Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Sigh. No. You simply don't understand how academic analysis works. I'm not teaching you either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you people scrabbling about desperately for links one way or the other don't realize how weak your posts make your "side" look. This issue has been studied for 70+ years, often by researchers with strong biases in favor of one thing or another. If there was conclusive proof one way or another that SAH or WOH was the proven formula guaranteed to produce the best outcome, we would know it conclusively, and by a wide margin, by now. There's no such conclusive because at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is largely irrelevant to outcome.

I've read a lot of the actual studies in this space (not, I will point out, breathy pop articles that distort the actual academic work). And at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is not a big factor in outcome. It just isn't. People who cherry pick studies or badly written press coverage to prove their side is best (and both SAHMs and WOHMs have done that in this thread) look, well, stupid and desperate.

Stop being idiots, all of you.

Well if YOU say so, it must be true, unlike those badly written articles in the NYTimes. You are clearly an expert, everyone else is an idiot.

Yes, the NYT never publishes sensational articles for the purpose of selling news. They are JUST LIKE a peer-reviewed publication and their readers and reporters all have PhD level statistics understanding.

Look, if you are relying on NYT articles to do society-wide analysis for your side, you've already lost the argument. Just give up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Do you think all statistically significant effects translate to clinically significant ones? Do you think that correlation equals causation?

They really have to dig deep to find these significant effects AND none of them equate with the ability to predict outcomes for an individual child. And you will see over and over again how much more important family dynamics are than childcare vs. no childcare in these types of analyses. And you will see that the quality of the childcare is a big factor as well. But you cannot possibly tell me that, statistical significance or not, that all kids who go into care outside the home while mom works will suffer negative effects, any more than you can tell me that all kids with SAHMs will be better off, some will, some will not. Not all SAHMs provide high quality care just because they are mom.

I am a huge believer that we need to upgrade our thinking about children and families. I would love for us to have access to better parental leave for everyone, especially for year 1. We as a country need to recognize the need for highly-regulated, well-funded childcare to be available, because quality of care is important. This pandemic has shown us that we need to give working parents adequate sick time/leave to take care of sick kids and keep them home. I am all for these things.

But the idea that you tell a first time mom that her staying home with her kid is a guarantee of better outcomes for her kid or tell a working mom she is courting disaster if she works in that first year is just ludicrous. What you need to tell parents is to work at connecting with their kids whenever they are with them, read to them, etc. Give them tools to be good parents, don't guilt them.

Hey. I initially posted these statistical trends, and I agree with you 100%. I am a working mom, and my kids haven’t ended up in jail (yet).
I don’t think we need to tell anyone that the trends are bigger than they are, or that it matters more than it does, but the narrative in the popular media that there is “study after study” out there showing that having a SAHM doesn’t matter “at all,” or that UMC are better off growing up with working moms simply isn’t true.

But yeah, my kids have access to a great education, involved parents, plenty of money, white skin, and penises. I am not going to give up my career because they need a leg up in life

[Anonymous]

My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to go into any details, but let's just say we learned the hard way when our oldest was a young toddler that you simply can't trust anybody with your kids but yourself. At a minimum, I'd never let anybody watch my kid until she or he is old enough to talk.

Agree with this. We always WFH or had a grandparent around until our kids were 3. Nannies didn’t mind (at least they didn’t show it). We had two nannies for long periods of time and they were happy. Only switched because we moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Do you think all statistically significant effects translate to clinically significant ones? Do you think that correlation equals causation?

They really have to dig deep to find these significant effects AND none of them equate with the ability to predict outcomes for an individual child. And you will see over and over again how much more important family dynamics are than childcare vs. no childcare in these types of analyses. And you will see that the quality of the childcare is a big factor as well. But you cannot possibly tell me that, statistical significance or not, that all kids who go into care outside the home while mom works will suffer negative effects, any more than you can tell me that all kids with SAHMs will be better off, some will, some will not. Not all SAHMs provide high quality care just because they are mom.

I am a huge believer that we need to upgrade our thinking about children and families. I would love for us to have access to better parental leave for everyone, especially for year 1. We as a country need to recognize the need for highly-regulated, well-funded childcare to be available, because quality of care is important. This pandemic has shown us that we need to give working parents adequate sick time/leave to take care of sick kids and keep them home. I am all for these things.

But the idea that you tell a first time mom that her staying home with her kid is a guarantee of better outcomes for her kid or tell a working mom she is courting disaster if she works in that first year is just ludicrous. What you need to tell parents is to work at connecting with their kids whenever they are with them, read to them, etc. Give them tools to be good parents, don't guilt them.

Hey. I initially posted these statistical trends, and I agree with you 100%. I am a working mom, and my kids haven’t ended up in jail (yet).
I don’t think we need to tell anyone that the trends are bigger than they are, or that it matters more than it does, but the narrative in the popular media that there is “study after study” out there showing that having a SAHM doesn’t matter “at all,” or that UMC are better off growing up with working moms simply isn’t true.

