Making time for kids? Study says quality trumps quantity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have never known anyone, ever, whose daycare wasn't "the best," whose nanny/sitter/Au pair wasn't amazing and also "the best."

Is it really so hard for you to believe that the plurality of people keep looking until they find a caregiver they believe is good?

I also love my GP, my dentist, and my auto mechanic. I kept looking until I found good ones. Why would I do less for childcare?

OMG.

I'm not that poster but I get what she's saying. I'm sure you don't because - well, brain rot et al.

Yes, because I equate finding the "perfect" childcare provider with finding the "right" auto mechanic. Good grief. Talk about brain rot.

Oh, don't be a cow. You are deliberately misinterpreting that. Most people probably understood that what I was saying is: finding a good childcare provider isn't easy, but it isn't brain surgery. You visit a lot, talk to other parents, and keep looking until you find one. Every morning I drove past a dozen daycare to get to ours. It was worth it.

I don't know anyone who shoved their child in the first available daycare. Everyone I know worked hard to find a place they could trust. It ain't easy, but it's entirely doable.

I don't think you have brain rot; I just think you're a nasty person.

If like to think that poster was being deliberately obtuse - if not, she's moronic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another data point: my mother was mostly a SAHM. She went to grad school when I was quite young and student taught and substitute taught. I know when I was in second grade she took over for another teacher with a brain tumor for a few months. I know in sixth grade she substitute taught my class when my teacher had the flu. I don't remember her working after that.

I LOVED when she worked. She thought all the kids were terribly behaved so in comparison thought my brother and I were angels when she'd come home from a day of teaching. Plus, she'd come home completely exhausted, and as long as we brought her a Coke with ice, she'd drink that laying on the couch and leave us alone. I HATED when she was home all the time. She was suffocating. Always wanted to talk and ask questions and got involved where we didn't need her input. She drove my brother and I apart so much - even he will admit he was favored by her - by meddling in our arguments rather than letting us work them out ourselves. Any time I was racing around to get ready for school as I'd go past her bedroom she'd call out to me, "Let me see your outfit! Turn around. Do you think it'd look better tucked in? Go tuck it in and show me. Are you going to brush your hair?" When I'd come home in the afternoon, I as an introvert needed to be alone and recover from school and all the people. She however, was so excited to finally have someone to talk with she'd badger me over and over without letting me decompress.

She wasn't JUST a SAHM. She was a SAHM who had no life and tried to live vicariously through her children. She was a SAHM who did nothing but sleep, eat and watch tv while we were at school. It was awful and I will never be that type of mother to my children.

I would have LOVED for my mom to have been a SAHM. The idea of having a mother who was there, waiting for me to come home from school, who wanted to know about my day, who was actually interested and had time to sit and talk with me - what a dream that would have been for me growing up. I hated having to go to after-care programs and camp after camp during the summers. It was just one over-scheduled day after another. I was an introvert too, and would have done anything just to come home after school and curl up with a book, knowing my mom was nearby, rather than having to participate in stupid activities and crafts just to while away the time until I was picked up and could finally go home. Several of my best friends had SAHMs and it was always such a treat when I could go home with them instead of going to after-care. Their moms made everything warm and inviting and I felt such envy that my own mom wasn't like that. I never looked at their moms as "having no life" or "living vicariously through their children." On the contrary, I was so blown away that they made the time for their kids and had close relationships with them. I craved more time with my mother. I could have used her advice many times with clothes or how to wear my hair, or so many other things, but she was usually rushing around, or already at work. And no, she didn't 'have' to work to provide for us. She was 'following her path,' as she put it; and she now wonders why my siblings and I aren't especially interested in how she's doing these days.

How is it possible that you have reached this age without realizing that this was about your mother's personality and not the fact that she worked? It sounds like she wouldn't have been what you wanted regardless. I'm sorry if reporting this makes it more painful for you but surely you must realize that there are working moms who are warm and nurturing, who have an inviting home, who listen to and advise their kids?

