The Research on Various Childcare Options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

Caring for young children alone your house is:
1. Not the totality of what parenting is
2. Not historically how children have been raised

And please be aware that while I'm sure you didn't intend this, you are basically saying daycare children should never have been born. Maybe you should talk to some daycare children and ask if they would prefer to not be alive because they weren't cared for at home by their mothers full time for 2-3 years.

My mother was a depressed SAHM, it was not the optimal environment for me but never would I say she should never have had me. Poor people have children under suboptimal circumstances, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

Because I wanted a kid. But you have to get through the baby stage to get to the stages of parenting that I excel at vs. just muddle through. There are VERY few parents out there who thrive at all the stages of parenting. For me, the hardest part came first.

Also, I was a SAHM with an infant during COVID lockdown! If I had had friends around I would not have felt so down about it.

And finally...sometimes you don't know how you feel about parenthood until you experience it and by then it is too late to reverse your decisions. I don't regret having one child but I made the firm decision to stop at 1, when originally I envisioned 2. Because the negative emotions hit me like a truck in an unexpected way.

[Anonymous]

"Why have children if you don't want to SAH?" is the ultimate in anti-feminism and is also preposterous to anyone who is an actual parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can seriously discuss these studies on DCUM. People are extremely sensitive to their childcare choices, and no one is more sensitive the mothers who wanted to stay home but could not afford it and feel guilty. Don’t! You made the choice you had to make, no sense in ruminating over what will likely be totally fine in the long term.

Common sense will tell you that babies are probably best served staying with their mother who loves them until they reach an age where socializing benefits them. Everything else - daycare, nanny, etc. - are just shuffling around lesser-but-fine alternatives.

We know multiple couples who could have afforded a nanny but instead went with daycare. Those families had two successful parents, no student debt from top schools, and wealthy grandparents. One family in particular probably had a HHI between $350-400k. I don't think they would have chosen daycare unless they thought it was as good of an option as a nanny.

Yeah I have several friends who are pretty successful and have higher incomes than that who sent their kids to daycare from an early age. Way before 3 or 4. Sometimes it's just easier that way because you never have to deal with an unreliable/sick nanny, don't need to worry about a nanny might be doing in your house when you're not there, easier to work from home, etc. It's not just about cost. Plus I've heard from multiple friends that nannies just aren't great at "teaching" anything.

I don't really know if I believe that a mom staying home is "by common sense" the best option. Spreading out the work and having a nanny come for part of the day who can really focus on the kid and then get a break might be better than a mom who is overworked/tired and can't give her all to the kid because she has to do housework, cooking, etc. Personally I was relieved when I got back to work because being the stay at home mom/house manager during maternity leave felt like a lot!

But the downside of daycare is that they can have strict rules about sick kids, and send kids home with the sniffles. And of course, being in group care with a lot of other kids and multiple caregivers als means kids in daycare are more likely to get sick, so this can become a nasty cycle, especially if you have multiple kids in daycare. Add to this strict rules about fevers in an age group where fevers are more common than in the general population.

With nannies, kids generally catch fewer viruses and most nannies will care for sick kids unless they are, themselves, too sick to work. Most nannies are not taking off four days for a cold, but a daycare could easily refuse to allow a kid in class for four days with a cold, especially post-Covid.

Totally, I don’t disagree with any of that. I guess my point was just to say that I have friends who make a lot and still chose daycare despite having “options”. And I’m talking about like…double big law, banking, private equity, doctors. I don’t know anyone keeping their kids home until they’re 3.

This is unique to dc and a few other blue cities. In most of America, no one with a high earning career would ever put their child in daycare.

I live in DC and disagree with the PP. I know a lot of people here who kept their kids home until 3. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two families who put their kid in daycare before age 1, and they were not happy about it. I can't really think of any families who were really enthusiastic about daycare, especially for infants/babies. It's the kind of thing that just feels intuitively off to you (leaving a 3 or 4 month old baby in a daycare facility) and most people will try to avoid it if they can.

