tell me they're bored, I'll find something for them to clean :D . I try not to confuse MY need for some alone time with their non-existent need for naps.

I can completely understand the need for SAHMs to have down time but I don't understand fundies who insist on having a dozen children and homeschooling the lot of them only to exile them to their rooms for a large chunk of the day. If you need solitude to function (and I do), then send your children to school, scouts, swimming lessons, etc...