Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Exactly and why is a mom better equip than someone who actually has a degree in early childhood education? I’m educated but not in that! I wouldnt know how to handle my 2 year old at home- she was way better off with people who knew how to entertain her / teach her with age appropriate lessons at preschool.

This is truly an insane argument. By all means use childcare to enable you to keep working but the idea that it is not possible to care for a young child unless you have a degree in early childhood education is absolute nonsense. First off I will take a nanny with years of practical experience raising her own kids and caring for other people's kids over a fresh graduate of a ECE program any day and so will most other sane parents. Because you don't learn how to take care of children by reading books. But also a nanny is only with kids 8-10 hours a day. You still have to "handle" your 2 year old at home unless you intend to never be alone with your child until the nanny has properly gotten them through the difficult phases. Do you intend to never spend an evening or weekend with your kids without the nanny or never go on vacation without the nanny? That's bonkers.

Also (and again this is not an argument for all women to be sahms which I don't believe in anyway) but there ARE things that parents offer kids that paid caregivers absolutely cannot give them. Children need to develop love and trust and rapport with their actual parents and not just with a nanny or other caregiver. And moms don't need degrees in ECE to provide it. You just love your kid and care for them and if you make some mistakes with logistics like potty training or sleep training it is honestly not that big of a deal compared to not providing your child with a loving and supportive home environment where they know they are welcome and safe. There is no replacement for that and it does not require special training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Because she likely has anxiety, which is obvious from the post, and needs reasons why she can’t go to work. This the type who refers to a nanny as a “stranger” and really thinks it was beneficial for her to stay home with kids. I’m reality it doesn’t benefit her kids much at all.

I agree, the insecurity about her choice was screaming from her post. I've noticed that many SAHMs on this board have to go to great lengths to convince themselves it was a "worthwhile" choice.

It's really interesting because, taking my own self as an example, I'm a working mom. One of my kids is leaps and bounds ahead of her peers in maturity, poise, and academics. I get told constantly by other parents, teachers, coaches, etc. that she is a stand out. I'm hugely proud of her but I don't try to convince myself it's because I chose to work. It has nothing to do with my choices, other than to make sure she always had a safe environment in which to thrive. If I had stayed home, I'm sure she'd still be the same great kid. But for whatever reason many SAHMs try to argue that their kids are the way they are BECAUSE they stayed home. Their world view depends on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Exactly and why is a mom better equip than someone who actually has a degree in early childhood education? I’m educated but not in that! I wouldnt know how to handle my 2 year old at home- she was way better off with people who knew how to entertain her / teach her with age appropriate lessons at preschool.

Moms for tens of millenia learned on the job (or by watching other people in the tribe/clan and taking care of kids from age about 7, but you know...we don't do that any more). ECE degrees aren't required to parent, they really aren't. I know plenty of kids at top colleges whose mothers and fathers had merely bachelors degrees from SLACs.

I think my degree (MD) I’ve worked for is better served with me fulfilling that purpose while my daughter is cared for lovingly and thriving. Also you act like work is 24/7- you know that after daycare/ before school and on weekends parents are generally around right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m reminded of when we lived in Scarsdale, where dual high-income families were commonplace. I was eavesdropping on some high school boys having lunch in a local deli. They were talking about another boy, and how his mom is a doctor who works overnights at a hospital so he never sees her. And they all had such genuine sadness for him over that fact. I just have to wonder what’s the point of having such a big job that you don’t ever see your kids.

I’m a mom who works overnights in a hospital so that I CAN be there for my kids. I’m sleeping, but home during the day if there is any kind of emergency at school or sick child who needs to stay home. I pick my kids up at school every day, drive them to extracurriculars, help with homework, make dinner, and read them stories before bed. Then I take a quick nap and go in to work at midnight.

Working nights is not a “big job.” No one is working nights and doing hospital administration or getting big research dollars. Doctors working nights are taking care of sick people who need emergent care. I don’t know how you can’t see the point of that.

Sorry about the rant.