I will accept that some people actually choose daycare even when they have other options, but I'm raising kids in DC and don't know anyone for whom that is true.

But I think keeping kids until 3 vs. sending a 3-4 month old to daycare are entirely different concepts and don’t belong in the same conversation. I don’t think anyone is advocating that daycare is “better” for a young baby. But at a certain age, I think daycare it does make sense to send a kid to a group setting, even if it’s for a few hours at a time and/or a few days a week. I don’t think keeping kids entirely home until 3 is normal. I have friends who don’t work and don’t even do that. Personally I kept my kid home until about 1.5 (probably could’ve kept him until 2 if we really wanted to). Between 2-3, I couldn’t imagine keeping him at home everyday. That would’ve been a disservice to him.

That’s the issue with this thread, people can be pro daycare beyond a certain age but others are like OMG you’re sending your 3 month old to daycare by choice??

You didn't read the article the thread is about then.

The data is different based on age. The data on daycare for a child who is 0-12 months old is not good. It is very hard to argue that daycare is "good" for a 3 month old, if there is any other option available.

PPs are arguing that there are lot of families with options, who can afford nannies or SAHPs or other solutions, but who choose daycares starting at 3/4 months old. This does not track with my experience at all.

Also, keeping a kid "home" until 3 does not mean keeping a child "alone" until 3. If the child is with a nanny or SAHP, what this usually means is that they have one primary caregiver who is in their home, bu they may spend significant portions of their day in large groups of kids. That's a huge part of what nannies and SAHPs do -- take kids to playgrounds, music classes, playgroups, etc. But wanting social experiences for your toddler is not the same as thinking a group care situation is ideal.

Also, haha, my 2/3 year old did in fact spend close to a year at home with us every day with few socialization opportunities because of Covid, which closed the playgroup she'd been attending and postponed her starting preschool on time. And yes, it was not ideal! Parents are forced into not-ideal situations all the time due to forces beyond their control, but it's okay to acknowledge that. Saying that I don't think daycare is the best environment for a 3 month old is not the same as saying I think parents who put 3 mo old kids in daycare are bad parents. Anymore than I'm a bad parent because my 2/3 yo kid spent 6 months mostly alone with us in our house due to Covid. We all do the best we can with the opportunities afforded to us, and sometimes our opportunities suck.

I don't think going to a playground full of random kids and a music class once a week provides all the benefits a daily, structured program with the same set of kids and teachers does. But I'm sure I'm just not seeing all the great benefits that 1 on 1 time with your nanny is conferring either. Even when my kid was 18 months I already felt like he was getting bored with our nanny.

I mean, you can talk about any childcare option this way and make it sounds horrible:

I don't think being crammed into a room with a bunch of other kids and minimal 1:1 attention from caregivers and limited outdoor time, provides all the benefits of a nurturing, responsive relationship with a SAHP, grandparent, or nanny. See what I did there?

Also, huge difference between an 18mo at home with a nanny and a 4mo at home with a nanny. Why is this thread only exclusively about what is right for toddlers? It started as a discussion of different childcare options at all ages. Most people have more and better childcare options for toddlers than they do for infants because the required ratios for that age group are more affordable. There are also more part-time options available so you could have a nanny and also send your kid to half day preschool a few days a week and get the best of both worlds. Older kids can thrive in all kinds of environments -- they could do great with a SAHP/grandparent/nanny as long as that caretaker is getting them plenty of social opportunities (and no, this would not be limited to one playground visit with random kids and a single music class, I don't know why you would assume it would be -- lots of ways to build structured social time into day with a toddler that involves seeing the same kids and building relationships over time, nannies and SAHPs do this all the time). But they could also do great its a group setting. I don't understand why we're arguing about this, I don't get the sense there's much debate here.

