Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know and my sample size is small.

But based on observations and a little personal experience I think that staying home with toddlers imparts a personality/sense of humor that’s more like the primary caregiver (if the attention is focused), and if the child is talked to directly very frequently they will be more likely to speak more coherently, have a larger vocabulary, and sometimes develop early literacy skills.

That said late elementary and middle school are important years to be there before and after school.

+1.

SAH, WAH, WOH mom

These are the years the kids will remember. SAH for your choice and wishes. I am a SAH with a middle schooler. I needed to be home due to SN/income not worth paying a nanny for therapies but being able to help with homework and being involved later on is just as important if not more.

[Anonymous]

Assuming you are a relatively normal, decent person, you have a lot of love for your baby, and you like the idea of spending time with an infant, I would say your baby will definitely benefit from having a SAHP during the infant and young toddler years. You mention brain development which is obviously important but an equally if not more important factor is emotional health and development. Spending the early years with someone who loves them more than anything is really good for babies. It's a launch pad for a healthy childhood once they are pre-school age and helps insure a good transition to non-parent care. There are some here who will argue with this but I think it's pretty hard to refute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who talk about baby’s brain development- is it possible that one could (inadvertently) cause their baby to have ADHD?

yes, I would like to know the answer to this.

I am the PP from above with teens who wrote about doing all roles and how I think SAH v WOH is pretty irrelevant to outcome. My child who had me as a SAHM until age three and then did part-time preschool has serious ADHD and is an excellent athlete. Another kid who started daycare at five months is dyslexic and wildly creative (not just me saying that, I've had experienced teachers tell me that). In hindsight the kid with ADHD showed signs in utero - never stopped kicking, in constant motion, etc. I don't think any of my kids special needs had anything to do with childcare decisions when they were infants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assuming you are a relatively normal, decent person, you have a lot of love for your baby, and you like the idea of spending time with an infant, I would say your baby will definitely benefit from having a SAHP during the infant and young toddler years. You mention brain development which is obviously important but an equally if not more important factor is emotional health and development. Spending the early years with someone who loves them more than anything is really good for babies. It's a launch pad for a healthy childhood once they are pre-school age and helps insure a good transition to non-parent care. There are some here who will argue with this but I think it's pretty hard to refute.

This is absolutely laughable! Only a parent can love your baby?! What a sad, limited world you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who talk about baby’s brain development- is it possible that one could (inadvertently) cause their baby to have ADHD?

Yes. This is almost entirely genetic. So, yeah, assuming that you share some genes with your baby, you can, inadvertently, cause your child to have ADHD.

[Anonymous]

One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

[Anonymous]

We talk about SAHM vs WOHM like it's some kind of dichotomy, but it really isn't.


When my first was born, DH was working 60-70 hours/wk, and I was working 50-60. It was NOT working. I remember reading articles and going to message boards to see how women did it. I eventually realized that the "being a working mom is wonderful" articles/posts were NOT from women in my position, but from women who were working PT or had a spouse who had a very flexible schedule or was a SAHD.

I have found, in my own family, in my circle, and reflected back on the internet, that most families do best when both parents, combined, work 80 hours or less every week. Whether that's two 40 hour jobs, or one person working PT while the other works a more demanding schedule, or one parent staying at home while the other works depends on circumstances.

Now, DH works 50-60 hours/wk, I work 15-30 hours/wk, and we are all much happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

I have the opposite take on this. I don’t think the SAHMs or nannies who smother kids when they are out are doing the kids a favor. The entire point of going to story time is for the librarian to read a story and the kids to see other kids. The point of the playground is for kids to explore and to play with other kids. It’s NOT for parents to play with their kids. The type of parent you seem to admire is the type who ends up with a five year old who can’t leave mommy without crying. It isn’t healthy and is selfish of the moms.

It’s a new parenting style to completely 100% focus on your child and have absolutely nothing else going on. In the past, women had chores to do and other children to tend to. They rarely spent so much time focusing on one child and entertaining them. Kids who grow up in an environment where the mom is 100% focused on the child and nothing else are not doing their child any favors.

