As a former SAHM, if I was telling people to make childcare decisions based on what I saw at parks and storytimes at the library, I would end up telling people to outsource parenting entirely. By far the worst behavior from caregivers that I saw came from other moms. Maybe some nannies were bored, whatever, that's nothing. At least they weren't obviously seething and angry, or impatient with their kids.

I don't understand the SAHMs who look like hawks at the nannies but give wide latitude to other SAHMs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

How did you know these unengaged women were nannies? Because they were Brown?

For the record, our wonderful nanny is 65 and white. Everyone things she’s my child’s grandmother.

My experience in story time and music class with my kids is that it’s the mothers who are talking to each other constantly, ignoring their kids, or on their phones.

Lol, yes of course w can spot the nannies. The 55 year old Eritrean lady taking care of little Olivia and baby Theo is a nanny. That’s not racist, it’s common sense.

It’s weird that you are so proud if your white nanny.

Yes, lots of moms talk to each other and look at their phones during story time. Some don’t. That’s beside the point. The question is whether every nanny is an amazing caregiver and the answer is that no, of course not. Some are and some are not. But by the way the WOH moms on this thread are talking, all nannies are amazing. But it’s more like a small percent. And that’s one reason some women, who really want their kid to get that highly engaged and living caregiver, might choose to SAHM instead of rolling the dice.

This kind of response makes me laugh, as though all moms are amazing. Most aren't, working or not.

Seriously, if you stay home, good for you, but please get over yourselves.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing has ever made me feel more confident in my decision to say home with my child for the first few years than the absolute viciousness of moms on this website towards SAHMs. A lot of angry, resentful, insecure people on here attacking anyone who actually wanted to or enjoyed staying home with their kids for any length of time. If going straight back to work after leave and sending your child to daycare or leaving them with a nanny were so great, why would people be so mean about people who did something different?

There are downsides to being a SAHM, I've experienced them. But I've never regretted that choice, either for me or my kid. I think we both got value out of it. But there are so many posters on here who are angrily trying to prove that it's a "bad" choice and you have to ask yourself why.

You are full of BS.

First of all, if you look across these stupid mommy war threads, it is really a small minority of people who say super mean things about SAHMs. On this thread, most are not saying anything negative about staying at home, rather they are saying that things will be fine either way.
The viciousness, if there is some, comes from the SAHMs who have the audacity to insinuate that if you work instead of staying home with your infant, that your infant will somehow be less than they could have been. That the working mom is a worse parent. That is a horrible thing to say!!! And based on nothing more than their own inclinations, not science. It's all over this thread and others, over and over. Sometimes blatant, sometimes implied, but it's there.

If working moms lash out on this site to SAHMs, it comes from defensiveness. I actually do not agree with many of the things some WOH moms say to lash back at SAHMs in a demeaning way, but I totally get the defensiveness. What mom wouldn't lash back at someone saying that their kid is going to be HARMED by their mom working? What parent wouldn't lash back at someone saying, you are a bad parent because you work. That your infant won't bond with you in the same way if you work. The audacity of that. And that is exactly what SAHMs like you are saying. And it's absolute BS AND it's sexist, because go looking for the admonishment of dads for working...you won't find it.

And you say that the defensiveness of other moms when you tell them your life decision is better than theirs and your kids will be better off than theirs...this is what convince you that being a SAHM is the right decision? Do you make other decisions this way? Whatever pisses off other people the most, that's the way you go? Are you serious?

The truth is that many working moms would love to stay home with their kids for one, two, or three years. Why? Because they want to be with their kids. It's about THEM, the mom's feelings, not necessarily because their kids will be harmed without them. But many can't. So maybe they resent you being able to stay home with yours. Perhaps, perhaps not. Many working moms have no qualms. But for those who do, we all have things in life we want and cant' have and we all would feel some resentment if people in our lives who do have those things are smug and braggy about it. But then to add insult to injury, you insinuate they are hurting their child. How dare you? And then you wonder why they get defensive?