The bigger debate is whether group care setting adequately meet the developmental needs of infants and young babies and I think the study shows that there's situations where it doesn't. It doesn't mean you're a bad parent for choosing daycare -- not all daycares are equal and not all families have options. But as a parent it concerns me that group care settings are shown to have negative impacts on infants, and yet we live in a society where (1) parental leave is very limited compared to other similarly developed nations, (2) parents are penalized professionally and socially for taking time off from work to care for very young children, and (3) the costs of infant care are high and rising every day, further limiting the options of the average family.

Like I don't care that your 18 mo old got bored with your nanny and you decided to put him in preschool -- sounds like a good solution for a family with lots of choices. Doesn't seem like something we need to argue over.

Lol I don't even know what this thread has devolved into. I agree that a 4 month old in daycare is way different than 18 month old. I was going beyond that to say that I personally think a 3 year old in daycare is great. But there seem to be people on these forums (maybe the same one for all I know) who think that even a 3 year old should stay home, or at least only go for 3 hours a day or 3 days or week or something, and are eager to shame parents who have chosen to send this child to daycare. A 3 year old - for goodness sake!

I will admit that I haven't read every post in the thread but I haven't seen a bunch of people arguing that it's wrong to put a 3 year old in group care. It's really common to start preschool at 3 and many people start at 2 -- this just seems like a non-issue. If someone is shaming you for putting a 3 year old in a group care environment, they are a far outlier and you can just not listen to them! They probably think you should homeschool and avoid vaccinations too.

I feel passionately about this issue because I had really poor choices for childcare when my DD was born and wound up quitting a job I didn't want to quit to stay home with her because we couldn't afford a nanny and the group care centers I looked at (both daycares and in-home centers) that we could afford were pretty bad and it was very hard to contemplate leaving an infant in them. So I think it's important to talk about the risks of group care for babies because what would be great is if we could find a way to create affordable options for families that don't carry those risks (whether that's more parental leave, better oversight of group care facilities and subsidies to make them financially viable without compromising infant care, or some combination of the above).

I think pretending that the average daycare is great for infants, and equal in quality to a SAHP or nanny or nanny share, is borderline irresponsible.

Irresponsible to whom? We picked center based care at 6M because it was in the same building as my office and I could breastfeed twice a day. That doesn’t mean leaving my daughter with a nanny would have been “irresponsible” because she wouldn’t have been breastfed. Responsible parenting is leaving your children in safe care. Period. Pretending it’s more than that is just desperately seeking validation for your choices at the expense of others.

It sounds like you made the best decision for you which is all that matters.

I can't deny though that having an infant in daycare can be rough. I sent mine to daycare around the same age but COVID started shortly after so I was able to keep him home. I felt terrible the whole time he was there because he took super short naps, got sick a lot and overall didn't seem too happy.

We had my baby in 2020 and the daycare I set up 8 months prior shut down a month before I went back to work. It ended up being the best thing for our family. We sold a car to afford a nanny, cancelled two vacations, but having her home and re-budgeting our lives around it was a good forced outcome.

PP here - we didn't get a nanny for a long time, just somehow took care of the baby while working for months. It was great though. I was able to breastfeed for way long than I intended and I loved that we could keep the baby at home with us. Plus we saved a bunch of money.

This is the best way. Lots of crummmy nannies out there too. I see them all the time at the park sitting and playing on their phones.

I would pick a lazy phone-scrolling nanny 100x over having to work from home with my baby around. Good lord do y'all drug your babies with Benadryl or something? It is not possible to attend to a baby or young child's needs consistently while working. Period. And I have a flexible job and had the world's easiest baby

Well I think the point was more that everyone is bashing daycare and praising nannies but not all nannies are made equal. Not comparing having a nanny help out to no childcare help at all.

From above:

PP here - we didn't get a nanny for a long time, just somehow took care of the baby while working for months. It was great though. I was able to breastfeed for way long than I intended and I loved that we could keep the baby at home with us. Plus we saved a bunch of money.

I'm the PP who wrote the thing about not getting a nanny. That only happened because of COVID and people at work were understanding. I don't think it's normal for anyone to try to work and take care of a baby full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Why have children if you don't want to SAH?" is the ultimate in anti-feminism and is also preposterous to anyone who is an actual parent.

