Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage you to read extensively about the developmental psychology of infants and toddlers (Mary Ainsworth, Erik Erikson and Jean Piaget). I am a stay at home mom of five children and a former primary school teacher. It is incredibly important what I do with my children everyday and now more than ever I’m so grateful I am here to guide them both academically and emotionally during the pandemic.

Don’t take advice from a woman who chose to have five kids. Something off in the head

[Anonymous]

Being with my baby was literal heaven to me. At two I was completely satisfied. I am a greedy mom about my baby months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the mother. I loved staying home with my DD between 0 and 3 and think we both got a lot out of it. I feel really in tune with who she is as a person and what she needs, both now and moving forward, that will help me make parenting decisions moving forward.

We also have a really great relationship and I feel confident that we've laid the groundwork for a solid parent-child relationship moving forward. She trusts me, she talks to me about what is troubling her and we've developed a good vocabulary for discussing stuff. I definitely think you could do that while working but for me, it was helpful to be together more to get to that place.

But ultimately, I stayed home because I wanted to. I was an older mom and I knew this would be my only child. I worked for 20 years before becoming a mom. I was ready for a break and wanted to soak up the baby and toddler years while I could because I'm not going to get to do it again. I think if I'd had a baby at 32, or if I'd been planning to have 2 or 3, I might have made a different choice. I don't think it benefits a baby to be home with a mother who wishes she was at work or is bored or feels isolated. And I think those feelings are valid and don't mean you are a bad mom, at all! It's not how I felt but I could see how someone might.

The point is, make the choice that makes sense for you and that's what's best for your baby. I know that sounds selfish, but the truth is that your baby needs a happy, well-adjusted mom. If that means going back to work and finding a great nanny or a great daycare, do it! If it means quitting and staying home, and that works for your finances and your career, do that. I don't think either choice is best for everyone, because everyone has a different family set up, different personality, different work situation, etc. Heck, some people don't have access to high quality childcare and that influences their choice -- if you can't find a daycare you like and you can't afford a nanny, then staying home might feel like the best option. But it's so, so person dependent.

How old is your kid right now? I’m going to guess younger than 5, just from how idealistic you sound. Check in again when you have a school age child.

She’s 4 (and I’m back at work full time) but how can my lives experience be “idealistic”? I took time off, it was the right choice for me, it seems to have been good for my kid, but I’m sure other options would have worked for her too. Not sure why any of that would change— no matter what the future holds, I can’t think of any reason I’d suddenly regret my very positive SAHM experience later.

I’m not questioning your choices, good for you. I just noticed a couple phrases in there that are typical of a FTM with a young child. Wait until your child gets a little older and more complex. You’ll see that 0-5 is a golden period, regardless of whether you WOH or SAH. There’s a reason older women get misty eyed when they see a young child. It’s easy to be that child’s whole world and to feel like you’re doing everything right. Wait a bit, you’ll see what I mean.

Oh, a “just you wait— you’ll see.” Moms of young kids never hear that.

Yes, of course things will change as my child ages. Thank you for explaining *the effect of time on humans* to me. As a person in my 40s, that has never occurred to me before.

Honey, you’re the one who said this bond is going to help you make parenting decisions going forward and that you feel confident about this great groundwork you’ve laid. Sorry but only moms of young children say that kind of thing. That’s not a mindset that shows consciousness about how things change. You will be dealing with a completely different kid in a few years. It’s fine if you want to congratulate yourself about the lifelong effects of these few years, but just own that this isn’t really realistic given that it’s early in the marathon. The truth is you don’t know yet what your child or your relationship with your child is going to look like, and that’s ok. Embrace the fact that you had some good years. Don’t make it into an expectation for how things will go.

Ooooh, a “Honey” — now I know you really do know what you are talking about.

