Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It made a big difference to my children, but everyone is different.

How could you possibly know this if they only experienced one side of it? How could you know what would’ve happened if you had done something different?

[Anonymous]

As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, multiple peer reviewed studies showing this have been quoted and linked to in this thread.
But that’s ok. Continue with the stomping.

It is hard to control for quality of care. You can't intentionally vary that with human subjects -- it would be unethical.

There is some evidence that putting a young child (0-3) in group care all day can raise their stress. That isn't as true for PT care. And it doesn't seem to be born out by individual care. Again, though, we can't realistically compare children who had competent, high quality care from a professional vs. so-so care from a mom... and that's one of the key comparisons here, it seems.

Oh look, you had to walk back on your previous claim. Funny how now all you're saying is that kids in group care settings have raised stress levels. That isn't what you were saying before. But keep "stomping" around with your baseless claims. They really make you look smart!

I’m actually a DP, didn’t post before. You do realize this is an anonymous board with a lot of people on it, right? I actually didn’t have my child in a group setting until they were preschool age. But anyway, research studies on this topic are riddled with caveats and the results are notoriously hard to interpret. As I said there are some studies that show that, and there are also some that show no difference. It’s going to depend on a lot of soft factors that can’t be systematically varied for ethical reasons. You don’t need a study to tell you that, though... common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Yes, it has, but there will always be a cadre of SAHMs who will swear to the high heavens that it is better for babies/kids to have mom at home all the time.

And some cadre of WOHMs will say it's better if kids see mom working or whatever.

Based on what research is available, it probably doesn't matter whether mom works or not as long as the kid has a stable, loving home where the parent(s) are engaged. And we all know that money helps, too.

Beyond that it's really personal preference.

But we live in a society that damns moms if they do or damns them if they don't and so they fly their anecdotes up the flag pole and rip on other moms to make themselves feel better, instead of rallying together to try and improve things for all moms and families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Yes, it has, but there will always be a cadre of SAHMs who will swear to the high heavens that it is better for babies/kids to have mom at home all the time.

And some cadre of WOHMs will say it's better if kids see mom working or whatever.

Based on what research is available, it probably doesn't matter whether mom works or not as long as the kid has a stable, loving home where the parent(s) are engaged. And we all know that money helps, too.

Beyond that it's really personal preference.

But we live in a society that damns moms if they do or damns them if they don't and so they fly their anecdotes up the flag pole and rip on other moms to make themselves feel better, instead of rallying together to try and improve things for all moms and families.

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Not really.

Many longitudinal studies have shown that having a working mom improves outcomes for children up to a certain income level. I don’t recall exactly but it’s something around 70K. Families above that threshold experience slightly better outcomes from having a SAHP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Yes, it has, but there will always be a cadre of SAHMs who will swear to the high heavens that it is better for babies/kids to have mom at home all the time.

And some cadre of WOHMs will say it's better if kids see mom working or whatever.

Based on what research is available, it probably doesn't matter whether mom works or not as long as the kid has a stable, loving home where the parent(s) are engaged. And we all know that money helps, too.

Beyond that it's really personal preference.

But we live in a society that damns moms if they do or damns them if they don't and so they fly their anecdotes up the flag pole and rip on other moms to make themselves feel better, instead of rallying together to try and improve things for all moms and families.

+1 Spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Not really.

Many longitudinal studies have shown that having a working mom improves outcomes for children up to a certain income level. I don’t recall exactly but it’s something around 70K. Families above that threshold experience slightly better outcomes from having a SAHP.

There are so many caveats to these studies and so many things that cannot be controlled (certainly not ethically).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Not really.

Many longitudinal studies have shown that having a working mom improves outcomes for children up to a certain income level. I don’t recall exactly but it’s something around 70K. Families above that threshold experience slightly better outcomes from having a SAHP.

There are so many caveats to these studies and so many things that cannot be controlled (certainly not ethically).

The main study that came out in 2015 just compared work performance of women whose mothers stayed home against mothers who worked, controlling for maternal education. This was what they found:

In 2015, preliminary results of a groundbreaking study found that the daughters of employed mothers often perform better in their eventual careers than the daughters of stay-at-home moms.

Now the full study has been released, and it brings even more good news for the children of working moms: They wind up just as happy in adulthood as the children of moms who stayed home.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-of-working-moms-grow-into-happy-adults

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

So once your kids started school at five years old the teachers raised them? Just confirming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Not really.

Many longitudinal studies have shown that having a working mom improves outcomes for children up to a certain income level. I don’t recall exactly but it’s something around 70K. Families above that threshold experience slightly better outcomes from having a SAHP.

There are so many caveats to these studies and so many things that cannot be controlled (certainly not ethically).

The main study that came out in 2015 just compared work performance of women whose mothers stayed home against mothers who worked, controlling for maternal education. This was what they found:

In 2015, preliminary results of a groundbreaking study found that the daughters of employed mothers often perform better in their eventual careers than the daughters of stay-at-home moms.

Now the full study has been released, and it brings even more good news for the children of working moms: They wind up just as happy in adulthood as the children of moms who stayed home.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/kids-of-working-moms-grow-into-happy-adults

Which should surprise no one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Yes. Every study has to be controlled for socioeconomic status and maternal education level because those to factors BY FAR outweigh essentially everything else by a long shot.

So it’s better to make sure mom is reasonably educated and that the family is financially secure (by whatever means of 1 vs 2 working parents) and the rest should turn out ok so long as there aren’t issues like abuse or whatnot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Yes. Every study has to be controlled for socioeconomic status and maternal education level because those to factors BY FAR outweigh essentially everything else by a long shot.

So it’s better to make sure mom is reasonably educated and that the family is financially secure (by whatever means of 1 vs 2 working parents) and the rest should turn out ok so long as there aren’t issues like abuse or whatnot.

Two factors not “to factors” ... apparently my education level is questionable right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

So once your kids started school at five years old the teachers raised them? Just confirming.

Such a lame comment.