Yup! My mom, who was an IT professional back from the punchcard days, was always warm and interested in my life. She wasn't there when I got home from school, but I'm an introvert and enjoyed the downtime. And I was always proud to have a mom who knew so much about computers!

PP, if your mom had been at home, you would have had a cold and withholding mom at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another data point: my mother was mostly a SAHM. She went to grad school when I was quite young and student taught and substitute taught. I know when I was in second grade she took over for another teacher with a brain tumor for a few months. I know in sixth grade she substitute taught my class when my teacher had the flu. I don't remember her working after that.

I LOVED when she worked. She thought all the kids were terribly behaved so in comparison thought my brother and I were angels when she'd come home from a day of teaching. Plus, she'd come home completely exhausted, and as long as we brought her a Coke with ice, she'd drink that laying on the couch and leave us alone. I HATED when she was home all the time. She was suffocating. Always wanted to talk and ask questions and got involved where we didn't need her input. She drove my brother and I apart so much - even he will admit he was favored by her - by meddling in our arguments rather than letting us work them out ourselves. Any time I was racing around to get ready for school as I'd go past her bedroom she'd call out to me, "Let me see your outfit! Turn around. Do you think it'd look better tucked in? Go tuck it in and show me. Are you going to brush your hair?" When I'd come home in the afternoon, I as an introvert needed to be alone and recover from school and all the people. She however, was so excited to finally have someone to talk with she'd badger me over and over without letting me decompress.

She wasn't JUST a SAHM. She was a SAHM who had no life and tried to live vicariously through her children. She was a SAHM who did nothing but sleep, eat and watch tv while we were at school. It was awful and I will never be that type of mother to my children.

I would have LOVED for my mom to have been a SAHM. The idea of having a mother who was there, waiting for me to come home from school, who wanted to know about my day, who was actually interested and had time to sit and talk with me - what a dream that would have been for me growing up. I hated having to go to after-care programs and camp after camp during the summers. It was just one over-scheduled day after another. I was an introvert too, and would have done anything just to come home after school and curl up with a book, knowing my mom was nearby, rather than having to participate in stupid activities and crafts just to while away the time until I was picked up and could finally go home. Several of my best friends had SAHMs and it was always such a treat when I could go home with them instead of going to after-care. Their moms made everything warm and inviting and I felt such envy that my own mom wasn't like that. I never looked at their moms as "having no life" or "living vicariously through their children." On the contrary, I was so blown away that they made the time for their kids and had close relationships with them. I craved more time with my mother. I could have used her advice many times with clothes or how to wear my hair, or so many other things, but she was usually rushing around, or already at work. And no, she didn't 'have' to work to provide for us. She was 'following her path,' as she put it; and she now wonders why my siblings and I aren't especially interested in how she's doing these days.

How is it possible that you have reached this age without realizing that this was about your mother's personality and not the fact that she worked? It sounds like she wouldn't have been what you wanted regardless. I'm sorry if reporting this makes it more painful for you but surely you must realize that there are working moms who are warm and nurturing, who have an inviting home, who listen to and advise their kids?

Exactly. And I wonder if this PP benefitted financially from her mother's work too?

For my anecdote, I had a sahm who basically ignored the older kids (I can barely even remember her being home after school at all) - she was much much happier when she started doing serious volunteer work on a regular schedule. No question she would have thrived better with a job, and the kids would have too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The children who are disadvantaged are the ones in homes lacking financial stability and parent education. Why not focus on this issue instead of the SAHM/WOHM wars?

Love this.

Please define financial stability and parent education.

Stable home, plenty of nutritious food, average clothes, etc. OR mcmansion, exotic vacations, and paid college?

Solid parental common sense and engagement, OR advanced degrees and little knowledge of child development and basic household management?

Right. Because WOHMs are vain and greedy, and work only so they can provide a McMansion and trips to Tahiti. I'm so shallow that I worked so that my child could have health insurance. Crazy! Does that pass your holy judgment?