Judge away at the nannies who sit on the bench at the playground. But those kids are the ones who end up normal well adjusted kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We talk about SAHM vs WOHM like it's some kind of dichotomy, but it really isn't.


When my first was born, DH was working 60-70 hours/wk, and I was working 50-60. It was NOT working. I remember reading articles and going to message boards to see how women did it. I eventually realized that the "being a working mom is wonderful" articles/posts were NOT from women in my position, but from women who were working PT or had a spouse who had a very flexible schedule or was a SAHD.

I have found, in my own family, in my circle, and reflected back on the internet, that most families do best when both parents, combined, work 80 hours or less every week. Whether that's two 40 hour jobs, or one person working PT while the other works a more demanding schedule, or one parent staying at home while the other works depends on circumstances.

Now, DH works 50-60 hours/wk, I work 15-30 hours/wk, and we are all much happier.

+1 My choice to stay home was strongly influenced by regularly seeing my coworker calling her husband and begging him to try to keep the baby awake so she could see him when she got home. Our job was a lot of hours + a commute. Looking for a new, flexible, FT job while pg seemed daunting. Instead, I was able to set up some freelancing work and happily did that through two babies and had no trouble finding a FT job ( decent, flexible hours with ability to regularly with at home) when my youngest started school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am deciding whether to stay at home for 1-3 years with my baby as my maternity leave comes to a close. On one hand, I’ve read that the most brain development happens from age 1-3 and I love the idea of being able to interact with the baby as much as possible during this period as he learns so much. I can’t imagine anyone being as invested in his development as me. On the other hand, baby’s needs seem so simple during this period and likely could be easily outsourced to a well qualified nanny. Is there really any benefit to the baby if a mom stays at home during the early years? Not looking to debate what is best for mom re savings, career etc., just what is best for baby.

If parent is stable, competent and loving, you absolutely be your baby’s primary caregiver. Only one in a thousand nanny *might* give you all of that. The first three years are the foundational years of life. Why not give your own child the best possible start in life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

I have the opposite take on this. I don’t think the SAHMs or nannies who smother kids when they are out are doing the kids a favor. The entire point of going to story time is for the librarian to read a story and the kids to see other kids. The point of the playground is for kids to explore and to play with other kids. It’s NOT for parents to play with their kids. The type of parent you seem to admire is the type who ends up with a five year old who can’t leave mommy without crying. It isn’t healthy and is selfish of the moms.

It’s a new parenting style to completely 100% focus on your child and have absolutely nothing else going on. In the past, women had chores to do and other children to tend to. They rarely spent so much time focusing on one child and entertaining them. Kids who grow up in an environment where the mom is 100% focused on the child and nothing else are not doing their child any favors.

Judge away at the nannies who sit on the bench at the playground. But those kids are the ones who end up normal well adjusted kids.

PP here. I agree with you for toddlers and older, but not for babies. Babies need lots of face time with their caregiver. It's a huge part of how they learn language, socio-emotional context, and how they develop secure attachment. I'm talking about nannies of 3-12 month old babies here, not nannies of active, walking toddlers who are wandering around and exploring their environment.

The story times were a perfect example. Those storytimes for very young children are designed to involve caregivers. The librarians leading the story times were constantly begging the caregivers to participate or, at a minimum, put their phones away, because the only way a child under the age of 1 is going to pay attention to a story time is if their caregiver is interested and participating. And as a result, those story times were chaos, the librarians were always visibly frustrated, and those of us who were actually willing to engage with our kids and the person leading the story time were overruled.

There's a difference between someone who will keep your baby safe and someone who will really engage with your baby in the way that is most beneficial to him. My observation is that most nannies are clocking into work but not necessarily really engaging with the babies in the way a SAHM would. I do think it matters less once your child is mobile because at that point they will want to be interacting with the world around them and just need a secure bond with the caregiver so they have that safety/comfort touchstone to return to. But this is why I was somewhat disillusioned to the idea of the amazing nanny as a solution in the first year of life. I feel pretty confident that I was able to give my DD more of what she needed than the nanny or daycare we would have hired, unless we'd really lucked out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am deciding whether to stay at home for 1-3 years with my baby as my maternity leave comes to a close. On one hand, I’ve read that the most brain development happens from age 1-3 and I love the idea of being able to interact with the baby as much as possible during this period as he learns so much. I can’t imagine anyone being as invested in his development as me. On the other hand, baby’s needs seem so simple during this period and likely could be easily outsourced to a well qualified nanny. Is there really any benefit to the baby if a mom stays at home during the early years? Not looking to debate what is best for mom re savings, career etc., just what is best for baby.

