Making time for kids? Study says quality trumps quantity

[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.

Thanks, PP. This provided the best laugh so far. So let me get this right-- you need to be at home with your children to respond to all their needs as soon as they have them in order to be raising your own children. BUT, if you need money you can just work from home. I'm curious-- what hours of the day could you do quality work, all with a small child who apparently needs your undivided attention in order to feel loved or to be raised by his or her parent? Or were you just a crappy employee who wouldn't mind doing half assed work while tending to a child in the "formative years?" Please clarify. You have all the answers and you're very certain in your judgments so this should be very enlightening for all of the rest of us.

[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.

As long as the money keeps coming in! Come back when the alimony runs out.

[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.

I don think the same analysis works with all professions. For many lawyers, deciding to go into academia full time tenure track then tenured IS mommy tracking. The academic life is itself the family/work balance. I know many professors, including family members , who have always been academics and who have switched over later, and it's generally been a terrific, family-friendly choice. I can see why universities haven't found the need to provide even more work-life balance options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don think the same analysis works with all professions. For many lawyers, deciding to go into academia full time tenure track then tenured IS mommy tracking. The academic life is itself the family/work balance. I know many professors, including family members , who have always been academics and who have switched over later, and it's generally been a terrific, family-friendly choice. I can see why universities haven't found the need to provide even more work-life balance options.

Law school tenure is generally easier than other kinds of tenure. But I still don't think there are many (if any) profs on tenure track who can take years off, then jump back in effectively.

[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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

Don't forget that it is also better to spend their days in the carseat, strapped into a gross Target cart, staring glassy-eyed at Mommy drinking her Starbucks etc than engaged with an experienced childcare provider who's an expert in development of kids that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And your judgmental attitude and snarky remarks make you a better person then. Oh now it all makes sense to me! You tell me I am judging you yet you do the same thing one post later. Guess you are just as crazy as me then. Welcome to the club.

[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?

Sure. But my post was in response to the PP, who detailed her experiences with a SAHM who clearly wasn't within the norm - see the bolded in her post. I know of no one - NO ONE - who is a SAHM and lives vicariously through her children or sleeps and watches TV all day. So while my mom may have been an anomaly (let's hope), the PP's mother was as well. It's interesting that you felt the need to rebut my experience, but not hers.

[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.

If there is a lot of fighting and issues in the home then daycare is 100% better. Not all homes are equal. Also I would never advise people to quit their job if they can't afford it. Since you don't know everyone's financial situation, you can't really say what a person can or can't do. You sound like a judgemental fool saying YOU know. How do YOU know? The truth is you don't know unless you do fortune telling on the side???

My 4 year old has been in daycare since 3 months old with a brief period of about 4 months off due to unemployment. But she is a very happy kid. My bff is a SAHM and our daughters hang out all the time. I can't say which is better because I can't see any difference in our kids. Both are very happy. The only difference is my daughter can read pretty well but hers cannot. Either way I'm confident both of our daughters will turn out well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don think the same analysis works with all professions. For many lawyers, deciding to go into academia full time tenure track then tenured IS mommy tracking. The academic life is itself the family/work balance. I know many professors, including family members , who have always been academics and who have switched over later, and it's generally been a terrific, family-friendly choice. I can see why universities haven't found the need to provide even more work-life balance options.

Law school tenure is generally easier than other kinds of tenure. But I still don't think there are many (if any) profs on tenure track who can take years off, then jump back in effectively.

Still very difficult to come by tenure-track law school positions. There are clinical professors, and in DC many, many adjuncts, but very few tenure-track professors of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

Not the PPs, but this just made me laugh. I don't care whether you're a WOHM or a SAHM (and I've been both), but to claim that your child is "doing language activities" while being cared for by a nanny or daycare provider is just ludicrous. The vast majority of childcare providers, especially in this area, speak little, if any, English. They can barely even communicate with the children they care for. Often, if we're talking about nannies, they meet in groups with other nannies and spend their time chatting in their own languages while their charges sit there with no mental stimulation at all. Or they just silently push strollers because there is no communication going on with the kids. It's very rare that I see a childcare provider whose first language is English and who can effectively do any kind of "language activities" with her charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

Don't forget that it is also better to spend their days in the carseat, strapped into a gross Target cart, staring glassy-eyed at Mommy drinking her Starbucks etc than engaged with an experienced childcare provider who's an expert in development of kids that age.

Again - hilarious. Why is it that I see plenty of "glassy-eyed" babies and toddlers strapped into their Target (or Wal-Mart) seats while accompanied by their non-English speaking nannies, who are usually on the phone while aimlessly walking the aisles? Why is it that most childcare providers aren't "experts in development of kids," but rather extremely poorly paid, immigrant women with little to no English language skills? Do you really think your child is somehow being stimulated in these situations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

Don't forget that it is also better to spend their days in the carseat, strapped into a gross Target cart, staring glassy-eyed at Mommy drinking her Starbucks etc than engaged with an experienced childcare provider who's an expert in development of kids that age.

Again - hilarious. Why is it that I see plenty of "glassy-eyed" babies and toddlers strapped into their Target (or Wal-Mart) seats while accompanied by their non-English speaking nannies, who are usually on the phone while aimlessly walking the aisles? Why is it that most childcare providers aren't "experts in development of kids," but rather extremely poorly paid, immigrant women with little to no English language skills? Do you really think your child is somehow being stimulated in these situations?

Ahh, the racist bitch again? My kids not with a nanny, btw. High quality childcare centers absolutely do the things pp described. Or do you believe classes are pointless too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 work from home, and I know you hadn't thought of this so you're welcome in advance - most employers require that you show you have childcare if you work from home. Working from home requires actual working, not subsidized, extended maternity leave. It's working. I had to sign a contract that shows that my child is taken care of by someone else during work hours. I know the feds do this too. So your flip solution means nothing.

But your child would be so much better off being plopped in front of the TV while you work rather than spending time with an engaged childcare provider doing language activites, crafts, etc. Children must be with their mothers (not even fathers count according to some PPs) ALL THE TIME during the FORMATIVE years or else you are having someone else raise them. There are no other options that count.

Don't forget that it is also better to spend their days in the carseat, strapped into a gross Target cart, staring glassy-eyed at Mommy drinking her Starbucks etc than engaged with an experienced childcare provider who's an expert in development of kids that age.

Again - hilarious. Why is it that I see plenty of "glassy-eyed" babies and toddlers strapped into their Target (or Wal-Mart) seats while accompanied by their non-English speaking nannies, who are usually on the phone while aimlessly walking the aisles? Why is it that most childcare providers aren't "experts in development of kids," but rather extremely poorly paid, immigrant women with little to no English language skills? Do you really think your child is somehow being stimulated in these situations?

Whatever you need to justify yourself. In the end, all the statistical studies show that what is relevant to a child's future is family income and mother's level of education. Judge all you want, but the PhD mommies out there who put their kids in daycare, and the JD mommies with their kids cared for by a nanny, who live in homes with high incomes are somehow, somehow managing to raise children who are just as, if not more accomplished and successful as those who sacrificed so much to SAH. Go figure.