Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, it doesn’t matter at all who takes care of a baby, as long as they are fed and their diapers are changed.

So parents can just do as they choose, because pretty much anyone can take care of your baby and it will make no difference at all in the long run.

No, people are saying the opposite of that. A child needs a loving, attentive caregiver. That caregiver doesn’t need to be the mother. Generations of kids all over the world have grown up being cared for by fathers, grandmothers, and “aunties” who may or may not be related to the child. The idea that a child must be cared for exclusively by a SAHM is a modern, mostly Western, invention that has no basis in how most people in the world live and how people have lived for thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

It won’t make a lot of difference to your baby except for how it impacts you and your family as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, it doesn’t matter at all who takes care of a baby, as long as they are fed and their diapers are changed.

So parents can just do as they choose, because pretty much anyone can take care of your baby and it will make no difference at all in the long run.

No, people are saying the opposite of that. A child needs a loving, attentive caregiver. That caregiver doesn’t need to be the mother. Generations of kids all over the world have grown up being cared for by fathers, grandmothers, and “aunties” who may or may not be related to the child. The idea that a child must be cared for exclusively by a SAHM is a modern, mostly Western, invention that has no basis in how most people in the world live and how people have lived for thousands of years.

+1. Infants need a secure attachment with a loving caregiver, but it really does not matter if that's a parent, family member, or paid person. However, it is HARD to leave your baby and especially so in this country when women go back after a few months or even less. Mothers' brains are wired not to leave their babies, but babies brains are wired to form a connection to anyone who provides care. That is sensible from an evolutionary perspective. On the other hand, bigger kids really benefit from high quality attention from parents, so I feel like if you're going to pick some years to scale back, being home when your kid gets off the bus is the way to do it.

[Anonymous]

I WAH during the first year with both my children. I also had nannies during that time. I would say that in terms of nursing, it was nice to be able to nurse on demand (we did have a schedule, but it’s always approximate) and see my kid’s milestones. For the babies, I interviewed 40+ nannies for each position to find someone the baby really liked. You have to wait until they are a few month older to see this, but they will naturally prefer some people more than others — whether it’s just energy, voice, manner of playfulness, or something else. If they like the nanny and the nanny is well versed in infant care then I don’t see why your child wouldn’t feel well cared for and loved. It is pretty simple — walks, eventually feeding solids, play time... but I personally wanted someone who would enjoy interacting and not be on the phone all the time.

[Anonymous]

I stayed home (for myself) and hated it, to the extent that I think it would have been better for my child to have a caring, well-compensated nanny and a more balanced mother.

Side note, I wish part-time was normalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people really overstate the importance of any specific person on a baby's brain development. Barring abuse or neglect, your baby's brain is going to develop the way it's supposed to -- babies are very good at getting what they need from their environment, and a lot of it is hard-wired. They've been successfully developing for centuries before the word "neuroscience" was coined. And he's not a high-performance automobile you can fine tune.

If you want to stay home because that's what works for your family, not because it's going to make your baby smarter. Your baby will thrive so long as he's fed, and cared for, and loved, as long as people smile at him and talk to him and sing him songs.

This. Baby's going to develop the way he develops. I don't think much you do in those early years (absent abuse or neglect) moves the needle very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, it doesn’t matter at all who takes care of a baby, as long as they are fed and their diapers are changed.

So parents can just do as they choose, because pretty much anyone can take care of your baby and it will make no difference at all in the long run.

No, people are saying the opposite of that. A child needs a loving, attentive caregiver. That caregiver doesn’t need to be the mother. Generations of kids all over the world have grown up being cared for by fathers, grandmothers, and “aunties” who may or may not be related to the child. The idea that a child must be cared for exclusively by a SAHM is a modern, mostly Western, invention that has no basis in how most people in the world live and how people have lived for thousands of years.

+1. Infants need a secure attachment with a loving caregiver, but it really does not matter if that's a parent, family member, or paid person. However, it is HARD to leave your baby and especially so in this country when women go back after a few months or even less. Mothers' brains are wired not to leave their babies, but babies brains are wired to form a connection to anyone who provides care. That is sensible from an evolutionary perspective. On the other hand, bigger kids really benefit from high quality attention from parents, so I feel like if you're going to pick some years to scale back, being home when your kid gets off the bus is the way to do it.

+2
One benefit that I think children get from high quality day care is the change of environment and interaction with other children, especially after 1 year old. Obviously a SAHM can provide those experiences too by joining mom’s groups and being very active in pursuing enrichment for her child. But some of us are really well suited to that and others are not. There isn’t a single right way or best way to raise a child.

[Anonymous]

I think it's even enough that the devil is in the details.

A loving, energetic nanny plus parents who enjoy their jobs and having that additional dimension to their lives, and who can arrive home excited to see their baby is going to be better for the child than a SAHP who feels drained by spending so many hours a day doing childcare and feels one dimensional and stifled.