Frankly, those McMansions are more likely inhabited by a SAHM with a nanny and a housekeeper... Most of the people I see make that choice have gobs of money and the SAHM is another status symbol.

And don't forget that it's difficult to have two parents commuting to jobs from their McMansion in the exurbs. Those homes are not mostly full of dual income families who both work in order to afford their luxury cars and expensive jewelry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I would do anything and everything necessary to be with my kids during the early years. At least from 1-3. Daycare can kick in at 3. And yes, I have done it all: moved to a cheaper area, worked from home, cut expenses etc. etc. Being with my kids absolutely trumps making money. As long as we have enough we have enough. Love, care and time over all are important to a child's early development...being able to afford nice clothes, toys, vacations, camps etc. is not as important to a child's emotional well-being as is being with Mom.

I would never leave an infant in daycare. Never. I would never leave an under 2 year old in daycare. Never. I do judge people who leave their under 2s in daycare because there ALWAYS are other ways. We got by on very little money for a very long time because we changed our priorities. It's not a bad life - just different. So nobody can tell me "I HAD TO leave my 6 months old at daycare 8 hours a day because I HAD TO work." No. You just didn't look hard enough for other options.

Single moms? Moms who are in professions where they can't take a break (surgery, academia) without significant repercussions? Parents where one person is deployed in the military? Parents who don't have trustworthy family nearby? These families all rely on daycare.

You have a very limited worldview. Very limited. FWIW, I am a (now tenured) professor in a STEM field who had my child in on-campus daycare. I nursed for 1.5 years, visited DC in daycare several times a day, and managed to have very successful career. I could not have taken time out of my field, because that is not how tenure works. A daycare was far better for DC and for me than a nanny, logistically and financially. Go ahead and blast me as a mom for having my 6 month old in daycare. But, you also probably believe that "math is hard" for girls....

These women are so far from understanding the demands of surgical rounds or academia that you might as well be speaking another language. They'll run the bake sale - you and your daughters run the world.

Riiight... because no one from academia or the medical community has EVER taken time off from her career to stay home with her children. That's just not done! I have news for you... most of the SAHMs I know have indeed left high-level professional careers to be SAHMs, whether temporarily or permanently. I understand it's convenient for you to slam SAHMs as knowing nothing more than how to run the bake sale (something I've never done in my life, BTW), but really - stereotype much?

You know tenured professors and surgeons who have left the workforce permanently after having kids? Um, ok.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I clearly said, "whether temporarily or permanently". And yes, I do know both professors and physicians who have temporarily left the workforce to stay home with their children, and I also know plenty of other professionals (myself included) who are home on a semi-permanent basis - meaning home indefinitely with possible plans to return to work sometime in the future. Guess what? It can be done.

As a tenured professor, I know of ZERO professors who were on the *tenure* track who were able to take more than allotted maternity leave and come back onto the tenure track. You have no understanding of how the tenure track works. There are adjunct professors or instructors who take a few years, but they are not considered full-time faculty and (unfortunately) do not have nearly the same benefits, salary, security, or prestige of tenure-line and tenured faculty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I would do anything and everything necessary to be with my kids during the early years. At least from 1-3. Daycare can kick in at 3. And yes, I have done it all: moved to a cheaper area, worked from home, cut expenses etc. etc. Being with my kids absolutely trumps making money. As long as we have enough we have enough. Love, care and time over all are important to a child's early development...being able to afford nice clothes, toys, vacations, camps etc. is not as important to a child's emotional well-being as is being with Mom.

I would never leave an infant in daycare. Never. I would never leave an under 2 year old in daycare. Never. I do judge people who leave their under 2s in daycare because there ALWAYS are other ways. We got by on very little money for a very long time because we changed our priorities. It's not a bad life - just different. So nobody can tell me "I HAD TO leave my 6 months old at daycare 8 hours a day because I HAD TO work." No. You just didn't look hard enough for other options.