I have absolutely no care in the world if you choose to stay at home. Actually, if it is what you want, that is lovely. If a mom wants to be with her baby, that is great, and, frankly, you are fortunately if you have the choice. But does it make you a better parent? No, not automatically. Does it mean your kids will be better than someone else kid on whatever metric you want to throw out there? No, it doesn't.

I think a lot of working moms feel they cannot admit that they wanted to stay home with their kids and couldn't, because the harpy SAHMs will use that as a way to say, see, you should have stayed home, you are a bad parent. Working moms feel like unless they are all in on working, it will be used against them. But many of us have many reasons why we work and make the choices we do and our kids are absolutely fine, successful, loving human beings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can afford it, stay at home.

If you can afford it, hire an educated and experienced nanny.

+1. My thought as well. Here’s my reasoning: I majored in Finance; nanny majored in Early Childhood Education. I’ve never sleep-trained or potty-trained before; nanny has done it gently and we’ll six times before. My passion in life is business; her passion in life is teaching babies and young children. I’ve never taught preschool; nanny has. Nanny has been an education to DH and me as well. She’s like a baby whisperer!! She knows the next thing the kids are ready for.

I did cut back on travel to always be home for morning and dinner/bedtime and so did DH. I was able to nurse each child for two years and even pre-covid, never missed a nighttime or morning snuggle. I feel like I get the best of both worlds.

Alternatively, do what works for your family and don’t issue dictates about what others should do. The way you guys are saying this makes it sound like people who can’t afford nannies or who want to stay home are somehow doing something bad for their families. They aren’t. They are making different choices based on different circumstances.

Of course the wealthiest families have the most choices and the “best” choices. But it’s just privilege. The kids of wealthy white women will be fine either way. But the rest of us have to make real choices. It’s a totally different conversation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can afford it, stay at home.

If you can afford it, hire an educated and experienced nanny.

+1. My thought as well. Here’s my reasoning: I majored in Finance; nanny majored in Early Childhood Education. I’ve never sleep-trained or potty-trained before; nanny has done it gently and we’ll six times before. My passion in life is business; her passion in life is teaching babies and young children. I’ve never taught preschool; nanny has. Nanny has been an education to DH and me as well. She’s like a baby whisperer!! She knows the next thing the kids are ready for.

I did cut back on travel to always be home for morning and dinner/bedtime and so did DH. I was able to nurse each child for two years and even pre-covid, never missed a nighttime or morning snuggle. I feel like I get the best of both worlds.

Anonymous wrote:If you can afford it, stay at home.

If you can afford it, hire an educated and experienced nanny.

Anonymous wrote:I have a two and four year old and work and my observation of my good friends is that stay at home is less stressful on the family (mostly for the working partner, to be honest). I love my career and my kids thrived with a nanny and now in preschool but I am exhausted and burnt out a lot of the time. I know staying at home is no picnic but the idea of focusing only on family and making our lives run smoothly is super appealing.

I’m on a moms group with thousands of area moms. Most of the SAHMs there with young kids and FT working partners are also exhausted and burnt out, not to mention resentful due to the unequal parenting and household load. I think it’s mainly those ages... in a few years it will be different. Grass is always greener.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am deciding whether to stay at home for 1-3 years with my baby as my maternity leave comes to a close. On one hand, I’ve read that the most brain development happens from age 1-3 and I love the idea of being able to interact with the baby as much as possible during this period as he learns so much. I can’t imagine anyone being as invested in his development as me. On the other hand, baby’s needs seem so simple during this period and likely could be easily outsourced to a well qualified nanny. Is there really any benefit to the baby if a mom stays at home during the early years? Not looking to debate what is best for mom re savings, career etc., just what is best for baby.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.