Yep. I had kids but I also wanted a career. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I did well in school and have a good, high paying job. I took off the 6 months I was allowed and then got a nanny so I could go back to my career. I will send my baby to daycare at some point when she is a little older. Also my nanny takes care of my baby 35 hours a week. Outside of that time (and on weekends, vacation, etc.) I take care of her. She loves our nanny (and me and DH) and she's a very happy baby.

What's the issue here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

I think your views are very extreme. "Spending time with your baby during their most vulnerable and significant years" can be done without spending ALL your time with them. Parents with jobs still spend time with their kids, you know. And what do you mean parents aren't "willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice"? We are sacrificing our free time, sleep, vacations, social events, etc. for our babies. Are you saying we should give up our careers too which for a lot of people forms part of their identity and that allows them to make money to support their family and give their kids more opportunities for the rest of their lives? I don't think paying someone else to look after your kids while you work means you aren't willing to make any sacrifice for your kids. You are asking for a huge sacrifice if you think all parents should just stop working and make no money for a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

I think your views are very extreme. "Spending time with your baby during their most vulnerable and significant years" can be done without spending ALL your time with them. Parents with jobs still spend time with their kids, you know. And what do you mean parents aren't "willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice"? We are sacrificing our free time, sleep, vacations, social events, etc. for our babies. Are you saying we should give up our careers too which for a lot of people forms part of their identity and that allows them to make money to support their family and give their kids more opportunities for the rest of their lives? I don't think paying someone else to look after your kids while you work means you aren't willing to make any sacrifice for your kids. You are asking for a huge sacrifice if you think all parents should just stop working and make no money for a few years.

Its more than that: they're asking mothers to make that sacrifice. They want mothers to give up their careers or take lower-paying ones, making them financially dependent on their male partners. You know, the very situation that put a lot of women in really damaging situations that they couldn't easily escape without really drastic consequences for themselves, their children, their futures...

Sure. Let's return back to two generations ago, that worked out so well for women.

[Anonymous]

Why have kids? There are so many orphan children being abused in fosters and abandoned by drug addicts, others addictions, immature parents

Adopt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why have kids? There are so many orphan children being abused in fosters and abandoned by drug addicts, others addictions, immature parents

Adopt

I'm not sure what your goal is. If you think women who don't want to SAH should not have kids then why are you suggesting they adopt the most vulnerable children?

Ps anyone who says "just adopt" is immediately outing themselves as extremely ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why have kids? There are so many orphan children being abused in fosters and abandoned by drug addicts, others addictions, immature parents

Adopt

I'm not sure what your goal is. If you think women who don't want to SAH should not have kids then why are you suggesting they adopt the most vulnerable children?

Ps anyone who says "just adopt" is immediately outing themselves as extremely ignorant.

+1. I would have loved to adopt but I was self-aware enough to acknowledge that I do not have the capability to handle it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Why have children if you don't want to SAH?" is the ultimate in anti-feminism and is also preposterous to anyone who is an actual parent.

Thank you, I am trying to respond to this coherently and struggling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

Caring for young children alone your house is:
1. Not the totality of what parenting is
2. Not historically how children have been raised

And please be aware that while I'm sure you didn't intend this, you are basically saying daycare children should never have been born. Maybe you should talk to some daycare children and ask if they would prefer to not be alive because they weren't cared for at home by their mothers full time for 2-3 years.

My mother was a depressed SAHM, it was not the optimal environment for me but never would I say she should never have had me. Poor people have children under suboptimal circumstances, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have children.

This. SAH parenting in modern times can be extremely socially isolating. If you don't have a moms group or mom friends, and it's just you and your baby all day, alone, that is not healthy socially for mom. It is not historically how children were raised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elephant in the room that no one has mentioned - is the higher prevalence of daycare over time partially responsibility for increasing misbehavior in schools?