Single moms? Moms who are in professions where they can't take a break (surgery, academia) without significant repercussions? Parents where one person is deployed in the military? Parents who don't have trustworthy family nearby? These families all rely on daycare.

You have a very limited worldview. Very limited. FWIW, I am a (now tenured) professor in a STEM field who had my child in on-campus daycare. I nursed for 1.5 years, visited DC in daycare several times a day, and managed to have very successful career. I could not have taken time out of my field, because that is not how tenure works. A daycare was far better for DC and for me than a nanny, logistically and financially. Go ahead and blast me as a mom for having my 6 month old in daycare. But, you also probably believe that "math is hard" for girls....

These women are so far from understanding the demands of surgical rounds or academia that you might as well be speaking another language. They'll run the bake sale - you and your daughters run the world.

Riiight... because no one from academia or the medical community has EVER taken time off from her career to stay home with her children. That's just not done! I have news for you... most of the SAHMs I know have indeed left high-level professional careers to be SAHMs, whether temporarily or permanently. I understand it's convenient for you to slam SAHMs as knowing nothing more than how to run the bake sale (something I've never done in my life, BTW), but really - stereotype much?

You know tenured professors and surgeons who have left the workforce permanently after having kids? Um, ok.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I clearly said, "whether temporarily or permanently". And yes, I do know both professors and physicians who have temporarily left the workforce to stay home with their children, and I also know plenty of other professionals (myself included) who are home on a semi-permanent basis - meaning home indefinitely with possible plans to return to work sometime in the future. Guess what? It can be done.

As a tenured professor, I know of ZERO professors who were on the *tenure* track who were able to take more than allotted maternity leave and come back onto the tenure track. You have no understanding of how the tenure track works. There are adjunct professors or instructors who take a few years, but they are not considered full-time faculty and (unfortunately) do not have nearly the same benefits, salary, security, or prestige of tenure-line and tenured faculty.

Yup, this.

And the tenure year happento neatly coincide with peak fertility years. It sucks.

[Anonymous]

My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I would do anything and everything necessary to be with my kids during the early years. At least from 1-3. Daycare can kick in at 3. And yes, I have done it all: moved to a cheaper area, worked from home, cut expenses etc. etc. Being with my kids absolutely trumps making money. As long as we have enough we have enough. Love, care and time over all are important to a child's early development...being able to afford nice clothes, toys, vacations, camps etc. is not as important to a child's emotional well-being as is being with Mom.

I would never leave an infant in daycare. Never. I would never leave an under 2 year old in daycare. Never. I do judge people who leave their under 2s in daycare because there ALWAYS are other ways. We got by on very little money for a very long time because we changed our priorities. It's not a bad life - just different. So nobody can tell me "I HAD TO leave my 6 months old at daycare 8 hours a day because I HAD TO work." No. You just didn't look hard enough for other options.

Single moms? Moms who are in professions where they can't take a break (surgery, academia) without significant repercussions? Parents where one person is deployed in the military? Parents who don't have trustworthy family nearby? These families all rely on daycare.

You have a very limited worldview. Very limited. FWIW, I am a (now tenured) professor in a STEM field who had my child in on-campus daycare. I nursed for 1.5 years, visited DC in daycare several times a day, and managed to have very successful career. I could not have taken time out of my field, because that is not how tenure works. A daycare was far better for DC and for me than a nanny, logistically and financially. Go ahead and blast me as a mom for having my 6 month old in daycare. But, you also probably believe that "math is hard" for girls....

These women are so far from understanding the demands of surgical rounds or academia that you might as well be speaking another language. They'll run the bake sale - you and your daughters run the world.

Riiight... because no one from academia or the medical community has EVER taken time off from her career to stay home with her children. That's just not done! I have news for you... most of the SAHMs I know have indeed left high-level professional careers to be SAHMs, whether temporarily or permanently. I understand it's convenient for you to slam SAHMs as knowing nothing more than how to run the bake sale (something I've never done in my life, BTW), but really - stereotype much?

