Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[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.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.

I just want to reach out to you and say thank you for being honest.

I feel like moms gloss over the hardships faced on all sides of this argument, because they feel if they admit there are hardships, the other "side" will pounce and say, see, your decision was wrong. You are a bad parent.

Truth is, there are no sides, there is only a whole lot of parents doing the best they can with the hand they are dealt. And we should work together to help each other and support all our kids.

Kumbaya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.

YOU took a beating. I didn’t. My identity was and is strong. I made time for my interests and met other really incredible moms who were equally as interesting and got to spend so many lovely days with them. We had the luxury of long afternoon conversations about things other than our babies or office life. It was obvious that the one or two moms I got snark from were just struggling with their own choices. Not that they wanted to be me, but one’s DH was super rigid about having a “power wife” or whatever who would also do all the heavy lifting at home. Like she was trying to live up to his ideal. Wonder how he’d behave if she got laid off or very ill. Another struggled mightily with anxiety to the point where she had a rigid meal plan for her toddler’s meals and looked down on anyone who wasn’t orthorexic and rigid with sleep training. Not my monkey, not my circus. It was a great 5 years.

If you are so secure, why did you need to post so defensively. She was clearly only relaying her own experience.

Maybe their snark was a response to your obviously judging them and being smug.

[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.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.

Sorry this happened to you but I had the opposite experience. Being a mom and prioritizing that has been the most natural, authentic choice I’ve ever made.

Anecdotes for the win.

My .02 is that this all has a LOT to do with money but people don’t talk about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

How did you know these unengaged women were nannies? Because they were Brown?

For the record, our wonderful nanny is 65 and white. Everyone things she’s my child’s grandmother.

My experience in story time and music class with my kids is that it’s the mothers who are talking to each other constantly, ignoring their kids, or on their phones.

Lol, yes of course w can spot the nannies. The 55 year old Eritrean lady taking care of little Olivia and baby Theo is a nanny. That’s not racist, it’s common sense.

It’s weird that you are so proud if your white nanny.

Yes, lots of moms talk to each other and look at their phones during story time. Some don’t. That’s beside the point. The question is whether every nanny is an amazing caregiver and the answer is that no, of course not. Some are and some are not. But by the way the WOH moms on this thread are talking, all nannies are amazing. But it’s more like a small percent. And that’s one reason some women, who really want their kid to get that highly engaged and living caregiver, might choose to SAHM instead of rolling the dice.

This kind of response makes me laugh, as though all moms are amazing. Most aren't, working or not.

Seriously, if you stay home, good for you, but please get over yourselves.

DP, I’ve met many nannies at the library and park, and I totally see what OP is saying. I have no idea if DCUM is the anomaly, but most nannies spend their time on the phone. A lot of parents do, too. Your nanny is on her best behavior when you are watching, and I think a lot of those posts are wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that everyone talks about the importance of SAHM during the baby years but, really, when you think about it, it makes sense that it would be more impactful on the elementary-teen years. That's when they're turning into real people who make choices that will impact the rest of their lives.

Of course, there's the issue of what to do during the day while they are at school but if you are lucky and thoughtful about how you set up your career, you'll have an option to work part time or just during school hours.

People say this mostly because of studies done in Russian orphanages after WWII as well as studies on adopted children and the age of adoption. (Kids do better the younger they are adopted). When taken to the extreme, we know for sure that the kind of care people get as infants matters for the rest of their lives. Kids who grew up on overcrowded orphanages did not turn in to Annie. Many of them died young even though their physical needs were met, and those that survived grew up unable to really love or feel empathy for other people.

The question is, how much does that matter when you don’t take it to the extreme? If it’s just one infant and one caregiver, but the caregiver isn’t interacting with the baby, does that matter? What if you fire her because she isn’t interacting with the baby, then six months later you move and get a new nanny, and you end up going through a string of nannies. Does that matter? Or what if you send your child to a daycare center with a high turnover rate for caregivers and a lot of switching between rooms to keep ratios. Does that matter?

