"Maybe she will decide to be the best mom ever and stay home..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you're taking this too personally. I have a friend who stayed home and she's SO GOOD AT IT. Like, she organizes neighborhood SAHM's to go on educational outings and her kids get 5k outside hours a year and she seems to be happy every minute of the day. When I had a kid she sent me the most insane spreadsheet of stuff to do for free/cheap in the area, where to breastfeed at the Zoo, where to find restrooms in a hurry near parks - it was amazing. She stayed home and is the best mom ever.

I work all the time and my kid lights up like a Times Square billboard when she sees me and we have so much fun together and she's kind and curious and perfectly attached. My SAHM friend being the best mom ever doesn't impact my momhood or shortchange my kid. Plus if I stayed home I wouldn't do one-tenth of that stuff and DD and I would probably end up quoting Bluey at each other instead of forest schooling through Rock Creek Park.

+1. I have a SAHM friend and she literally is the best mom ever and I’m cool with that. It benefits me too because she does a lot of research and gives me tips on what to buy and where to go.

I am a pretty good mom and also a pretty good worker bee. I don’t have the personality to be a FT mom and that is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep she's totally right you'll be a better mother if you stay at home. Choose to work if you want to but you must know that's what you're sacrificing.

Proven to be untrue in study after study. And certainly in my case. My mother was a loving but inept SAHM. My siblings and I would have been far better off with a WOHM and an educated nanny.

+1. I know SAHMs (like myself) would love to believe that it makes you a better mother but it simply isn’t true.

+2. My mother was a SAHM and hated it. We would have been so much better off with a loving nanny or good daycare. We watched TV all day while my mom was bored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I think you do need to stay at home in order to be “the best mom ever.” That being said, you can be a pretty good mom without staying at home. I’m not sure that it’s worth giving up your entire adult life in order to be “the best mom.”

Laughable comment.

I would be a better mom if I devoted another fifty hours a week to making sure all of my kids’ needs were met. How could I not be?
But I’m still a pretty good mom, and my kids are fine. I’m not going to ignore my own needs and the needs of everyone else in my community in order to devote myself to them completely. I get that some people want to do that, and I’m sure that their kids benefit from it, but it’s not me.
My kids have a stable family, educated parents, good schools, white skin, and penises. If that’s not enough, that’s on them.

Dammit, I KNEW there was something I was forgetting!

Hahaha!!

If there was one thing I wish my parents would have given me, it’s a penis. How much time they did or didn’t spend at work while I was growing up seems less important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep she's totally right you'll be a better mother if you stay at home. Choose to work if you want to but you must know that's what you're sacrificing.

Proven to be untrue in study after study. And certainly in my case. My mother was a loving but inept SAHM. My siblings and I would have been far better off with a WOHM and an educated nanny.

While I don't personally care if someone is a SAHM or a WOHM (or a WFHM or works PT or goes to school or whatever), comments like this always exhaust me. For the millionth time:

Many (most) working parents cannot afford an "educated nanny." These are not the choices presented to most people. I have a freaking law degree and couldn't afford a FT nanny -- it was either daycare or SAHM until kid was old enough for preschool. I did the latter and have zero regrets, even if I wasn't the "best mom ever." I think what I provided my kid was better than they would have had in daycare. I guess a good nanny could have been more efficient or on top of things, but would she have loved my kid as much as I do? No.

I'm sorry your mom didn't live up to your expectations, but this idea that all women have to do is work and then they can magically have a top flight nanny who will provide their kids with the best possible childhood is ridiculous. Most of us simply don't make enough money for that.

I don't think a SAHM is a better mom than a WOHM (I currently work, so I definitely don't think that) but I do think in certain, common circumstances, a SAHM is preferable to the available childcare alternatives. It certainly was in my case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep she's totally right you'll be a better mother if you stay at home. Choose to work if you want to but you must know that's what you're sacrificing.

Proven to be untrue in study after study. And certainly in my case. My mother was a loving but inept SAHM. My siblings and I would have been far better off with a WOHM and an educated nanny.

Ok. Yes. Study after study shows that kids are better off with a WOHM *if they would otherwise be in poverty.* But those same studies pretty universally show that as long as a family has an income that is middle class or better, the kids are better off with a SAHP.

Look. Population level studies are not really super helpful in making individual decisions, and there are a lot of factors that go into this. But you need to stop perpetuating this myth that studies show that all kids are better off with WOHMs or that there is a deluge of reliable, college educated nannies out there waiting to be offered a job. Neither of these things are true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep she's totally right you'll be a better mother if you stay at home. Choose to work if you want to but you must know that's what you're sacrificing.

Proven to be untrue in study after study. And certainly in my case. My mother was a loving but inept SAHM. My siblings and I would have been far better off with a WOHM and an educated nanny.

Ok. Yes. Study after study shows that kids are better off with a WOHM *if they would otherwise be in poverty.* But those same studies pretty universally show that as long as a family has an income that is middle class or better, the kids are better off with a SAHP.

Look. Population level studies are not really super helpful in making individual decisions, and there are a lot of factors that go into this. But you need to stop perpetuating this myth that studies show that all kids are better off with WOHMs or that there is a deluge of reliable, college educated nannies out there waiting to be offered a job. Neither of these things are true.

The bolded is a wildly inaccurate and frankly outright incorrect statement about over sixty years of research, even assuming that one credits the studies with accuracy. I don’t even know where to start with how wrong-headed the bolded is. Suffice it to say that no, that is not close to what “studies” say. My God.

But I agree with you that population studies — even accurately understood ones — are useless when making individual decisions.

[Anonymous]

There are studies that conclude that children are better off with a parent caring for them at least during their first few years. There are also studies that conclude that children in some kind of daycare do better in some ways than children home with a parent or a nanny. There are studies that conclude that nanny care is the best. There are studies that conclude that none of this matters in the long run.

Most people believe the studies that conclude whatever the person has already chosen to believe, whatever fits their own personal narrative.

[Anonymous]

And people can’t read or understand statistics for the most part so they can’t actually comprehend what the actual studies and data say. They are just looking for something with a vague “scientific” bent to justify their own choices. They don’t even really want to understand actual data or think critically about methodology.

The actual data on this is significantly more narrow and limited than what people claim. And a lot of the studies are extremely flawed if you look at the methodology.

I don’t trust anyone who quotes amorphous “studies” to support their point. If they can’t give a specific cite and point to the data within the publication that clearly supports their conclusion, they obviously don’t know what they are talking about.