You know tenured professors and surgeons who have left the workforce permanently after having kids? Um, ok.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I clearly said, "whether temporarily or permanently". And yes, I do know both professors and physicians who have temporarily left the workforce to stay home with their children, and I also know plenty of other professionals (myself included) who are home on a semi-permanent basis - meaning home indefinitely with possible plans to return to work sometime in the future. Guess what? It can be done.

As a tenured professor, I know of ZERO professors who were on the *tenure* track who were able to take more than allotted maternity leave and come back onto the tenure track. You have no understanding of how the tenure track works. There are adjunct professors or instructors who take a few years, but they are not considered full-time faculty and (unfortunately) do not have nearly the same benefits, salary, security, or prestige of tenure-line and tenured faculty.

Yup, this.

And the tenure year happento neatly coincide with peak fertility years. It sucks.

I agree also. That poster clearly has no inkling of how high- level academia works. The other poster, the one she attacked for poor reading comprehension - ha! - was clearly addressing her claim that people leave these tracks permanently after reproducing. Doesn't happen unless significant other circumstances are at play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

People are saying it's not worse. (And some aspects are better. My son loved loved loved playing with the other babies.) The things that are important for babies--routine, safety, attention, consistency-- can be provided outside the home as well as in it. But again, there's no point arguing or explaining this--you have a prejudice and, like most prejudices, it's not logical, but hanging on to your belief makes you feel better about yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

She doesn't have to justify anything to you or anyone else. You mistake participating in a discussion thread with attempting to justify one's life circumstances, be they voluntary choices or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I would do anything and everything necessary to be with my kids during the early years. At least from 1-3. Daycare can kick in at 3. And yes, I have done it all: moved to a cheaper area, worked from home, cut expenses etc. etc. Being with my kids absolutely trumps making money. As long as we have enough we have enough. Love, care and time over all are important to a child's early development...being able to afford nice clothes, toys, vacations, camps etc. is not as important to a child's emotional well-being as is being with Mom.

I would never leave an infant in daycare. Never. I would never leave an under 2 year old in daycare. Never. I do judge people who leave their under 2s in daycare because there ALWAYS are other ways. We got by on very little money for a very long time because we changed our priorities. It's not a bad life - just different. So nobody can tell me "I HAD TO leave my 6 months old at daycare 8 hours a day because I HAD TO work." No. You just didn't look hard enough for other options.

Single moms? Moms who are in professions where they can't take a break (surgery, academia) without significant repercussions? Parents where one person is deployed in the military? Parents who don't have trustworthy family nearby? These families all rely on daycare.

You have a very limited worldview. Very limited. FWIW, I am a (now tenured) professor in a STEM field who had my child in on-campus daycare. I nursed for 1.5 years, visited DC in daycare several times a day, and managed to have very successful career. I could not have taken time out of my field, because that is not how tenure works. A daycare was far better for DC and for me than a nanny, logistically and financially. Go ahead and blast me as a mom for having my 6 month old in daycare. But, you also probably believe that "math is hard" for girls....

These women are so far from understanding the demands of surgical rounds or academia that you might as well be speaking another language. They'll run the bake sale - you and your daughters run the world.

Riiight... because no one from academia or the medical community has EVER taken time off from her career to stay home with her children. That's just not done! I have news for you... most of the SAHMs I know have indeed left high-level professional careers to be SAHMs, whether temporarily or permanently. I understand it's convenient for you to slam SAHMs as knowing nothing more than how to run the bake sale (something I've never done in my life, BTW), but really - stereotype much?

You know tenured professors and surgeons who have left the workforce permanently after having kids? Um, ok.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I clearly said, "whether temporarily or permanently". And yes, I do know both professors and physicians who have temporarily left the workforce to stay home with their children, and I also know plenty of other professionals (myself included) who are home on a semi-permanent basis - meaning home indefinitely with possible plans to return to work sometime in the future. Guess what? It can be done.

