Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

So not true regarding nannies. I was raised with a wonderful nanny who stayed in my life after she stopped working for my parents and my brother and I spoke at her funeral. My primary attachment was still with my parents.

My kids also have a brilliant, loving nanny who sees her former charges so I know she’ll see my kids once she moves on unemployment. And my kids are very bonded with DH and me. There is no confusion at all.

Anonymous wrote:I think the tipping point for me was that a child develops a primary attachment, and if a nanny was going to be with my child for 7-8 of their waking hours and I would get 2-4 of those waking hours, the baby would be more attached to the nanny. Then, when the inevitable time comes to let your nanny go, your child has lost a huge part of their family. That's traumatic if you have a good nanny, and if you don't then that's traumatic in its own way. Sure, they may not remember consciously, but their body does.

Also, I guess part of it was having a balanced and relaxed life. I don't understand the point of doing anything if you're not enjoying yourself. With one parent home (would've just as easily been DH but he made 1.5x my salary) your life is just so very relaxed and low stress. That's the point! Have fun!

Anonymous wrote:I have teens and I just want to offer some reassurance. These kind of threads get outright mean sometimes, I think due to larger societal misogyny, but regardless the reason, it isn't great.

I'm around a lot of teens. Also, my own teens had a SAHM, a full time WOHM, a part time WOHM, and even a student mom. I've seen it all and done different things myself. And what I see is that while this is a choice that is important for individual mothers, in practice SAHM vs WOHM is just far, far down the list of things that matter. It's not that it's irrelevant, because it impacts mothers in a variety of ways, but mostly it's unimportant to the outcome of the kids.

What matters to the outcome of kids? The state of the parental relationship, the mental health of the parents/siblings, the financial stability of the family (this is not the same thing as wealth), alcohol & drug use by parents, anger management (or lack thereof) of parents, addressing special needs of kids/parents, parental rigidity and expectations, etc. This stuff has lifelong impact. But SAH v WOH is just not that important to outcome.

People also get thrown curveballs. Partners change, jobs are lost, kids go off track, etc. What is more important than a specific role is adaptability (IMO), both by kids and parents. Is someone rigidly clinging to a model that just isn't working? Is a SAHM refusing to work while her DH is destroying his health from stress? The selfishness of the SAHM is the problem, not the actual role of SAHM. Similarly, is a marriage getting destroyed because both spouses work long hours and won't compromise? The rigidity of both partners is the problem, not just WOH.

People on these threads often show a real lack of imagination, thrown in with a touch of nastiness: "I couldn't possibly imagine - a thing that other people are doing- because -fill in the blank self-justifying reason-." Whatever. Ignore these people, they don't have the mental flexibility and humility to raise teens well, that's for sure. Many kids are raised in wildly different ways, and they do well. There isn't a formula to childrearing, thankfully. The reality is that your kids will almost certainly be great kids, and you'll change course if they aren't.

You'll be okay, and so will they. Own your choices, and try to live your life such that you can make changes. It will all be okay!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are nearly grown, but I simply could not hand my newborn over to strangers at a daycare, who were managing my baby in addition to five or six others lined in their infant car carriers in the baby room waiting for individual attention. Just couldn't do it. That is the decision that worked best for me at the time.

Follow your gut. Looking back, I feel I did the right thing for me and my child(ren). Zero regrets. Work will always be there to go back to, but you only get one chance to raise your children. My kids are well-adjusted, calm, thoughtful young people who do me proud.

You actually literally couldn't do that now, since that's not legal in daycares, and not what happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Really? Where is this research, pray tell?

Also, given this framework you assert, why is it still culturally normative that the wealthiest families outsource childcare from the word go? Why all the nannies - and boarding schools - when the parents don’t even need to work on account of massive trust funds?

Here's a metaanalysis:

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-6-915.pdf

"...moderator analyses indicated that early maternal employment was associated with beneficial child outcomes when families were at risk socioeconomically, particularly in the context of families with single parents and on welfare; these findings support the compensatory hypothesis of employment for these families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)….In contrast, other analyses indicated that employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class); these findings support the lost-resources hypothesis for these types of families (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2003)….Timing of employment was also an important moderator, such that Year 1 employment was negatively associated with children’s achievement, whereas later employment (Years 2 and 3) was positively associated with achievement."