YOU took a beating. I didn’t. My identity was and is strong. I made time for my interests and met other really incredible moms who were equally as interesting and got to spend so many lovely days with them. We had the luxury of long afternoon conversations about things other than our babies or office life. It was obvious that the one or two moms I got snark from were just struggling with their own choices. Not that they wanted to be me, but one’s DH was super rigid about having a “power wife” or whatever who would also do all the heavy lifting at home. Like she was trying to live up to his ideal. Wonder how he’d behave if she got laid off or very ill. Another struggled mightily with anxiety to the point where she had a rigid meal plan for her toddler’s meals and looked down on anyone who wasn’t orthorexic and rigid with sleep training. Not my monkey, not my circus. It was a great 5 years.

DP. I think this is a temperament thing. Many SAHMs have depression and anxiety because it’s a high burnout job, and may not be every woman’s aspiration. During the pandemic I’ve been lucky in that my job is very flexible and I’m senior enough to be able to control my hours. I have had a SAH experience with my youngest, including getting to know some awesome SAHMs via outdoor play dates. It is nice and relaxing to have a change of pace. For me personally though I find the lifestyle isn’t a good fit and has left me feeling aimless and depressed. I miss my work — it’s something I love and trained for a long time to do. Overall it’s fun baking and going to parks and having leisurely art time, but something is missing for me. I’m thankful every day that I did not choose to give up my career for this when my kids were younger and juggling was a struggle. My youngest will be in school FT within a year or two and then what would I do? It’s so personal and if being a mom is your passion that is great. If you have the luxury of choice then you need to be very honest and assess yourself objectively. Takes all kinds to make the world go around.

If you can afford it, stay at home.

I have a two and four year old and work and my observation of my good friends is that stay at home is less stressful on the family (mostly for the working partner, to be honest). I love my career and my kids thrived with a nanny and now in preschool but I am exhausted and burnt out a lot of the time. I know staying at home is no picnic but the idea of focusing only on family and making our lives run smoothly is super appealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am deciding whether to stay at home for 1-3 years with my baby as my maternity leave comes to a close. On one hand, I’ve read that the most brain development happens from age 1-3 and I love the idea of being able to interact with the baby as much as possible during this period as he learns so much. I can’t imagine anyone being as invested in his development as me. On the other hand, baby’s needs seem so simple during this period and likely could be easily outsourced to a well qualified nanny. Is there really any benefit to the baby if a mom stays at home during the early years? Not looking to debate what is best for mom re savings, career etc., just what is best for baby.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.

YOU took a beating. I didn’t. My identity was and is strong. I made time for my interests and met other really incredible moms who were equally as interesting and got to spend so many lovely days with them. We had the luxury of long afternoon conversations about things other than our babies or office life. It was obvious that the one or two moms I got snark from were just struggling with their own choices. Not that they wanted to be me, but one’s DH was super rigid about having a “power wife” or whatever who would also do all the heavy lifting at home. Like she was trying to live up to his ideal. Wonder how he’d behave if she got laid off or very ill. Another struggled mightily with anxiety to the point where she had a rigid meal plan for her toddler’s meals and looked down on anyone who wasn’t orthorexic and rigid with sleep training. Not my monkey, not my circus. It was a great 5 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

How did you know these unengaged women were nannies? Because they were Brown?

For the record, our wonderful nanny is 65 and white. Everyone things she’s my child’s grandmother.

My experience in story time and music class with my kids is that it’s the mothers who are talking to each other constantly, ignoring their kids, or on their phones.

Lol, yes of course w can spot the nannies. The 55 year old Eritrean lady taking care of little Olivia and baby Theo is a nanny. That’s not racist, it’s common sense.

It’s weird that you are so proud if your white nanny.

Yes, lots of moms talk to each other and look at their phones during story time. Some don’t. That’s beside the point. The question is whether every nanny is an amazing caregiver and the answer is that no, of course not. Some are and some are not. But by the way the WOH moms on this thread are talking, all nannies are amazing. But it’s more like a small percent. And that’s one reason some women, who really want their kid to get that highly engaged and living caregiver, might choose to SAHM instead of rolling the dice.