If parent is stable, competent and loving, you absolutely be your baby’s primary caregiver. Only one in a thousand nanny *might* give you all of that. The first three years are the foundational years of life. Why not give your own child the best possible start in life?

Might give all of what?

Caring for a baby is easy and almost anyone can do it. There’s very little difference in a mom holding a baby all day and a nanny doing so. It’s all hormones and emotions that are making you think that YOU doing instead of a nanny it makes a difference. Write down a list of what a mom does every day and then next to each item identify why it’s better for the mom to do each item. You’ll have a hard time with this exercise because it truly doesn’t matter who holds the baby. You also don’t want to admit you gave up your career and independence to do something that doesn’t really matter. If it mattered , then men would stay home to do it and they’d be paid to do so.

If you stay home, do it because YOU want to stay home. Not for the benefit of the baby, because unless you have a bad childcare provider, it doesn’t really matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

I have the opposite take on this. I don’t think the SAHMs or nannies who smother kids when they are out are doing the kids a favor. The entire point of going to story time is for the librarian to read a story and the kids to see other kids. The point of the playground is for kids to explore and to play with other kids. It’s NOT for parents to play with their kids. The type of parent you seem to admire is the type who ends up with a five year old who can’t leave mommy without crying. It isn’t healthy and is selfish of the moms.

It’s a new parenting style to completely 100% focus on your child and have absolutely nothing else going on. In the past, women had chores to do and other children to tend to. They rarely spent so much time focusing on one child and entertaining them. Kids who grow up in an environment where the mom is 100% focused on the child and nothing else are not doing their child any favors.

Judge away at the nannies who sit on the bench at the playground. But those kids are the ones who end up normal well adjusted kids.

PP here. I agree with you for toddlers and older, but not for babies. Babies need lots of face time with their caregiver. It's a huge part of how they learn language, socio-emotional context, and how they develop secure attachment. I'm talking about nannies of 3-12 month old babies here, not nannies of active, walking toddlers who are wandering around and exploring their environment.

The story times were a perfect example. Those storytimes for very young children are designed to involve caregivers. The librarians leading the story times were constantly begging the caregivers to participate or, at a minimum, put their phones away, because the only way a child under the age of 1 is going to pay attention to a story time is if their caregiver is interested and participating. And as a result, those story times were chaos, the librarians were always visibly frustrated, and those of us who were actually willing to engage with our kids and the person leading the story time were overruled.

There's a difference between someone who will keep your baby safe and someone who will really engage with your baby in the way that is most beneficial to him. My observation is that most nannies are clocking into work but not necessarily really engaging with the babies in the way a SAHM would. I do think it matters less once your child is mobile because at that point they will want to be interacting with the world around them and just need a secure bond with the caregiver so they have that safety/comfort touchstone to return to. But this is why I was somewhat disillusioned to the idea of the amazing nanny as a solution in the first year of life. I feel pretty confident that I was able to give my DD more of what she needed than the nanny or daycare we would have hired, unless we'd really lucked out.

You’re crazy. Story times for young babies are completely unnecessary. Children under the age of one are rarely going to pay attention to a story when in a room with other babies and people. There’s no need to take a five month old baby to a story time. These events are for the childcare provider. Not the baby. The fact you don’t know this shows you need to go back to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

I have the opposite take on this. I don’t think the SAHMs or nannies who smother kids when they are out are doing the kids a favor. The entire point of going to story time is for the librarian to read a story and the kids to see other kids. The point of the playground is for kids to explore and to play with other kids. It’s NOT for parents to play with their kids. The type of parent you seem to admire is the type who ends up with a five year old who can’t leave mommy without crying. It isn’t healthy and is selfish of the moms.