I agree with you, OP. My sister is 10 years younger than I am, and she is about your age. I have noticed that there are very different expectations of her husband at home. I’ve seen this with my residents too. I’m not a surgeon or in any high intensity field, but over the last 10 years or so, I’ve started seeing expectations shift, and men with kids are expected to take leave when their babies are born, to need to leave on time, and to take occasional sick days to take care of children. 10-15 years ago, the expectation was that men had no responsibilities outside of work, and their wives (or someone?) would handle everything.

Yes and it's precisely that because the men are equal partners that no one really wants more (3+) kids. Turns out that parenting is hard.

Haha! And I think that wanting to keep the men as equal partners in the home is keeping women at work when they thought they would be SAHMs.

Nobody wants to be a SAHM anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marathon running and new construction homes.

-another “high credential” millennial mom (1989)

Just wait until their kids are in high school and college and you are hearing all about them running marathons WITH their kids or attending their D1 athletics or whatever.

If this is triggering for you (it is for me) you need to mute or develop a strong level of detachment from social media generally early on.

Why does this trigger you? Serious question. Why do you care so much what other people do?

Are you really this dense?

Look, life is not a menu everyone is handed and gets to order off. So this is not a function of looking at someone else's plate and thinking "I should have ordered that." People have limitations and challenges and yes, sometimes it's triggering to see someone without those limitations or challenges because it reminds you of what you can't have.

Like I am triggered by social media posts of people with their parents, especially anything showing a close relationship between their kids and parents. That's not something I have access to or ever will so it makes me feel a bit sad when I see others who have that. I mute accounts where that kind of post is common because I don't like thinking about it.

If statements like this bother you, maybe you should avoid going on DCUM threads where people talk about it, which is clearly triggering *for you.*

Anonymous wrote:
I'm also a working mom but I think if you are getting your perception of what sahms are like from this board -- well that's your problem right there. I mean literally in the last two pages of this thread there is a working mom claiming that a mom without a degree in early childhood education is not really qualified to take care of a 2 year old. I'm sorry but that is transparently a woman trying to argue that childcare is superior to a sahm in order to justify her own choices. This cuts both ways.

I know plenty of sahms who did it because they wanted to and are happy with their choice because it's the lifestyle they want. As a working mom I can say that I see one of the biggest advantaged to having a sahp of any gender at home is just logistical -- dual income families are tricky to navigate and the idea of having someone at home who can just keep the ship on course would be a life upgrade for me. We just honestly cannot afford it and also I think I'd have a hard time not working from a mental health standpoint. But not everyone is like me and other families make other choices and that's fine.

Anyway you're comment is unnecessarily judgmental and will probably make some sahms feel the need to justify their own choices by for instance claiming that kids with sahms do better. And those comments will no doubt prompt peopel like the PP to claim that actually sahms are inferior to paid childcare workers. And so on and so on. Neither "side" can claim that they alone have figured it out and won the "best moms" award and for some reason this conflict persists. But you aren't helping. You are contributing to the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m reminded of when we lived in Scarsdale, where dual high-income families were commonplace. I was eavesdropping on some high school boys having lunch in a local deli. They were talking about another boy, and how his mom is a doctor who works overnights at a hospital so he never sees her. And they all had such genuine sadness for him over that fact. I just have to wonder what’s the point of having such a big job that you don’t ever see your kids.

I’m a mom who works overnights in a hospital so that I CAN be there for my kids. I’m sleeping, but home during the day if there is any kind of emergency at school or sick child who needs to stay home. I pick my kids up at school every day, drive them to extracurriculars, help with homework, make dinner, and read them stories before bed. Then I take a quick nap and go in to work at midnight.

Working nights is not a “big job.” No one is working nights and doing hospital administration or getting big research dollars. Doctors working nights are taking care of sick people who need emergent care. I don’t know how you can’t see the point of that.

Sorry about the rant.

