Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[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.

+1

The OP specifically said to leave money out of it, which indicates to me that there is a lot of it.

In this area, most “careers” are going to require 50 hours + a week.

Anything that is not having to burn the candle at both ends is more like a “job” (like a lot of paper pushing fed jobs).

Two 50 + jobs is hard with a baby without a great nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol so now these threads have devolved into attacking SAHMs AND part time WOHMs. Ridiculous.

Why don’t you go to baby center to talk to the other middle managers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lol so now these threads have devolved into attacking SAHMs AND part time WOHMs. Ridiculous.

Why don’t you go to baby center to talk to the other middle managers.

DP, no one is attacking SAHMs and part-time working moms. People are annoyed at one privileged PP who happens to work part time and is a little tone deaf.

Most of the ire here is over the idea that SAHMs think they are better parents to their infants and children. Which is based on...their opinion.

You sound crass and snobby.

[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!

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.

That’s silly. You absolutely know. For one thing, other moms might tell you how great the nanny is with your child. That definitely happened to us a lot with two of our nannies — we heard from music class teachers, other parents, heck the nanny would get offers when out and about. Also, it’s like any other job. Check references, check in, look at benchmarks. I never had any doubt the nannies were doing a fantastic job because of how well the kids were doing.

Re: the PP asking about transitions, I always handled that by phasing out slowly and taking on the primary caregiver role over a period of months prior to full time school starting. At a certain age children are much more interested in peers and naturally phasing out from that very strong connection. That is generally an easy age to transition. Think about it — your school age children are with a teacher all day long and then the year ends and they hardly see her again. Of course it is sad, but the notion that it harms them is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sigh. Yes. It’s putting “work/life balance” in quotes that makes me think you just can’t relate.
I have no idea why you put friends in quotes. You think the people I consider friends aren’t real friends because I work part time or because my job pays well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that you don’t see as what is best for the mother as linked to what is best for the baby. Not that best for mom automatically mean best for baby, but the two are connected.

Op here. I agree with you completely but didn’t want to turn this into a usual sahm v wohm debate with the same tired arguments on savings, career, DH cheating , boredom etc rehashed endlessly

Except that this is exactly what will happen because any evidence that this is beneficial to child will be (and has been) stomped out of the conversation by working parents who feel that this threatens their status as "good parents" for making a different choice. So it's really a non-starter.
Do what you want to do and feel confident in your decision, OP.

Actually, you don't have evidence that this is beneficial to the child as long as they are well taken care of by someone competent who cares for them, but that's ok. You can make your baseless claims anyway.

[Anonymous]

To me the funniest argument / cop out is "I'm a better mom if I work because I feel fulfilled and my kid benefits from my feelings of fulfillment." Or "I want to set an example for my kids that I work."

Yea, right. On both fronts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s best for the baby is a calm and happy mom and dad. Whatever that looks like for your family. If you are bored and lonely sah, it’s not going to be better for your baby than a great daycare or nanny. If you are loving life as a sahp and your spouse is happy too then go for it.

There’s some research that suggests infants in alot of daycare before 6mo may have greater behavioral problems later on. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200505/the-trouble-day-care
But thats an extreme use scenario.

Make sure you thank your childrens' teachers for putting their babies in daycare before 6 six months old so they could continue to teach your children at the apparent detriment to their own. Next time think before you speak. Honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

Luckily that's not how it works...

[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!

Funny, all the SAHMs I[u] saw were staring at their phones or chatting with one another, rather than engaging with their kids during the story time. Same as parks and playgrounds. It wasn't everyone - there were some engaged moms. But most were bored and inattentive.

[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 believe that because you WANT to believe that. But is isn't true.

[Anonymous]

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.

If you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. I couldn't care less what you decide to do, and it sounds like it worked out for you, so that's great. I'm not angry, resentful, or insecure. I just happen to think you're kind of uninteresting and we don't have a lot in common and I don't want to listen to you talk about how hard it is to keep your house clean all day. Your choice isn't a bad one, but some of the things you say are pathetic and responding to them with an eye roll doesn't mean I secretly wish I had your life.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP above with from several pages back who has been both and has teens. I see the nasty SAHMs and WOHMs have their claws out again. Sigh.

Do whatever you want, OP. Like I said above, it's pretty irrelevant compared to a lot of other things. Just don't be like the PPs above, because no matter how amazing a mom you think you are, if you feel the need to lash out and try to hurt people the way these ladies do, you probably aren't doing such an amazing job at parenting as you think.

[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.

The same could be said about SAHMs.

[Anonymous]

My kids are in HS and college now. I worked FT and they went to a daycare center near my office. They turned out great. And their friends (also great) have moms who worked FT, moms who worked PT, moms who stayed home for a few years and then went back to work, moms who went back after maternity leave and then stayed home when their kids were older . . . .