Anonymous wrote:I’m a SAHM. I will say it was deeply satisfying for ME. But my kids are tweens now and there is no difference between them and those whose mothers who worked. The kids who had SAHM are no more confident or secure or happy. In fact, kids who had working moms are Probably more independent!

I think the idea that kids suffer if their mothers work is utter hogwash. I hated leaving my baby and that’s the only reason I stayed home. (Very personal choice!)

I agree with this. If you are fortunate enough to be ina financial position to make a choice, follow your heart. Some moms prefer to be home,mother feel woh makes them better parents. I’ve done both. The years go far quicker than you can imagine now.

Anonymous wrote:

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."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Do you think all statistically significant effects translate to clinically significant ones? Do you think that correlation equals causation?

They really have to dig deep to find these significant effects AND none of them equate with the ability to predict outcomes for an individual child. And you will see over and over again how much more important family dynamics are than childcare vs. no childcare in these types of analyses. And you will see that the quality of the childcare is a big factor as well. But you cannot possibly tell me that, statistical significance or not, that all kids who go into care outside the home while mom works will suffer negative effects, any more than you can tell me that all kids with SAHMs will be better off, some will, some will not. Not all SAHMs provide high quality care just because they are mom.

I am a huge believer that we need to upgrade our thinking about children and families. I would love for us to have access to better parental leave for everyone, especially for year 1. We as a country need to recognize the need for highly-regulated, well-funded childcare to be available, because quality of care is important. This pandemic has shown us that we need to give working parents adequate sick time/leave to take care of sick kids and keep them home. I am all for these things.

But the idea that you tell a first time mom that her staying home with her kid is a guarantee of better outcomes for her kid or tell a working mom she is courting disaster if she works in that first year is just ludicrous. What you need to tell parents is to work at connecting with their kids whenever they are with them, read to them, etc. Give them tools to be good parents, don't guilt them.

I'm not going to go into any details, but let's just say we learned the hard way when our oldest was a young toddler that you simply can't trust anybody with your kids but yourself. At a minimum, I'd never let anybody watch my kid until she or he is old enough to talk.

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."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

The trends were statistically significant. I've read the meta analysis.

Anonymous wrote:All you people scrabbling about desperately for links one way or the other don't realize how weak your posts make your "side" look. This issue has been studied for 70+ years, often by researchers with strong biases in favor of one thing or another. If there was conclusive proof one way or another that SAH or WOH was the proven formula guaranteed to produce the best outcome, we would know it conclusively, and by a wide margin, by now. There's no such conclusive because at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is largely irrelevant to outcome.

I've read a lot of the actual studies in this space (not, I will point out, breathy pop articles that distort the actual academic work). And at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is not a big factor in outcome. It just isn't. People who cherry pick studies or badly written press coverage to prove their side is best (and both SAHMs and WOHMs have done that in this thread) look, well, stupid and desperate.

Stop being idiots, all of you.

Well if YOU say so, it must be true, unlike those badly written articles in the NYTimes. You are clearly an expert, everyone else is an idiot.

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.

So, OP, can you just admit you are a troll now, because who on earth would come to an anonymous forum for advice to make this important decision and frame it this way?

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."

They are referring to the meta analysis cited up thread and stating some weak trends they found as though they are set in stone and predictive. They weren't. Go read it if you really want to know.

Anonymous wrote:All you people scrabbling about desperately for links one way or the other don't realize how weak your posts make your "side" look. This issue has been studied for 70+ years, often by researchers with strong biases in favor of one thing or another. If there was conclusive proof one way or another that SAH or WOH was the proven formula guaranteed to produce the best outcome, we would know it conclusively, and by a wide margin, by now. There's no such conclusive because at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is largely irrelevant to outcome.

I've read a lot of the actual studies in this space (not, I will point out, breathy pop articles that distort the actual academic work). And at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is not a big factor in outcome. It just isn't. People who cherry pick studies or badly written press coverage to prove their side is best (and both SAHMs and WOHMs have done that in this thread) look, well, stupid and desperate.

Stop being idiots, all of you.

That's pretty much what I said in my PP pulling out the few pieces cited at that point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t have time for this right now, but read further to where they break it down by SES.
Think a minute about the context these studies are in. They are trying to change policy, not alleviate the stress of the working mother.

I am absolutely in favor of better parental leave policies, etc., but you are talking about weak statistical effects, not strong and decisive results pointing to detriments of child care, even in the early years.

Just stop guilting working moms.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t have time for this right now, but read further to where they break it down by SES.
Think a minute about the context these studies are in. They are trying to change policy, not alleviate the stress of the working mother.

0-3 is one of the most important stages and a child needs to receive quality care but it does not have to be from a parent all the time. It can be Minimizing the number of hours a child is in other care can be beneficial. This can be done by having both parents stagger their work schedules. For example, parent A goes in early to work (say 7am) and Parent B handles the morning routine and drops off child (or waits for in home help) at a later hour (say 9am) before going in to work. Then, Parent A leaves work and picks up child at 4pm. So, child is in othercare from 9-4.

Here’s a slightly different take. I went back to work and DH stayed at home. We didn’t want to do daycare that early and I had no desire to give up my career. It worked perfectly for us and yet no one ever dares suggest the father stay home....

Anonymous wrote:All you people scrabbling about desperately for links one way or the other don't realize how weak your posts make your "side" look. This issue has been studied for 70+ years, often by researchers with strong biases in favor of one thing or another. If there was conclusive proof one way or another that SAH or WOH was the proven formula guaranteed to produce the best outcome, we would know it conclusively, and by a wide margin, by now. There's no such conclusive because at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is largely irrelevant to outcome.

I've read a lot of the actual studies in this space (not, I will point out, breathy pop articles that distort the actual academic work). And at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is not a big factor in outcome. It just isn't. People who cherry pick studies or badly written press coverage to prove their side is best (and both SAHMs and WOHMs have done that in this thread) look, well, stupid and desperate.

Stop being idiots, all of you.

I haven’t read the studies, but I am curious how they define “outcome” as well as how any of the people with a strong opinion one way or the other define “outcome” when it comes to raising kids. I suspect a different measure of success may be at the root of some of these ideological differences.

All you people scrabbling about desperately for links one way or the other don't realize how weak your posts make your "side" look. This issue has been studied for 70+ years, often by researchers with strong biases in favor of one thing or another. If there was conclusive proof one way or another that SAH or WOH was the proven formula guaranteed to produce the best outcome, we would know it conclusively, and by a wide margin, by now. There's no such conclusive because at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is largely irrelevant to outcome.

I've read a lot of the actual studies in this space (not, I will point out, breathy pop articles that distort the actual academic work). And at the end of the day, SAH or WOH is not a big factor in outcome. It just isn't. People who cherry pick studies or badly written press coverage to prove their side is best (and both SAHMs and WOHMs have done that in this thread) look, well, stupid and desperate.

Stop being idiots, all of you.