Or, what if you have the ideal situation with a lovely nanny who stays with you for years, forms a strong attachment to to child, and is the first person they go to with their little worries and hurts and “come look at me’s,” and then the child starts school, and this person disappears from his life. How much does that matter? Is it like a parent dying? Is it more like moving from kindergarten to first grade and not seeing your teacher again? If you see them once a month for dinner, does that make it easier or harder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that everyone talks about the importance of SAHM during the baby years but, really, when you think about it, it makes sense that it would be more impactful on the elementary-teen years. That's when they're turning into real people who make choices that will impact the rest of their lives.

Of course, there's the issue of what to do during the day while they are at school but if you are lucky and thoughtful about how you set up your career, you'll have an option to work part time or just during school hours.

I think my issue with this is that while teens need a ton of support, I don’t find it that challenging to provide it while working. Maybe if I had some 60-80hr a week job it would fell hard. But teens basically have their own workday with school, activities, and homework. Supporting a teen is more like supporting a spouse — you dedicate time to them, eat meals with them, keep open lines of communication, listen and respect, etc. But I don’t need to quit my job to be available 24/7 because they don’t need me 24/7.

And if you are working PT or during school hours, you’re a working mom. Work is work. You just have a more flexible, less demanding job. But you aren’t a SAHM.

Babies/toddlers are totally different. They really do need 24/7 care. So of course most people who just SAHM for a few years do it then. It really is when they need you *most*.

I take your point but I come from the kind of background that equates working part time as being “out of the game” and basically a SAHM. I consult and earn a decent amount for part time (80k) but I mostly consider myself a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

This is so true. I guarantee you that most of the moms on here raving about their "amazing nannies" have no idea what goes on during the day.

No, I know what goes on during the day with our amazing nanny. I’ve always worked from home and have watched her with our kids. I see the fun they have and know that my oldest is far, far ahead of his milestones and has an amazing vocabulary. Even WOH parents hear from other parents and neighbors about their nannies.

You can guarantee nothing, PP.

Not PP, but you really can’t speak to the point because you are working at home do you actually see your nanny. Sounds like you have a great one. But the point is that there are LOTS of unengaged, bare minimum nannies around, and if you spend any time around playgrounds, libraries, or other places babies/toddlers tend to be, you’ve seen them. Those nannies have to work for someone. Maybe they are more engaged or attentive at home or when the parents can see. But there is no question that many parents are paying nannies who are pretty middling at their jobs— kids are safe and fed, but are definitely not getting what I would consider an appropriate level of adult interaction and just plain old kindness. Your nanny might be great, but not all nannies are great. I’d roughly estimate it at 10-20% are fantastic, and the rest are a mixed bag.

Agree. There are absolutely good nannies but they are the minority. Everyone I know who uses nannies has at least one horror story as well. Babies left on cribs for hours unstimulated or propped in front of the TV. Anyone who uses a nanny should also use video cameras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that everyone talks about the importance of SAHM during the baby years but, really, when you think about it, it makes sense that it would be more impactful on the elementary-teen years. That's when they're turning into real people who make choices that will impact the rest of their lives.

Of course, there's the issue of what to do during the day while they are at school but if you are lucky and thoughtful about how you set up your career, you'll have an option to work part time or just during school hours.

I think my issue with this is that while teens need a ton of support, I don’t find it that challenging to provide it while working. Maybe if I had some 60-80hr a week job it would fell hard. But teens basically have their own workday with school, activities, and homework. Supporting a teen is more like supporting a spouse — you dedicate time to them, eat meals with them, keep open lines of communication, listen and respect, etc. But I don’t need to quit my job to be available 24/7 because they don’t need me 24/7.

And if you are working PT or during school hours, you’re a working mom. Work is work. You just have a more flexible, less demanding job. But you aren’t a SAHM.

Babies/toddlers are totally different. They really do need 24/7 care. So of course most people who just SAHM for a few years do it then. It really is when they need you *most*.

I take your point but I come from the kind of background that equates working part time as being “out of the game” and basically a SAHM. I consult and earn a decent amount for part time (80k) but I mostly consider myself a SAHM.