I agree with you, OP. My sister is 10 years younger than I am, and she is about your age. I have noticed that there are very different expectations of her husband at home. I’ve seen this with my residents too. I’m not a surgeon or in any high intensity field, but over the last 10 years or so, I’ve started seeing expectations shift, and men with kids are expected to take leave when their babies are born, to need to leave on time, and to take occasional sick days to take care of children. 10-15 years ago, the expectation was that men had no responsibilities outside of work, and their wives (or someone?) would handle everything.

Old millennial here. Culture has changed but so have workplace policies. With my first, who's almost 10, my husband got 3 weeks paternity leave and only took 2 so he could have one "just in case" when I went back to work. He had just switched jobs, and when we were previously at the same employer, the benefit was 8 weeks...for the primary parent only. As in, we had to declare one of us "primary" and only that person got the crappy leave.

Then I was a fed when I had #2, less than a year before paid parental leave passed. We have only had paid parental leave for government employees for 3 years. That's a HUGE change. The culture has changed around it too. New parents I know try to use their paid leave plus vacation/sick time to extend leave to 4-6 months. Anyone who tried to do this with unpaid FMLA before got a really hard time about it and sometimes outright rejection.

Anyway, I think generous leave policies for both parents are part of the shift, and they're REALLY recent.

Agree. This has been a huge change, and my kids are 10 and 13 years old. My DH took 2 weeks of sick leave with each new baby (which was considered generous). I was a fed and could only have 12 weeks off total (mostly unpaid).

+3 (or 4?).
There is also a change of generation in administration. 15 years ago it was all boomers and older Gen X who had a chip on their shoulder about young mother’s being in the workforce. Even, or maybe especially, other women. It was like they wanted to prove that you couldn’t hack it.

LOL, most of my managers have been childless Gen X scared to touch any discussion of leave with a 10 foot pole. I've been horrified by how little HR knows about how benefits work though, I've literally had to quote and send them links to OPM guidance when they've said "I don't know if you can do that" (e.g. take intermitten FMLA, a thing I would think most HR people had gotten training in). We have to be our own best advocates.

I think one of the major differences now vs 10 years ago, or 20, is that we CAN do that, whereas the older Gen X and Boomers didn't have the benefits and had a lot more likelihood of retaliation or being passed over for opportunities. If men use their benefits too, then it makes discrimination based on parental status less likely as well.

This is such a great point, and I remember thinking this as a young woman as well. Every time I interviewed for a job, I know they were wondering if I was going to get pregnant and ask for leave.

I wonder if some of the younger women on this thread can chime in on whether that has gotten better.

Definitely better. Men are now expected to take their paid full leaves which is often between 4-12 weeks in white collar jobs sometimes more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Because she likely has anxiety, which is obvious from the post, and needs reasons why she can’t go to work. This the type who refers to a nanny as a “stranger” and really thinks it was beneficial for her to stay home with kids. I’m reality it doesn’t benefit her kids much at all.

I agree, the insecurity about her choice was screaming from her post. I've noticed that many SAHMs on this board have to go to great lengths to convince themselves it was a "worthwhile" choice.

It's really interesting because, taking my own self as an example, I'm a working mom. One of my kids is leaps and bounds ahead of her peers in maturity, poise, and academics. I get told constantly by other parents, teachers, coaches, etc. that she is a stand out. I'm hugely proud of her but I don't try to convince myself it's because I chose to work. It has nothing to do with my choices, other than to make sure she always had a safe environment in which to thrive. If I had stayed home, I'm sure she'd still be the same great kid. But for whatever reason many SAHMs try to argue that their kids are the way they are BECAUSE they stayed home. Their world view depends on it.

I'm also a working mom but I think if you are getting your perception of what sahms are like from this board -- well that's your problem right there. I mean literally in the last two pages of this thread there is a working mom claiming that a mom without a degree in early childhood education is not really qualified to take care of a 2 year old. I'm sorry but that is transparently a woman trying to argue that childcare is superior to a sahm in order to justify her own choices. This cuts both ways.

