Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

Are you seriously quoting the Daily Mail???

It seems to know more about this than you do.

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

Are you seriously quoting the Daily Mail???

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325770/Children-better-school-mother-stays-home-year.html


"Youngsters are less likely to succeed at school if their mothers return to work within a year of their birth, according to a major study."

"The child’s success was particularly affected if the mother’s work was full-time, the study spanning five decades found."

"Children of middle-class and two-parent families were more likely to be affected negatively than those from working-class or single-parent families, according to the research."

"Middle-class and upper-class youngsters suffer if their mothers return to work within their first three years. This was ‘significantly associated with decreases in formal measures of achievement’, it said."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Google “The Hell of American Daycare” (Atlantic).

DP. That's not what that article says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that you don’t see as what is best for the mother as linked to what is best for the baby. Not that best for mom automatically mean best for baby, but the two are connected.

Op here. I agree with you completely but didn’t want to turn this into a usual sahm v wohm debate with the same tired arguments on savings, career, DH cheating , boredom etc rehashed endlessly

Except that this is exactly what will happen because any evidence that this is beneficial to child will be (and has been) stomped out of the conversation by working parents who feel that this threatens their status as "good parents" for making a different choice. So it's really a non-starter.
Do what you want to do and feel confident in your decision, OP.

Actually, you don't have evidence that this is beneficial to the child as long as they are well taken care of by someone competent who cares for them, but that's ok. You can make your baseless claims anyway.

Actually, multiple peer reviewed studies showing this have been quoted and linked to in this thread.
But that’s ok. Continue with the stomping.

DP and Nope. There is no study or set of studies that definitely proves that kids raised by a SAHP are better off or better people or whatever you want to say than kids raised by WOHPs or WAHPs. You'll find stuff about maternal caregiving unrelated to work status and SES, perhaps.

If you want to stay at home with your young children, go right ahead and do what works for your family. But don't dress it up as something it is not.

I’m not dressing anything up.
You are welcome to look back through this thread and critique the studies posted. Or you can remain an ignorant fool.

There have been three studies cited, as far as I can see. One meta analysis that concluded, "Analyses of studies that spanned 5 decades indicated that, with a few exceptions, early employment was not significantly associated with later achievement or internalizing/externalizing behaviors." and "The small effect size and primarily nonsignificant results for main effects of early maternal employment should allay concerns about mothers working when children are young", one 16 year old study that showed increased chance of aggression in kids that were in daycare more than 45 hours a week, and one article about the work of Kathleen McGinn, who is the one everyone was buzzing about a few years ago who says her work shows benefits for the careers of daughters of working mothers.

So what are you talking about? There are *no* studies that definitively say that kids raised by SAHMs are better off than kids who go to daycare/have nannies. There just aren't. There are some trends, but many of them go IN FAVOR of daycare.

But at the end of the day, the big daycare study by the NICHD concluded this: "Features of the family and of children’s experiences in their families proved, in general, to be stronger and more consistent predictors of child development than did any aspect of child care."
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf


The ignorant fool is you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

No. Not at all.

Study after study shows that kids do better with high quality care, the kids are better off with a working mom if the alternative is living in poverty, and that kids are better off with a SAHM in middle class and UMC homes.

It’s really very clear.

This is accross a population though, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything for one particular child,

It's not *very clear*. There are many factors like maternal education and SES that matter much more than whether or not mom works. And, you point out, these studies have no predictive value for an individual child.

So again, each family makes the choice that is best for them, and kids will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

Google “The Hell of American Daycare” (Atlantic).

^SAHMs talk about being UNable to find quality childcare within their budget

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

No. Not at all.

Study after study shows that kids do better with high quality care, the kids are better off with a working mom if the alternative is living in poverty, and that kids are better off with a SAHM in middle class and UMC homes.

It’s really very clear.

This is accross a population though, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything for one particular child,

Ding ding ding!

And this is why the arguing is kind of pointless. You can see it in the comments. The WOHMs who are militant that it's the right choice almost universally cite their very hiqh quality childcare they paid for. And many of the SAHMs talk about being able to find quality care within their budget. So basically these two groups who are yelling at each other are making THE EXACT SAME CHOICE in different contexts. They are both selecting the higher quality care option. For some people, that's going to be a really good nanny or any exceptional day care (which will cost $$$ -- there are no bargains to be had in childcare, at least not in the DMV). And for others, that's going to be the loving SAHP who will put in the time and the effort to making sure their child gets what they need.

I seriously don't know why this isn't obvious to everyone. People have different resources and therefore have to make different childcare arrangements. Everyone tries to maximize benefit to their child. We all have way more in common than we are willing to admit.

Anonymous wrote:As someone without a dog in this fight hasn’t it basically been proven that it does not matter? Like study after study?