Then you are in a tiny privileged minority. If you can make 80k a year working part-time while feeling mostly like a SAHM, congrats. You won the lottery. You should not post in this thread because your situation is so elite and special that it is irrelevant to most people's experience. You are making enough money on PT income to pay a FT nanny or housekeeper so that you could spend the time you are not working going to the gym or getting your hair done or something. But instead you choose to be an involved parent. Good for you but that is NOT the choice being discussed here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has ever made me feel more confident in my decision to say home with my child for the first few years than the absolute viciousness of moms on this website towards SAHMs. A lot of angry, resentful, insecure people on here attacking anyone who actually wanted to or enjoyed staying home with their kids for any length of time. If going straight back to work after leave and sending your child to daycare or leaving them with a nanny were so great, why would people be so mean about people who did something different?

There are downsides to being a SAHM, I've experienced them. But I've never regretted that choice, either for me or my kid. I think we both got value out of it. But there are so many posters on here who are angrily trying to prove that it's a "bad" choice and you have to ask yourself why.

You are full of BS.

First of all, if you look across these stupid mommy war threads, it is really a small minority of people who say super mean things about SAHMs. On this thread, most are not saying anything negative about staying at home, rather they are saying that things will be fine either way.
The viciousness, if there is some, comes from the SAHMs who have the audacity to insinuate that if you work instead of staying home with your infant, that your infant will somehow be less than they could have been. That the working mom is a worse parent. That is a horrible thing to say!!! And based on nothing more than their own inclinations, not science. It's all over this thread and others, over and over. Sometimes blatant, sometimes implied, but it's there.

If working moms lash out on this site to SAHMs, it comes from defensiveness. I actually do not agree with many of the things some WOH moms say to lash back at SAHMs in a demeaning way, but I totally get the defensiveness. What mom wouldn't lash back at someone saying that their kid is going to be HARMED by their mom working? What parent wouldn't lash back at someone saying, you are a bad parent because you work. That your infant won't bond with you in the same way if you work. The audacity of that. And that is exactly what SAHMs like you are saying. And it's absolute BS AND it's sexist, because go looking for the admonishment of dads for working...you won't find it.

And you say that the defensiveness of other moms when you tell them your life decision is better than theirs and your kids will be better off than theirs...this is what convince you that being a SAHM is the right decision? Do you make other decisions this way? Whatever pisses off other people the most, that's the way you go? Are you serious?

The truth is that many working moms would love to stay home with their kids for one, two, or three years. Why? Because they want to be with their kids. It's about THEM, the mom's feelings, not necessarily because their kids will be harmed without them. But many can't. So maybe they resent you being able to stay home with yours. Perhaps, perhaps not. Many working moms have no qualms. But for those who do, we all have things in life we want and cant' have and we all would feel some resentment if people in our lives who do have those things are smug and braggy about it. But then to add insult to injury, you insinuate they are hurting their child. How dare you? And then you wonder why they get defensive?

I have absolutely no care in the world if you choose to stay at home. Actually, if it is what you want, that is lovely. If a mom wants to be with her baby, that is great, and, frankly, you are fortunately if you have the choice. But does it make you a better parent? No, not automatically. Does it mean your kids will be better than someone else kid on whatever metric you want to throw out there? No, it doesn't.

I think a lot of working moms feel they cannot admit that they wanted to stay home with their kids and couldn't, because the harpy SAHMs will use that as a way to say, see, you should have stayed home, you are a bad parent. Working moms feel like unless they are all in on working, it will be used against them. But many of us have many reasons why we work and make the choices we do and our kids are absolutely fine, successful, loving human beings.

I've been both SAHM and WOHM and if a SAHM talks about how SAHMs are bashed on DCUM, I assume that SAHM is one of the ones posting nasty things about WOHMs. The nastiness goes both ways and anyone who can't be honest about that is part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

How did you know these unengaged women were nannies? Because they were Brown?

For the record, our wonderful nanny is 65 and white. Everyone things she’s my child’s grandmother.

My experience in story time and music class with my kids is that it’s the mothers who are talking to each other constantly, ignoring their kids, or on their phones.