It’s a new parenting style to completely 100% focus on your child and have absolutely nothing else going on. In the past, women had chores to do and other children to tend to. They rarely spent so much time focusing on one child and entertaining them. Kids who grow up in an environment where the mom is 100% focused on the child and nothing else are not doing their child any favors.

Judge away at the nannies who sit on the bench at the playground. But those kids are the ones who end up normal well adjusted kids.

PP here. I agree with you for toddlers and older, but not for babies. Babies need lots of face time with their caregiver. It's a huge part of how they learn language, socio-emotional context, and how they develop secure attachment. I'm talking about nannies of 3-12 month old babies here, not nannies of active, walking toddlers who are wandering around and exploring their environment.

The story times were a perfect example. Those storytimes for very young children are designed to involve caregivers. The librarians leading the story times were constantly begging the caregivers to participate or, at a minimum, put their phones away, because the only way a child under the age of 1 is going to pay attention to a story time is if their caregiver is interested and participating. And as a result, those story times were chaos, the librarians were always visibly frustrated, and those of us who were actually willing to engage with our kids and the person leading the story time were overruled.

There's a difference between someone who will keep your baby safe and someone who will really engage with your baby in the way that is most beneficial to him. My observation is that most nannies are clocking into work but not necessarily really engaging with the babies in the way a SAHM would. I do think it matters less once your child is mobile because at that point they will want to be interacting with the world around them and just need a secure bond with the caregiver so they have that safety/comfort touchstone to return to. But this is why I was somewhat disillusioned to the idea of the amazing nanny as a solution in the first year of life. I feel pretty confident that I was able to give my DD more of what she needed than the nanny or daycare we would have hired, unless we'd really lucked out.

Yes I’m sure you holding your daughter instead of a nanny for the hours your child was actually awake will completely change your child’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

I have the opposite take on this. I don’t think the SAHMs or nannies who smother kids when they are out are doing the kids a favor. The entire point of going to story time is for the librarian to read a story and the kids to see other kids. The point of the playground is for kids to explore and to play with other kids. It’s NOT for parents to play with their kids. The type of parent you seem to admire is the type who ends up with a five year old who can’t leave mommy without crying. It isn’t healthy and is selfish of the moms.

It’s a new parenting style to completely 100% focus on your child and have absolutely nothing else going on. In the past, women had chores to do and other children to tend to. They rarely spent so much time focusing on one child and entertaining them. Kids who grow up in an environment where the mom is 100% focused on the child and nothing else are not doing their child any favors.

Judge away at the nannies who sit on the bench at the playground. But those kids are the ones who end up normal well adjusted kids.

PP here. I agree with you for toddlers and older, but not for babies. Babies need lots of face time with their caregiver. It's a huge part of how they learn language, socio-emotional context, and how they develop secure attachment. I'm talking about nannies of 3-12 month old babies here, not nannies of active, walking toddlers who are wandering around and exploring their environment.

The story times were a perfect example. Those storytimes for very young children are designed to involve caregivers. The librarians leading the story times were constantly begging the caregivers to participate or, at a minimum, put their phones away, because the only way a child under the age of 1 is going to pay attention to a story time is if their caregiver is interested and participating. And as a result, those story times were chaos, the librarians were always visibly frustrated, and those of us who were actually willing to engage with our kids and the person leading the story time were overruled.

There's a difference between someone who will keep your baby safe and someone who will really engage with your baby in the way that is most beneficial to him. My observation is that most nannies are clocking into work but not necessarily really engaging with the babies in the way a SAHM would. I do think it matters less once your child is mobile because at that point they will want to be interacting with the world around them and just need a secure bond with the caregiver so they have that safety/comfort touchstone to return to. But this is why I was somewhat disillusioned to the idea of the amazing nanny as a solution in the first year of life. I feel pretty confident that I was able to give my DD more of what she needed than the nanny or daycare we would have hired, unless we'd really lucked out.

DP..Idk. I am a former SAHM who used to go to things like library storytime and this does not ring true to me. What I remember is that the worst examples of behavior were other fellow SAHMs who seemed angry/frustrated or super performative SAHMs who kept looking at the rest of us for validation. The nannies were fine, the grandmas were fine.