I know plenty of sahms who did it because they wanted to and are happy with their choice because it's the lifestyle they want. As a working mom I can say that I see one of the biggest advantaged to having a sahp of any gender at home is just logistical -- dual income families are tricky to navigate and the idea of having someone at home who can just keep the ship on course would be a life upgrade for me. We just honestly cannot afford it and also I think I'd have a hard time not working from a mental health standpoint. But not everyone is like me and other families make other choices and that's fine.

Anyway you're comment is unnecessarily judgmental and will probably make some sahms feel the need to justify their own choices by for instance claiming that kids with sahms do better. And those comments will no doubt prompt peopel like the PP to claim that actually sahms are inferior to paid childcare workers. And so on and so on. Neither "side" can claim that they alone have figured it out and won the "best moms" award and for some reason this conflict persists. But you aren't helping. You are contributing to the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Exactly and why is a mom better equip than someone who actually has a degree in early childhood education? I’m educated but not in that! I wouldnt know how to handle my 2 year old at home- she was way better off with people who knew how to entertain her / teach her with age appropriate lessons at preschool.

This is truly an insane argument. By all means use childcare to enable you to keep working but the idea that it is not possible to care for a young child unless you have a degree in early childhood education is absolute nonsense. First off I will take a nanny with years of practical experience raising her own kids and caring for other people's kids over a fresh graduate of a ECE program any day and so will most other sane parents. Because you don't learn how to take care of children by reading books. But also a nanny is only with kids 8-10 hours a day. You still have to "handle" your 2 year old at home unless you intend to never be alone with your child until the nanny has properly gotten them through the difficult phases. Do you intend to never spend an evening or weekend with your kids without the nanny or never go on vacation without the nanny? That's bonkers.

Also (and again this is not an argument for all women to be sahms which I don't believe in anyway) but there ARE things that parents offer kids that paid caregivers absolutely cannot give them. Children need to develop love and trust and rapport with their actual parents and not just with a nanny or other caregiver. And moms don't need degrees in ECE to provide it. You just love your kid and care for them and if you make some mistakes with logistics like potty training or sleep training it is honestly not that big of a deal compared to not providing your child with a loving and supportive home environment where they know they are welcome and safe. There is no replacement for that and it does not require special training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Because she likely has anxiety, which is obvious from the post, and needs reasons why she can’t go to work. This the type who refers to a nanny as a “stranger” and really thinks it was beneficial for her to stay home with kids. I’m reality it doesn’t benefit her kids much at all.

I agree, the insecurity about her choice was screaming from her post. I've noticed that many SAHMs on this board have to go to great lengths to convince themselves it was a "worthwhile" choice.

It's really interesting because, taking my own self as an example, I'm a working mom. One of my kids is leaps and bounds ahead of her peers in maturity, poise, and academics. I get told constantly by other parents, teachers, coaches, etc. that she is a stand out. I'm hugely proud of her but I don't try to convince myself it's because I chose to work. It has nothing to do with my choices, other than to make sure she always had a safe environment in which to thrive. If I had stayed home, I'm sure she'd still be the same great kid. But for whatever reason many SAHMs try to argue that their kids are the way they are BECAUSE they stayed home. Their world view depends on it.

I'm also a working mom but I think if you are getting your perception of what sahms are like from this board -- well that's your problem right there. I mean literally in the last two pages of this thread there is a working mom claiming that a mom without a degree in early childhood education is not really qualified to take care of a 2 year old. I'm sorry but that is transparently a woman trying to argue that childcare is superior to a sahm in order to justify her own choices. This cuts both ways.

I know plenty of sahms who did it because they wanted to and are happy with their choice because it's the lifestyle they want. As a working mom I can say that I see one of the biggest advantaged to having a sahp of any gender at home is just logistical -- dual income families are tricky to navigate and the idea of having someone at home who can just keep the ship on course would be a life upgrade for me. We just honestly cannot afford it and also I think I'd have a hard time not working from a mental health standpoint. But not everyone is like me and other families make other choices and that's fine.