Lol, yes of course w can spot the nannies. The 55 year old Eritrean lady taking care of little Olivia and baby Theo is a nanny. That’s not racist, it’s common sense.

It’s weird that you are so proud if your white nanny.

Yes, lots of moms talk to each other and look at their phones during story time. Some don’t. That’s beside the point. The question is whether every nanny is an amazing caregiver and the answer is that no, of course not. Some are and some are not. But by the way the WOH moms on this thread are talking, all nannies are amazing. But it’s more like a small percent. And that’s one reason some women, who really want their kid to get that highly engaged and living caregiver, might choose to SAHM instead of rolling the dice.

This kind of response makes me laugh, as though all moms are amazing. Most aren't, working or not.

Seriously, if you stay home, good for you, but please get over yourselves.

DP, I’ve met many nannies at the library and park, and I totally see what OP is saying. I have no idea if DCUM is the anomaly, but most nannies spend their time on the phone. A lot of parents do, too. Your nanny is on her best behavior when you are watching, and I think a lot of those posts are wishful thinking.

DP. I have been both WOH and SAH. I've been to many parks and libraries where the moms are glued to their phones. Or Saturday morning - have you ever seen dad's mornings at the park? Come on.

[Anonymous]

If we are just talking benefit to the child in terms of development (social, emotional, motor skills, brain functioning), I think you have to weigh multiple factors.

A really engaged, loving SAHP (mother or father) who is willing to put in the legwork to make sure the child is getting what they need is, in my mind ideal. But it's not ideal if the SAHP is frazzled and miserable. It's not ideal if they are bored and irritable. It's not ideal if they are flipping on the TV all day, or unwilling to take the baby to the park or the library, or don't talk to the baby throughout the day, or not particularly patient or gentle.

So if you don't have a parent who both has the will to do it right, or cannot afford for one parent to stay home to do this, I think the next best thing is a really good nanny. One who is going to do all the things you would want a SAHP to do. Which you might find! But you also might not.

A fairly engaged parent who sometimes gets bored or watches TV sometimes is still better than a semi-engaged nanny who does the same, in my opinion. But a really good daycare with great teachers could be better than either one.

A terrible daycare is the worst of all possible worlds.

So you have to figure out what your options are and make the best choice you can. I wound up SAH because I knew I could be a very engaged parent. And I was, about 90% of the time. Sometimes I slacked off, but I knew when I did it and the benefits of the rest of the time outweighed whatever negatives might have stemmed from the days I was burned out and just threw on a movie and took the morning off. I don't know how I would have felt about paying a nanny to put in that 90%. Probably fine? I enjoyed SAH so that helped.

I do know that the daycares I looked at were kind of sketchy and it stressed me out to think about leaving my baby there. An older kid I might have felt better about, but not a 3 month old. There are better daycares out there, but I couldn't get an infant spot in them (I tried!).

So it's a dance you do. The moms posting in here about how the ideal is to keep your job and higher the perfect nanny... well, yes, that could be ideal (unless you really want to stay home with your child, which many of us do). But it's also out of reach for a lot of people. So you have to evaluate YOUR options, not all the available options in the world, many of which won't present themselves to you.

Of all my available options (mediocre daycare, okay nanny, or pretty good but by no means perfect SAHM), I know I chose the best one. That doesn't mean it would be best for you or for someone else. You might have a more extensive menu to choose from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that everyone talks about the importance of SAHM during the baby years but, really, when you think about it, it makes sense that it would be more impactful on the elementary-teen years. That's when they're turning into real people who make choices that will impact the rest of their lives.

Of course, there's the issue of what to do during the day while they are at school but if you are lucky and thoughtful about how you set up your career, you'll have an option to work part time or just during school hours.

I think my issue with this is that while teens need a ton of support, I don’t find it that challenging to provide it while working. Maybe if I had some 60-80hr a week job it would fell hard. But teens basically have their own workday with school, activities, and homework. Supporting a teen is more like supporting a spouse — you dedicate time to them, eat meals with them, keep open lines of communication, listen and respect, etc. But I don’t need to quit my job to be available 24/7 because they don’t need me 24/7.