But yeah, my kids have access to a great education, involved parents, plenty of money, white skin, and penises. I am not going to give up my career because they need a leg up in life

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

+2

I also think families benefit from having at least one family member who can focus on running the household, regardless of who does it. I think it can even be a parent who works, if their job is flexible and ideally not full time. But having one person whose primary focus is on making sure the house is functioning, making sure people are eating well, planning vacations, etc. is so valuable. Yes you can outsource some of that. But unless you are really really wealthy and can hire managers and assistance who will just do your bidding, you're only outsourcing a fraction of these tasks (plus gaining new tasks like negotiating your housekeeper's salary or interviewing new nannies when the old one decides to move across country to live with her son, etc.).

Two parents with serious careers has some advantages (mostly financial), but it's a kind of chaotic life for all involved and my experience and observation is that a lot of little resentments and dysfunctions creep in.

[Anonymous]

Are there people who truly believe that the presence in a meaningful way of a loving parent doesn’t matter? That is seriously messed up. Of course it matters. It matters a lot. You as a parent are not interchangeable for anyone else. That is not to say that you should be the ONLY person in their life, but it matters a lot and in ways that cannot be measured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there people who truly believe that the presence in a meaningful way of a loving parent doesn’t matter? That is seriously messed up. Of course it matters. It matters a lot. You as a parent are not interchangeable for anyone else. That is not to say that you should be the ONLY person in their life, but it matters a lot and in ways that cannot be measured.

No one is saying that. What are you talking about. Everyone is saying that matters, but a working parent is that person, also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Do you think all statistically significant effects translate to clinically significant ones? Do you think that correlation equals causation?

They really have to dig deep to find these significant effects AND none of them equate with the ability to predict outcomes for an individual child. And you will see over and over again how much more important family dynamics are than childcare vs. no childcare in these types of analyses. And you will see that the quality of the childcare is a big factor as well. But you cannot possibly tell me that, statistical significance or not, that all kids who go into care outside the home while mom works will suffer negative effects, any more than you can tell me that all kids with SAHMs will be better off, some will, some will not. Not all SAHMs provide high quality care just because they are mom.

I am a huge believer that we need to upgrade our thinking about children and families. I would love for us to have access to better parental leave for everyone, especially for year 1. We as a country need to recognize the need for highly-regulated, well-funded childcare to be available, because quality of care is important. This pandemic has shown us that we need to give working parents adequate sick time/leave to take care of sick kids and keep them home. I am all for these things.

But the idea that you tell a first time mom that her staying home with her kid is a guarantee of better outcomes for her kid or tell a working mom she is courting disaster if she works in that first year is just ludicrous. What you need to tell parents is to work at connecting with their kids whenever they are with them, read to them, etc. Give them tools to be good parents, don't guilt them.

Hey. I initially posted these statistical trends, and I agree with you 100%. I am a working mom, and my kids haven’t ended up in jail (yet).
I don’t think we need to tell anyone that the trends are bigger than they are, or that it matters more than it does, but the narrative in the popular media that there is “study after study” out there showing that having a SAHM doesn’t matter “at all,” or that UMC are better off growing up with working moms simply isn’t true.

But yeah, my kids have access to a great education, involved parents, plenty of money, white skin, and penises. I am not going to give up my career because they need a leg up in life

The trends they see in these studies are not predictive and they are small, and it all depends on how you parse out the data. The media likes to present these trends as absolutes and they simply are not. If you are a caring, loving parent, it is unlikely that you will harm your child by staying home..or...by working as long as you have decent daycare.

It is the other types of privileges you mention that really make more of a difference. AND quality of daycare. Instead of focusing on guilting moms, we should be focusing on doing whatever we can to ensure that high-quality daycare is widely available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The research is:

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

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

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

That's not actually the research at all. But I agree, this question is completely subjective, because WOHM vs SAHM doesn't mean just one thing for everyone, there are so many variables.

[Anonymous]

The baby will be fine during the first 3 years. If I had a choice, I wouldn't miss the time spent with my baby especially the first 2-3 years for the world. I always cherish and remember it for the rest of my life. It's that powerful.

[Anonymous]

You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there people who truly believe that the presence in a meaningful way of a loving parent doesn’t matter? That is seriously messed up. Of course it matters. It matters a lot. You as a parent are not interchangeable for anyone else. That is not to say that you should be the ONLY person in their life, but it matters a lot and in ways that cannot be measured.

Are there people who truly believe that working parents are not loving and not involved in their children's lives in a meaningful way?

Those of us who work are also raising our children. We are still primary caregivers and the kids know it.

I think there is a lot of value in being/having a SAHP. I would have preferred to stay home myself, but unlike everyone else on DCUM I am financially unable to do so. I have nothing but respect for SAH parenting, but seriously guys, just stop with the snide implications that working parents are not raising our own children and are harming their development. It's cruel, it's untrue, and it completely dismisses those of us who don't have the privilege of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Why not? The point is to give women choices, and to create the kind of world in which everyone — not just the elite — can realize their full potential. I think for many women, what they want is flexibility and options to find what works best for themselves and for their families. The current situation is very rigid and only values a certain linear productivity.