I see that you have been triggered by some of the words in my originally post and I would encourage you to raise that with your therapist at your next session. However, if you had actually read my whole post, who would have seen that I point out that I think someone WOH could develop the same bond, but this is what worked for me. And when I say it helps me make decisions for my kid, I’m talking about PK programs and whether to sign her up for gymnastics, not college. But you read into what you wanted so that you could climb up on your high horse and explain parenting to me.

Sorry you are struggling with your school age kids, but that’s not really relevant to my comment or this thread. The OP asked if SAHM during infant/toddler years made a difference, and I explained that in my case, it made a difference *for me*. It’s what I wanted so it’s what I did and I don’t regret it. I was arguing that it’s the solution to all parenting issues or that it will ensure your child does well at every age, just that in the microcosm of ages 0-3, it worked for me.

I have no idea why you feel the need to tell me that my kid will change as she ages. Thanks, I know? Nothing you’ve said helps anyone (not me, not OP). You are just enjoying telling a mother of a younger child that you know more (and yet, mysteriously, this vast experience has produced not a single nugget of wisdom). But whatever your motivation, it’s AAAALLLLL about you and has nothing to do with me.

Trust me. You’ll see.

[Anonymous]

A well nurtured baby is a happy baby, whatever configuration that takes. Babies know when they are loved, so parents plus a caring, attentive nanny would work just fine. One of my kids had me home for the first 1.5 years, the other didn't--our bond is the same.

[Anonymous]

Pp I would ignore that poster. Really bizarre response to your very normal post about what worked for you in the early years. Clearly like you said it triggered something for the pp that maybe is going through something. You clearly said that working outside the home didn’t preclude someone from building the same relationship but that it’s been nice for you and didn’t say anything about it completely changing how you anticipate teen years to go or something?? I also have lots of moms of older kids who yes say oh I remember those under 5 years but not in a good way! Frankly I hear people describe the elementary years as the golden years not 0-5 so I don’t know, just an interesting poster but I wouldn’t take it to heart.

[Anonymous]

OP I stayed at home and agree that a caring nurturing nanny can be basically the same. The problem to me is that if the nanny is treating your baby poorly when you’re not around you would have no way of knowing. Sadly it happens. Some people get lucky with great nannies etc. who stay with the family for years but others don’t.

[Anonymous]

OP at first I thought this was really important. I couldn’t afford to be a SAHM (needed my health insurance) so we did a nanny while I worked from home and it was great. Baby had multiple attentive caregivers. I couldn’t imagine bringing my 4 month old to daycare. But then my dd turned one and it was so clear she needed more than nanny or we could offer her. She needed other kids, she needed the change of scenery, she needed the structure of learning new skills and tasks in “school.”

I really think the countries that provide a year of maternity leave get it right. I’m glad I didn’t quit my job now that I have a toddler, but doing he first year without also juggling work would have been wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The research is:

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

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

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

Really? Where is this research, pray tell?

Also, given this framework you assert, why is it still culturally normative that the wealthiest families outsource childcare from the word go? Why all the nannies - and boarding schools - when the parents don’t even need to work on account of massive trust funds?

Here's a metaanalysis:

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

"...moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)….In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost-resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)….Timing of employment was also an important moderator, such that Year 1 employment was negatively associated with children’s achievement, whereas later employment (Years 2 and 3) was positively associated with achievement."

There are really a number of studies out there.

Really though, in the end, the difference is so minimal. What really matters:
1) maternal education
2) SES
3) parental stress
4) parental physical and mental health


As far as why the wealthiest parents choose childcare from the word "go," I don't know. I don't really even know that they do. What I know about the wealthiest families is really mostly based on television. I have no idea how close that is to reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are nearly grown, but I simply could not hand my newborn over to strangers at a daycare, who were managing my baby in addition to five or six others lined in their infant car carriers in the baby room waiting for individual attention. Just couldn't do it. That is the decision that worked best for me at the time.

Follow your gut. Looking back, I feel I did the right thing for me and my child(ren). Zero regrets. Work will always be there to go back to, but you only get one chance to raise your children. My kids are well-adjusted, calm, thoughtful young people who do me proud.

