Don’t you think people overestimate how much time they have to spend with their kids?

[Anonymous]

Shut up, OP.

Signed a WOHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.

Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.

I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.

After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.

DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.

Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.

“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.

And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.

Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.

Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.

So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.

I am the PP who is around teens. Look, all I am saying is that after spending a lot of time around a lot of teens, I can't tell the difference between the teens who had daycare/SAHM/nanny/grandparent/whatever from 0-3. I can tell the difference between teens who had and have engaged parents or not, but what those parents do and did for childcare seems pretty irrelevant.

I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you, but it is my lived experience and it isn't uncommon among other people around teens, either. I sense that you want to believe having a SAHM from 0-3 is some sort of vaccine against teen problems, but it just isn't.

[Anonymous]

I don't care what other families do. Why do you care so much, OP? Stop comparing yourself to other moms.

[Anonymous]

Well good to know dcum still has the chops for a proper wohm/SAHM battle. I was afraid we had lost those skills in the pandemic!!!

[Anonymous]

I grew up with a mom who worked part time. It always felt like she was around and available, even though a large part of her identity was her career. Including a period of time that we had to drive as a family from New England to New York for her to take classes to regain certification in her field. To me, it was the perfect balance that I strive to recreate.

[Anonymous]

I am an educated SAHM and outsource a lot of the housework and cleaning. I have 3 kids and they keep me plenty busy. I read books with them all the time. We pick up 20-40 books per week at the library and preorder new books that are coming out. We go on outings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an educated SAHM and outsource a lot of the housework and cleaning. I have 3 kids and they keep me plenty busy. I read books with them all the time. We pick up 20-40 books per week at the library and preorder new books that are coming out. We go on outings.

Don’t take the bait, PP. You’re doing fine. So are the mothers who work out of the house. We love our kids and are doing the best we can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.

Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.

I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.

After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.

DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.

Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.

“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.

And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.

Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.

Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.

So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.

I am the PP who is around teens. Look, all I am saying is that after spending a lot of time around a lot of teens, I can't tell the difference between the teens who had daycare/SAHM/nanny/grandparent/whatever from 0-3. I can tell the difference between teens who had and have engaged parents or not, but what those parents do and did for childcare seems pretty irrelevant.

I don't know why this is so unbelievable to you, but it is my lived experience and it isn't uncommon among other people around teens, either. I sense that you want to believe having a SAHM from 0-3 is some sort of vaccine against teen problems, but it just isn't.

No one is saying it’s a vaccine! But teen problems are varied and nuanced and early childhood does have an effect on their lives. Further an engaged teen parent does not have to be a SAHP.

NP here and I’m a psychologist. Obviously the security of early childhood matters in coloring a child’s future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an educated SAHM and outsource a lot of the housework and cleaning. I have 3 kids and they keep me plenty busy. I read books with them all the time. We pick up 20-40 books per week at the library and preorder new books that are coming out. We go on outings.

Don’t take the bait, PP. You’re doing fine. So are the mothers who work out of the house. We love our kids and are doing the best we can.

Word. I am loving all the SAHM and WOHM solidarity in this thread. I have been both and there is zero reason for them to be in conflict. Raising kids is hard, especially for women who are given shit options and expected to smile and say thank you for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.

Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.

I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.

After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.

DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.

Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.

“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.

And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.

Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.

Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.

So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.

My nanny growing up is still very much a part of my life. That said, however, even if a nanny leaves before the age of remembrance, what stays with the child is that there was someone to meet her needs and love her.

I’m a psychologist and see it in my practice all the time. A patient will come in and tell me a horror about their lives and yet be capable of dealing with it and growing. I always ask who that person was in their early life who loved them and was there for them. I’ve heard mother, father, grandmother, nanny, aunt... but there is always someone.

Yes, in a perfect world a nanny would visit and stay in the child’s life but that, like a death, isn’t always possible. The positive imprint is still there.

[Anonymous]

I am a SAHM because my salary didn’t cover high-quality childcare for two kids, even though I have a masters in my field. Good for those moms who can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.

Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.

I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.

After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.

DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.

Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.

“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.

And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.

Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.

Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.

So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.

My nanny growing up is still very much a part of my life. That said, however, even if a nanny leaves before the age of remembrance, what stays with the child is that there was someone to meet her needs and love her.

I’m a psychologist and see it in my practice all the time. A patient will come in and tell me a horror about their lives and yet be capable of dealing with it and growing. I always ask who that person was in their early life who loved them and was there for them. I’ve heard mother, father, grandmother, nanny, aunt... but there is always someone.

Yes, in a perfect world a nanny would visit and stay in the child’s life but that, like a death, isn’t always possible. The positive imprint is still there.

I cannot remember my nannies or day care providers or even summer camps. Everyone is different. A nanny is a caretaker, not a parent replacement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHM because my salary didn’t cover high-quality childcare for two kids, even though I have a masters in my field. Good for those moms who can afford it.

+1, I would have lost money when I worked with one child given my income in a helping field. I had a masters and 15 years experience. It made no sense to put my child in day care when it cost me money and I would have to work long hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHM because my salary didn’t cover high-quality childcare for two kids, even though I have a masters in my field. Good for those moms who can afford it.

+1, I would have lost money when I worked with one child given my income in a helping field. I had a masters and 15 years experience. It made no sense to put my child in day care when it cost me money and I would have to work long hours.

+2, After daycare, I would have been bringing home only a few thousand dollars a year. So I left my job and did freelance work on the side, and came out pretty much the same financially. I decided that if I was going to be working just to pay for someone to spend most of my child's waking hours with them, the person I paid might as well be me.

My ideal set-up would be to work about 20 hours a week while someone else took care of my child, and then spend the rest of my time at home with my child. But that is a difficult arrangement to find. I actually think it's what a lot of parents would like, fathers included. The problem with our current system is that we either have to work all day or parent all day, and neither is a particularly good balance.

I recently heard a woman on a podcast talk about how she and her husband, who both work in environmental science, shared a job when their children were small. They literally shared a desk and the same work responsibilities. One would work while the other took care of the kids, and then they'd switch. It worked for their employer who wanted to hire both of them but did not have enough funding. It sounded like a kind of brilliant solution, provided you could make the finances work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.

Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.

I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.

After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.

DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.

Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.

“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.

And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.

Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.

Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.

So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.

My nanny growing up is still very much a part of my life. That said, however, even if a nanny leaves before the age of remembrance, what stays with the child is that there was someone to meet her needs and love her.

I’m a psychologist and see it in my practice all the time. A patient will come in and tell me a horror about their lives and yet be capable of dealing with it and growing. I always ask who that person was in their early life who loved them and was there for them. I’ve heard mother, father, grandmother, nanny, aunt... but there is always someone.

Yes, in a perfect world a nanny would visit and stay in the child’s life but that, like a death, isn’t always possible. The positive imprint is still there.

I cannot remember my nannies or day care providers or even summer camps. Everyone is different. A nanny is a caretaker, not a parent replacement.

I'm sure if you had had a (longterm) nanny rather than nannies, you would remember her.