As a tenured professor, I know of ZERO professors who were on the *tenure* track who were able to take more than allotted maternity leave and come back onto the tenure track. You have no understanding of how the tenure track works. There are adjunct professors or instructors who take a few years, but they are not considered full-time faculty and (unfortunately) do not have nearly the same benefits, salary, security, or prestige of tenure-line and tenured faculty.

Yup, this.

And the tenure year happento neatly coincide with peak fertility years. It sucks.

I agree also. That poster clearly has no inkling of how high- level academia works. The other poster, the one she attacked for poor reading comprehension - ha! - was clearly addressing her claim that people leave these tracks permanently after reproducing. Doesn't happen unless significant other circumstances are at play.

The few female, tenured professors I know don't have kids at all. Maybe the issue is the environment - so maybe working to change the system to be more family-friendly would be time better spent than fighting The Mommy Wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

How wonderful for you that you are so knowledgeable about the financial situation of all working parents. Of course we can all take off as much time as we want! Why didn't I know that? Thank you for enlightening me!

Putting my student loans in forebearance (while they continue to accrue interest) and giving up the awesome healthcare that my job provides sounds like a great option for my family.

My 22 year old cousin without any real work experience who got knocked up by a married man is going to be moving back in with her parents. She'll be able to spend as much time as she wants taking care of her infant. I guess that would be a preferable situation than having a dual income family with job stability, flexible hours, and parents with graduate defrees.

Oh PP, what would I have ever done without you to tell me what I can and cannot do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

How wonderful for you that you are so knowledgeable about the financial situation of all working parents. Of course we can all take off as much time as we want! Why didn't I know that? Thank you for enlightening me!

Putting my student loans in forebearance (while they continue to accrue interest) and giving up the awesome healthcare that my job provides sounds like a great option for my family.

My 22 year old cousin without any real work experience who got knocked up by a married man is going to be moving back in with her parents. She'll be able to spend as much time as she wants taking care of her infant. I guess that would be a preferable situation than having a dual income family with job stability, flexible hours, and parents with graduate defrees.

Oh PP, what would I have ever done without you to tell me what I can and cannot do!

Work from home if you need the money...I know you hadn't thought of that so you're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My aunt was a SAHM and 3 of her 5 kids have criminal records. My mother also stayed home and me and all of my siblings turned out well, no records, college educated, etc. Obviously it takes more than just having a SAHM for a child to turn out right.

Well...obviously. But whoever seriously argues that being in daycare at 6 moths old for 8 hours a day (or even younger, or even longer...) is better for a child than being home with Mom or Dad is just delusional. Sure...some don't think they have any other option than to go back to work with their baby barely being born and that's what people argue here. You do NOT have to go back to work when your child is 3 months old. If you choose to, fine. But stop justifying your choice with made up reasoning. We all know you could have stayed home but chose not to.

How wonderful for you that you are so knowledgeable about the financial situation of all working parents. Of course we can all take off as much time as we want! Why didn't I know that? Thank you for enlightening me!

Putting my student loans in forebearance (while they continue to accrue interest) and giving up the awesome healthcare that my job provides sounds like a great option for my family.

My 22 year old cousin without any real work experience who got knocked up by a married man is going to be moving back in with her parents. She'll be able to spend as much time as she wants taking care of her infant. I guess that would be a preferable situation than having a dual income family with job stability, flexible hours, and parents with graduate defrees.

Oh PP, what would I have ever done without you to tell me what I can and cannot do!

Work from home if you need the money...I know you hadn't thought of that so you're welcome.

I do work from home. So does my DH. I thought you are all knowing about people's work/life situations, so you should have already known that. As I already mentioned, we are a dual income family with flexible jobs. We can set our own hours, stagger schedules, and only need part time childcare. But according to your post, I should not be working at all. I just wanted to thank you for being such a helpful enlightening poster. I am sure your comments come from a place of deep love for small children and not from a place of insecurity. Judging others is a sign of needing to feel better about yourself and it is clear from your crazy posts that you have a lot of self loathing. I feel sorry for you.