You actually literally couldn't do that now, since that's not legal in daycares, and not what happens.

PP. could you expand on that? That is not our experience in daycare.

[Anonymous]

What kind of SAHM? Paid employment has nothing to do with what kind of mom you will be.

I chose to be a SAHM and I think it has had a profound positive impact on my kids and family. I also was in a state of bliss being with my children and was very well supported at home. I understand that my experience is unique to me so this really does not translate well to others.

I agree with another pp who wrote about other 1st world countries that give a year of maternity leave to moms.

[Anonymous]

What’s best for the baby is a calm and happy mom and dad. Whatever that looks like for your family. If you are bored and lonely sah, it’s not going to be better for your baby than a great daycare or nanny. If you are loving life as a sahp and your spouse is happy too then go for it.

There’s some research that suggests infants in alot of daycare before 6mo may have greater behavioral problems later on. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200505/the-trouble-day-care
But thats an extreme use scenario.

[Anonymous]

I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have teens and I just want to offer some reassurance. These kind of threads get outright mean sometimes, I think due to larger societal misogyny, but regardless the reason, it isn't great.

I'm around a lot of teens. Also, my own teens had a SAHM, a full time WOHM, a part time WOHM, and even a student mom. I've seen it all and done different things myself. And what I see is that while this is a choice that is important for individual mothers, in practice SAHM vs WOHM is just far, far down the list of things that matter. It's not that it's irrelevant, because it impacts mothers in a variety of ways, but mostly it's unimportant to the outcome of the kids.

What matters to the outcome of kids? The state of the parental relationship, the mental health of the parents/siblings, the financial stability of the family (this is not the same thing as wealth), alcohol & drug use by parents, anger management (or lack thereof) of parents, addressing special needs of kids/parents, parental rigidity and expectations, etc. This stuff has lifelong impact. But SAH v WOH is just not that important to outcome.

People also get thrown curveballs. Partners change, jobs are lost, kids go off track, etc. What is more important than a specific role is adaptability (IMO), both by kids and parents. Is someone rigidly clinging to a model that just isn't working? Is a SAHM refusing to work while her DH is destroying his health from stress? The selfishness of the SAHM is the problem, not the actual role of SAHM. Similarly, is a marriage getting destroyed because both spouses work long hours and won't compromise? The rigidity of both partners is the problem, not just WOH.

People on these threads often show a real lack of imagination, thrown in with a touch of nastiness: "I couldn't possibly imagine - a thing that other people are doing- because -fill in the blank self-justifying reason-." Whatever. Ignore these people, they don't have the mental flexibility and humility to raise teens well, that's for sure. Many kids are raised in wildly different ways, and they do well. There isn't a formula to childrearing, thankfully. The reality is that your kids will almost certainly be great kids, and you'll change course if they aren't.

You'll be okay, and so will they. Own your choices, and try to live your life such that you can make changes. It will all be okay!

+1000 Do what’s best for YOUR mental health, sanity and family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

So not true regarding nannies. I was raised with a wonderful nanny who stayed in my life after she stopped working for my parents and my brother and I spoke at her funeral. My primary attachment was still with my parents.

My kids also have a brilliant, loving nanny who sees her former charges so I know she’ll see my kids once she moves on unemployment. And my kids are very bonded with DH and me. There is no confusion at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

So not true regarding nannies. I was raised with a wonderful nanny who stayed in my life after she stopped working for my parents and my brother and I spoke at her funeral. My primary attachment was still with my parents.

My kids also have a brilliant, loving nanny who sees her former charges so I know she’ll see my kids once she moves on unemployment. And my kids are very bonded with DH and me. There is no confusion at all.

With all due respect, you do not know this. You were an infant and toddler during this time. It switches. It is a deeply rooted psychological state of attachment, not a conscious "this is my mom" kind of thing.