And if you are working PT or during school hours, you’re a working mom. Work is work. You just have a more flexible, less demanding job. But you aren’t a SAHM.

Babies/toddlers are totally different. They really do need 24/7 care. So of course most people who just SAHM for a few years do it then. It really is when they need you *most*.

I take your point but I come from the kind of background that equates working part time as being “out of the game” and basically a SAHM. I consult and earn a decent amount for part time (80k) but I mostly consider myself a SAHM.

Then you are in a tiny privileged minority. If you can make 80k a year working part-time while feeling mostly like a SAHM, congrats. You won the lottery. You should not post in this thread because your situation is so elite and special that it is irrelevant to most people's experience. You are making enough money on PT income to pay a FT nanny or housekeeper so that you could spend the time you are not working going to the gym or getting your hair done or something. But instead you choose to be an involved parent. Good for you but that is NOT the choice being discussed here.

It almost certainly is. Are you new here?
I am not from DC, but I like this message board because there is an assumption of a fairly high household income, and I find it more relatable to talk about work/life balance and raising children here than with most of my blue collar friends and neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way to truly know what difference a SAHM will make in YOUR infant's life. I am a SAHM who was raised by a SAHM (for most of my childhood). I loved and appreciated that my mom was home with us, and I feel very fortunate that I am able to SAH especially now. I am content and know this is the right decision for my family. I do not believe or trust that a paid provider can or will give my child better can than I can but I don't feel that is true for every family's situation.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/quote/90/19381049.page
You can’t measure a negative. Your kids might have been better off with an engaged and educated nanny. No one will ever know and it would be unethical to even test it.

This is why is prefaced my statement by saying this is what I do/do not “believe”. Plus, I would not have been able to afford a nanny with my level of education and skill set.

[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!

This is so true. I guarantee you that most of the moms on here raving about their "amazing nannies" have no idea what goes on during the day.

Exactly. And your cameras following the nanny all day don’t much change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny that everyone talks about the importance of SAHM during the baby years but, really, when you think about it, it makes sense that it would be more impactful on the elementary-teen years. That's when they're turning into real people who make choices that will impact the rest of their lives.

Of course, there's the issue of what to do during the day while they are at school but if you are lucky and thoughtful about how you set up your career, you'll have an option to work part time or just during school hours.

I think my issue with this is that while teens need a ton of support, I don’t find it that challenging to provide it while working. Maybe if I had some 60-80hr a week job it would fell hard. But teens basically have their own workday with school, activities, and homework. Supporting a teen is more like supporting a spouse — you dedicate time to them, eat meals with them, keep open lines of communication, listen and respect, etc. But I don’t need to quit my job to be available 24/7 because they don’t need me 24/7.

And if you are working PT or during school hours, you’re a working mom. Work is work. You just have a more flexible, less demanding job. But you aren’t a SAHM.

Babies/toddlers are totally different. They really do need 24/7 care. So of course most people who just SAHM for a few years do it then. It really is when they need you *most*.

I take your point but I come from the kind of background that equates working part time as being “out of the game” and basically a SAHM. I consult and earn a decent amount for part time (80k) but I mostly consider myself a SAHM.

Then you are in a tiny privileged minority. If you can make 80k a year working part-time while feeling mostly like a SAHM, congrats. You won the lottery. You should not post in this thread because your situation is so elite and special that it is irrelevant to most people's experience. You are making enough money on PT income to pay a FT nanny or housekeeper so that you could spend the time you are not working going to the gym or getting your hair done or something. But instead you choose to be an involved parent. Good for you but that is NOT the choice being discussed here.

It almost certainly is. Are you new here?
I am not from DC, but I like this message board because there is an assumption of a fairly high household income, and I find it more relatable to talk about work/life balance and raising children here than with most of my blue collar friends and neighbors.

Ah yes, your many blue collar "friends" and neighbors. I imagine it *is* hard to talk to them about "work/life balance" as a person who makes 80k working part time and considers herself a SAHM. In fact, I imagine it's hard for you to talk to people, period.

Would love a poll of how many DCUM posters relate to your your work/life set up versus mine.