A SAHP who enjoys the rhythms of being home and gets a lot of fulfillment from it, and who has found a lifestyle that fits his or her strengths and weaknesses is going to be better for the child than a nanny who phones it in.

Now, presumably you'll be doing the best you can to get a good nanny. So honestly, the biggest X factor is your personality. At the end of the day, a life that fits you better, when you have two good options like this, is going to be better for your baby. So even if your focus is on what's best for baby - it does come back to what's best for you.

[Anonymous]

The research is:

If you have enough money for the things you need without working, then children are better off with a SAHM.

If you don't have enough for those things, and being a SAHM means that you are constantly stressed about money, then kids are better off with mom working.

"Enough money" is completely subjective. It isn't about whether or not the kids have the things you want them to have. It's about whether or not they feel the stress of parents worrying about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a SAHM. I will say it was deeply satisfying for ME. But my kids are tweens now and there is no difference between them and those whose mothers who worked. The kids who had SAHM are no more confident or secure or happy. In fact, kids who had working moms are Probably more independent!

I think the idea that kids suffer if their mothers work is utter hogwash. I hated leaving my baby and that’s the only reason I stayed home. (Very personal choice!)

But you can't really.compare.your kid to another kid who you dont know that well. Lots of people have anxiety and depression and nobody knows. I have anxiety and every tells me I am always so calm. You have no idea.

Also, the other kids catch up with independence. Life is not a race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The research is:

If you have enough money for the things you need without working, then children are better off with a SAHM.

If you don't have enough for those things, and being a SAHM means that you are constantly stressed about money, then kids are better off with mom working.

"Enough money" is completely subjective. It isn't about whether or not the kids have the things you want them to have. It's about whether or not they feel the stress of parents worrying about money.

Or, if you have a mom like mine, regardless of money, its best for the kids to WOH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's even enough that the devil is in the details.

A loving, energetic nanny plus parents who enjoy their jobs and having that additional dimension to their lives, and who can arrive home excited to see their baby is going to be better for the child than a SAHP who feels drained by spending so many hours a day doing childcare and feels one dimensional and stifled.

A SAHP who enjoys the rhythms of being home and gets a lot of fulfillment from it, and who has found a lifestyle that fits his or her strengths and weaknesses is going to be better for the child than a nanny who phones it in.

Now, presumably you'll be doing the best you can to get a good nanny. So honestly, the biggest X factor is your personality. At the end of the day, a life that fits you better, when you have two good options like this, is going to be better for your baby. So even if your focus is on what's best for baby - it does come back to what's best for you.

This! That's all that needs to be said.

[Anonymous]

Most women wouldn't think twice about leaving an infant with a trusted grandparent who was loving and energetic, but the never-ending mom guilt makes us second-guess a qualified professional caregiver.

As long as the person is nurturing and caring, talks to them frequently (in whatever language) and gives them plenty of stimulation through the day, it doesn't matter much who takes care of your baby. Unless you're working 12-hour days, they'll still have plenty of time to bond with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, it doesn’t matter at all who takes care of a baby, as long as they are fed and their diapers are changed.

So parents can just do as they choose, because pretty much anyone can take care of your baby and it will make no difference at all in the long run.

No, people are saying the opposite of that. A child needs a loving, attentive caregiver. That caregiver doesn’t need to be the mother. Generations of kids all over the world have grown up being cared for by fathers, grandmothers, and “aunties” who may or may not be related to the child. The idea that a child must be cared for exclusively by a SAHM is a modern, mostly Western, invention that has no basis in how most people in the world live and how people have lived for thousands of years.

+1. Infants need a secure attachment with a loving caregiver, but it really does not matter if that's a parent, family member, or paid person. However, it is HARD to leave your baby and especially so in this country when women go back after a few months or even less. Mothers' brains are wired not to leave their babies, but babies brains are wired to form a connection to anyone who provides care. That is sensible from an evolutionary perspective. On the other hand, bigger kids really benefit from high quality attention from parents, so I feel like if you're going to pick some years to scale back, being home when your kid gets off the bus is the way to do it.

+1. I actually think it is a disservice to have a child never cared for by anyone else, even if it is just going away for the weekend or summer camp when they are a bit older.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what your alternative is. If the alternative is daycare for 40-50 hours per week, I would say SAHM with a loving, happy, engaged mom is 100% better.

My alternative was: DH and I flex our work schedules so that we only need 25-30 hours of childcare a week (like 11-4 or 11-5, much of which is naptime), we hire a pretty good nanny, and my Mom visits us frequently to help “after hours” during busy work times. I was happy with this arrangement and it was vastly preferable to giving up my career. Nanny folded laundry during naptimes so our weekends were clear.