I agree it is a small percent. But you don’t “roll the dice.” It’s called hiring. I’ve hired several nannies over the year and it takes a long time to find a good fit. I go through many paper applications, narrow down to phone interviews, narrow down to in person, reference checks, and working trials of at least 1-2 weeks before hiring. I also work from home periodically and can tell you that when a nanny enjoys the work it is clear. I believe it is a high burnout position and try to make it as appealing for the person as possible — one very young child, flexible hours, breaks, PTO. I have also at times hired two PT younger nannies because I find that people doing a MA in child development who want a PT position while going through school are usually high energy and passionate. Is this a lot of effort? Yes. But I wasn’t willing to give up my career, so this is my way of exercising caution when I hand my non-verbal child over to someone. Verbal and in PT preschool is a different story... they can tell you if it’s not a good fit.

My kid is 14 and kind, smart, funny, and social. He’s everything I could have asked for in a child, and I am so incredibly proud of him as he begins to be more and more independent. We are still incredibly close. All of that had zero to do with whether I worked outside of the home or stayed home with him.

Do what works best for you, OP. If you want to stay home and can, wonderful! If you need to go back to work or want to go back to work, wonderful! Both options are hard, and both options end up with happy kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing that influenced my decision to SAH was that on my maternity leave I was around nannies a lot and many of them were mediocre at best. I remember going to story times at the library and the majority of nannies just ignored the kids (and the people from the library) and stared at their phones or chatted with one another, rather than engage with the kids during the story time. Same at parks and playgrounds. It wasn’t everyone — there were some engaged nannies. But most were bored and inattentive.

When I read the posts on here but everyone’s amazing nannies... I’m sure some people really did have great nannies who engaged your children and cared for them in a really attentive way. But IME that’s not how most nannies are. It was very obvious to me that I was way more focused on my child’s well being than most of the nannies I encountered were on that of the kids they were with. And particularly for children under 18 months (at which point they are fully mobile and not only can handle more independence but need it) there’s no question that a child benefits from being with a truly living and attentive caregiver.

I will say that the most engaged caregivers I encountered during my leave and SAHM days were the grandmas. Even more than most moms, who also get bored and stare at their phones a lot. If that’s an option for you, I’d seize it!

How did you know these unengaged women were nannies? Because they were Brown?

For the record, our wonderful nanny is 65 and white. Everyone things she’s my child’s grandmother.

My experience in story time and music class with my kids is that it’s the mothers who are talking to each other constantly, ignoring their kids, or on their phones.

Lol, yes of course w can spot the nannies. The 55 year old Eritrean lady taking care of little Olivia and baby Theo is a nanny. That’s not racist, it’s common sense.

It’s weird that you are so proud if your white nanny.

Yes, lots of moms talk to each other and look at their phones during story time. Some don’t. That’s beside the point. The question is whether every nanny is an amazing caregiver and the answer is that no, of course not. Some are and some are not. But by the way the WOH moms on this thread are talking, all nannies are amazing. But it’s more like a small percent. And that’s one reason some women, who really want their kid to get that highly engaged and living caregiver, might choose to SAHM instead of rolling the dice.

NP here. You missed the point. You said the grandmothers were the most attentive and the poster who disagrees with you pointed out that her child’s nanny is mistaken for his grandmother.

Everyone thinks I’m my daughter’s nanny.

Anonymous wrote:Am deciding whether to stay at home for 1-3 years with my baby as my maternity leave comes to a close. On one hand, I’ve read that the most brain development happens from age 1-3 and I love the idea of being able to interact with the baby as much as possible during this period as he learns so much. I can’t imagine anyone being as invested in his development as me. On the other hand, baby’s needs seem so simple during this period and likely could be easily outsourced to a well qualified nanny. Is there really any benefit to the baby if a mom stays at home during the early years? Not looking to debate what is best for mom re savings, career etc., just what is best for baby.

I don't have any real advice. I stayed at home, I don't regret it, how can you really when it's your own child BUT financially, marriage, conversationally, confidence, and identity wise you will take a BEATING. That is all.