No. Not at all.

Study after study shows that kids do better with high quality care, the kids are better off with a working mom if the alternative is living in poverty, and that kids are better off with a SAHM in middle class and UMC homes.

It’s really very clear.

This is accross a population though, and it doesn’t necessarily mean anything for one particular child,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s odd that you don’t see as what is best for the mother as linked to what is best for the baby. Not that best for mom automatically mean best for baby, but the two are connected.

Op here. I agree with you completely but didn’t want to turn this into a usual sahm v wohm debate with the same tired arguments on savings, career, DH cheating , boredom etc rehashed endlessly

Except that this is exactly what will happen because any evidence that this is beneficial to child will be (and has been) stomped out of the conversation by working parents who feel that this threatens their status as "good parents" for making a different choice. So it's really a non-starter.
Do what you want to do and feel confident in your decision, OP.

Actually, you don't have evidence that this is beneficial to the child as long as they are well taken care of by someone competent who cares for them, but that's ok. You can make your baseless claims anyway.

Actually, multiple peer reviewed studies showing this have been quoted and linked to in this thread.
But that’s ok. Continue with the stomping.

DP and Nope. There is no study or set of studies that definitely proves that kids raised by a SAHP are better off or better people or whatever you want to say than kids raised by WOHPs or WAHPs. You'll find stuff about maternal caregiving unrelated to work status and SES, perhaps.

If you want to stay at home with your young children, go right ahead and do what works for your family. But don't dress it up as something it is not.

I’m not dressing anything up.
You are welcome to look back through this thread and critique the studies posted. Or you can remain an ignorant fool.

*years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. I couldn't care less what you decide to do, and it sounds like it worked out for you, so that's great. I'm not angry, resentful, or insecure. I just happen to think you're kind of uninteresting and we don't have a lot in common and I don't want to listen to you talk about how hard it is to keep your house clean all day. Your choice isn't a bad one, but some of the things you say are pathetic and responding to them with an eye roll doesn't mean I secretly wish I had your life.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

So once your kids started school at five years old the teachers raised them? Just confirming.

Such a lame comment.

+1. Not to mention that even if you want to make such a silly argument it's not relevant here, where we are talking about the "infant years."

If you want to talk about the infant he was literally all the research says it doesn’t matter. Try harder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. I couldn't care less what you decide to do, and it sounds like it worked out for you, so that's great. I'm not angry, resentful, or insecure. I just happen to think you're kind of uninteresting and we don't have a lot in common and I don't want to listen to you talk about how hard it is to keep your house clean all day. Your choice isn't a bad one, but some of the things you say are pathetic and responding to them with an eye roll doesn't mean I secretly wish I had your life.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

So once your kids started school at five years old the teachers raised them? Just confirming.

Such a lame comment.

Why? I mean I’m not that poster but it’s being with your children the majority of the day means you’re raising them that all the teachers start raising them once they start kindergarten? Especially in this time of virtual learning most working mothers would be with their kids maybe an hour or two less a day then mom said stay home. And most kids are in extracurricular zone anyway. So what’s the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to stay home with your kids, that's fine. I couldn't care less what you decide to do, and it sounds like it worked out for you, so that's great. I'm not angry, resentful, or insecure. I just happen to think you're kind of uninteresting and we don't have a lot in common and I don't want to listen to you talk about how hard it is to keep your house clean all day. Your choice isn't a bad one, but some of the things you say are pathetic and responding to them with an eye roll doesn't mean I secretly wish I had your life.

What a joke. Nobody finds your job interesting either. Believe me.

Not pp but it's more about being the kind of person who appreciates intellectual stimulation, thinks setting that example is important, etc. My company went under during COVID and I'm so sad not to be working. I love my kids, but I need my work as well to feel fulfilled.

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? Are you saying that SAHMs don't "appreciate[] intellectual stimulation" or don't think "setting that example is important?" Wow. Such an arrogant thing to say.

I mean, yes, I don’t think women who do not work think that setting an example as a working woman is important. That seems fairly obvious, no?

Nope. It's not obvious at all. In my case, for example, DH made close to seven figures. I wasn't about to get a job anyway just to "set an example" for my kids. What example would I be setting, exactly? That no matter how much money one of your parents makes, both need to be working and having someone else raise the kids because personal fulfillment is the most important thing? No thanks. Fast forward, and all of my kids (male and femaie) are now working in professional jobs and have nothing but respect for me. They also respect SAHMs, something which many working women on DCUM don't.

So once your kids started school at five years old the teachers raised them? Just confirming.

Such a lame comment.

+1. Not to mention that even if you want to make such a silly argument it's not relevant here, where we are talking about the "infant years."