There are really a number of studies out there.

Really though, in the end, the difference is so minimal. What really matters:
1) maternal education
2) SES
3) parental stress
4) parental physical and mental health


As far as why the wealthiest parents choose childcare from the word "go," I don't know. I don't really even know that they do. What I know about the wealthiest families is really mostly based on television. I have no idea how close that is to reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the mother. I loved staying home with my DD between 0 and 3 and think we both got a lot out of it. I feel really in tune with who she is as a person and what she needs, both now and moving forward, that will help me make parenting decisions moving forward.

We also have a really great relationship and I feel confident that we've laid the groundwork for a solid parent-child relationship moving forward. She trusts me, she talks to me about what is troubling her and we've developed a good vocabulary for discussing stuff. I definitely think you could do that while working but for me, it was helpful to be together more to get to that place.

But ultimately, I stayed home because I wanted to. I was an older mom and I knew this would be my only child. I worked for 20 years before becoming a mom. I was ready for a break and wanted to soak up the baby and toddler years while I could because I'm not going to get to do it again. I think if I'd had a baby at 32, or if I'd been planning to have 2 or 3, I might have made a different choice. I don't think it benefits a baby to be home with a mother who wishes she was at work or is bored or feels isolated. And I think those feelings are valid and don't mean you are a bad mom, at all! It's not how I felt but I could see how someone might.

The point is, make the choice that makes sense for you and that's what's best for your baby. I know that sounds selfish, but the truth is that your baby needs a happy, well-adjusted mom. If that means going back to work and finding a great nanny or a great daycare, do it! If it means quitting and staying home, and that works for your finances and your career, do that. I don't think either choice is best for everyone, because everyone has a different family set up, different personality, different work situation, etc. Heck, some people don't have access to high quality childcare and that influences their choice -- if you can't find a daycare you like and you can't afford a nanny, then staying home might feel like the best option. But it's so, so person dependent.

How old is your kid right now? I’m going to guess younger than 5, just from how idealistic you sound. Check in again when you have a school age child.

She’s 4 (and I’m back at work full time) but how can my lives experience be “idealistic”? I took time off, it was the right choice for me, it seems to have been good for my kid, but I’m sure other options would have worked for her too. Not sure why any of that would change— no matter what the future holds, I can’t think of any reason I’d suddenly regret my very positive SAHM experience later.

I’m not questioning your choices, good for you. I just noticed a couple phrases in there that are typical of a FTM with a young child. Wait until your child gets a little older and more complex. You’ll see that 0-5 is a golden period, regardless of whether you WOH or SAH. There’s a reason older women get misty eyed when they see a young child. It’s easy to be that child’s whole world and to feel like you’re doing everything right. Wait a bit, you’ll see what I mean.

Oh, a “just you wait— you’ll see.” Moms of young kids never hear that.

Yes, of course things will change as my child ages. Thank you for explaining *the effect of time on humans* to me. As a person in my 40s, that has never occurred to me before.

Honey, you’re the one who said this bond is going to help you make parenting decisions going forward and that you feel confident about this great groundwork you’ve laid. Sorry but only moms of young children say that kind of thing. That’s not a mindset that shows consciousness about how things change. You will be dealing with a completely different kid in a few years. It’s fine if you want to congratulate yourself about the lifelong effects of these few years, but just own that this isn’t really realistic given that it’s early in the marathon. The truth is you don’t know yet what your child or your relationship with your child is going to look like, and that’s ok. Embrace the fact that you had some good years. Don’t make it into an expectation for how things will go.

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage you to read extensively about the developmental psychology of infants and toddlers (Mary Ainsworth, Erik Erikson and Jean Piaget). I am a stay at home mom of five children and a former primary school teacher. It is incredibly important what I do with my children everyday and now more than ever I’m so grateful I am here to guide them both academically and emotionally during the pandemic.