Anyway you're comment is unnecessarily judgmental and will probably make some sahms feel the need to justify their own choices by for instance claiming that kids with sahms do better. And those comments will no doubt prompt peopel like the PP to claim that actually sahms are inferior to paid childcare workers. And so on and so on. Neither "side" can claim that they alone have figured it out and won the "best moms" award and for some reason this conflict persists. But you aren't helping. You are contributing to the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Because she likely has anxiety, which is obvious from the post, and needs reasons why she can’t go to work. This the type who refers to a nanny as a “stranger” and really thinks it was beneficial for her to stay home with kids. I’m reality it doesn’t benefit her kids much at all.

I agree, the insecurity about her choice was screaming from her post. I've noticed that many SAHMs on this board have to go to great lengths to convince themselves it was a "worthwhile" choice.

It's really interesting because, taking my own self as an example, I'm a working mom. One of my kids is leaps and bounds ahead of her peers in maturity, poise, and academics. I get told constantly by other parents, teachers, coaches, etc. that she is a stand out. I'm hugely proud of her but I don't try to convince myself it's because I chose to work. It has nothing to do with my choices, other than to make sure she always had a safe environment in which to thrive. If I had stayed home, I'm sure she'd still be the same great kid. But for whatever reason many SAHMs try to argue that their kids are the way they are BECAUSE they stayed home. Their world view depends on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people are having 3 kids, I’m glad it’s being mentioned! Among my work colleagues and friends, the most common number of kids to have is 3. Maybe 3 is the new 2?

3 kids is common is one parent SAH or if grandparents are close by and young enough to support dual working parents. If two working parents with no local family, unlikely to have 3+

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cost benefit. Depends how invested they are in their careers, how deeply involved the mother wants to be in their children’s lives. Even if you have a flexible wfh job, you will still not be able to spend as much time with DCs as a SAH. I like to spend my time in each aspect with my kids (tutoring, making sure they’re high achievers in school and activities, taking my time to make them healthy meals, etc) and pass on everything I know to them, so SAH works. Others need a job to be fulfilled so their choice works for them. I personally think my mode of SAH confers more advantage for my kids, but to each their own.

This is actually the #1 reason I choose to work. I could quit tomorrow and we would be just fine financially, but then I would be tempted to make my children my new "project". Better to model high achievement than to snowplow your way to it.

For you maybe.

I have a longer range perspective as an older GenX who runs in the professionally elite circles of Ward 3. The kids whose mom took some time off when they were young — say 0-8 — are more impressive as a cohort, generally. Smarter, better personalities, more poise.

Having a low-education nanny for years, then Lord of the Flies aftercare, has a more durable and negative impact on the youngest minds than striver parents care to admit.

And we all went back to work or resumed full time. Medicine, law, nonprofit and corporate real estate.

I think you have a vested interest in maintaining this point of view.

I think I watched these kids grow up, because they all attended the same private preschools then k-12 in NWDC. This is not a parenting group that uses daycare fwiw, because it’s not really available around here. We aren’t feds who can use their daycares, snd there isn’t a Bright Horizons on every corner

Anyway, it’s just common sense that having a primary caretaker during 85% of your 0-4 waking hours will yield different outcomes when the caretaker is functionally illiterate with a 3rd grade education vs. a graduate degree from an elite school. Not talking about kindness and safety considerations.

To OP, the doctor in our group dropped back to one day/ week for several years, then ramped back up when kids basically needed just an afternoon driver. The lawyers went of counsel or similar. The WaPo editor dropped to a very part time mommy track job temporarily. Some just quit altogether for a few years.

Why do you assume every nanny is an illiterate person with no education?! I had two nannies for my children when they were 0-5 years old. Both were American girls, with college educations. They weren’t Ivy League level schools or anything like that but my children’s nannies were far from illiterate!

Because she likely has anxiety, which is obvious from the post, and needs reasons why she can’t go to work. This the type who refers to a nanny as a “stranger” and really thinks it was beneficial for her to stay home with kids. I’m reality it doesn’t benefit her kids much at all.