The “my rich friends chose daycare so it must be an great option” argument does not hold water with me. Some parents do what is best for themselves, not their kids. They may prioritize getting more hours of childcare (daycares are often open 10 hours, nannies rarely stay that long), they may not like the hassle of managing an employee and giving them access to their home, they may not like lowering HHI and cutting their budget so one spouse can quit. And they tell themselves through sickness after sickness after sickness that their child “loves” their daycare teachers and friends and that the child will “gain immunity” before starting Kindergarten.

Most daycare parents stagger their schedules to reduce the amount of time the child is in care.

As far as parents doing what is best for themselves,.yeah that is absolutely true. And sometimes, what is best for the parents is also good for the family as a whole. The research all shows having a depressed mother is as bad if not worse for children than daycare. I had a depressed mother who was a SAHM and that was a huge factor in me choosing daycare.

I don't know that this is true. We use the full 9 hours. You can't stagger your schedule if both parents (unfortunately) work a traditional 9-5 where office presence daily is required.

But I should add, I agree with the rest of PP's reply. I was a SAHM (by circumstances, not by choice) for a year and trust me it was much better and more enriching for my child to be in daycare. I was not happy with the arrangement and it showed.

But like why? Why do people have kids that they aren't happy to spend time with during their most vulnerable and significant years? Everyone keeps saying "If mom's not happy, it is bad for the kid' which seems to me like an excuse to not do what needs to be done. It is so sad that in so many cases neither parent is willing to make any kind of pause or sacrifice for this human being that they chose to create, that didn't ask to be here. It is months of your lives, but the foundation of theirs. And then to get upset about nannies not doing their job well enough when you, the parent, didn't even want to do it. It is insane. You're not required to have them you know.

Firstly most women are willing to make “a pause” for 6-12 months in their career, public policy presently doesn’t give them that opportunity. Write your congressperson if this bothers you and get off DCUM.

Secondly, the idea that women sit alone in their house with their babies is a weird right wing fetish. You know France subsidizes public crèche from eight weeks, and that middle and upper middle class women compete for those places even though they’re guaranteed maternity leave? It’s considered beneficial for mothers to have time in the day during their recovery *without* their babies believe it or not.

[Anonymous]

I wish this issue wasn't so polarizing. I don't think the PP was saying "why have a baby if you don't want to SAH?" Or at least that's not how I read it.

Rather, I think sometimes it IS sad how disinterested parents (not just moms, but parents) are in spending more 1:1 time with their babies. I think it's sad because we've structured that phase of parenthood to be miserable and feel "wrong" so that people get anxious to "return to normal". But I do actually think there is something profound about caring for an infant and learning to adopt a different pace of life with a very different set of goals and parameters.

I'm a pretty career oriented person who wound up taking an extended maternity leave somewhat by accident. I was happy to return to work. But I loved my time with my baby. It's not just that I loved my baby (though I did and do) but it was such a refreshing change of pace. During that time, life got stripped down to essentials. Goals were things like "feeding myself and the baby" or "resting" or "spending some time outside." I took walks. I read books. I went to museums and went out for coffee. My schedule was dictated by naps and feedings. I know some people find this confining. For me it was like spending 8 months at some kind of mindfulness retreat where I had to learn how slow down, calm down, appreciate the present moment for what it was. As someone who is generally super goal oriented and has worked in very high stress environments, I found it cathartic and meaningful. It changed me in a profound way. What I learned is that it's okay to just be. I still carry these lessons with me, even though I'm not a SAHM.

I'm sorry to be the weirdo Pollyanna who is like "but staying home with my baby taught me to live in the now" but... it actually did. I think it would be nice if more parents (men and women) got the chance to experience that. I think we often portray life at home with a baby as lonely, miserable, and unfulfilling. I don't think it has to be that. Perhaps I was primed to view it differently because I wound up unexpectedly unemployed during that time, instead of just on a break from my job. But it wound up being a magical time for me that I would never in a million years give back. And not just because it was time with my baby. Because it was time with me. Now that I'm back at work and my child can talk and interact with me, getting to just spend time with myself is rare. I'm glad I got a bunch of it back then.