Anonymous wrote:You cannot argue for paid family leave for a year and in the same breath say « any loving caregiver » is just as good.

Anonymous wrote:Are there people who truly believe that the presence in a meaningful way of a loving parent doesn’t matter? That is seriously messed up. Of course it matters. It matters a lot. You as a parent are not interchangeable for anyone else. That is not to say that you should be the ONLY person in their life, but it matters a lot and in ways that cannot be measured.

Anonymous wrote:The research is:

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hey. I initially posted these statistical trends, and I agree with you 100%. I am a working mom, and my kids haven’t ended up in jail (yet).
I don’t think we need to tell anyone that the trends are bigger than they are, or that it matters more than it does, but the narrative in the popular media that there is “study after study” out there showing that having a SAHM doesn’t matter “at all,” or that UMC are better off growing up with working moms simply isn’t true.

But yeah, my kids have access to a great education, involved parents, plenty of money, white skin, and penises. I am not going to give up my career because they need a leg up in life

Anonymous wrote:Are there people who truly believe that the presence in a meaningful way of a loving parent doesn’t matter? That is seriously messed up. Of course it matters. It matters a lot. You as a parent are not interchangeable for anyone else. That is not to say that you should be the ONLY person in their life, but it matters a lot and in ways that cannot be measured.

Anonymous wrote:My personal opinion (WOHM married to SAHD) is that kids benefit from having a parent at home. It does not have to be the mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hey. I initially posted these statistical trends, and I agree with you 100%. I am a working mom, and my kids haven’t ended up in jail (yet).
I don’t think we need to tell anyone that the trends are bigger than they are, or that it matters more than it does, but the narrative in the popular media that there is “study after study” out there showing that having a SAHM doesn’t matter “at all,” or that UMC are better off growing up with working moms simply isn’t true.

But yeah, my kids have access to a great education, involved parents, plenty of money, white skin, and penises. I am not going to give up my career because they need a leg up in life

Anonymous wrote: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:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.