Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not controversial in many countries that are very similar to ours, like Canada, the UK, Australia and most of Europe -- parental leave for 1-2 years is the default.

If that was the default here and was supported from the top down, no one would be making the argument to send infants to daycare.

This. In American corporate culture it’s applauded if you take a couple years off to get a masters or start your own business or even run an ultramarathon or travel to an exotic place and you are welcomed back with open arms. But forget that if you do it to take care of a child. It’s just a toxic work culture that’s anti family and no, it’s not feminist, it’s not at all about supporting women. Daycare workers are among the lowest paid and mostly women of color whose million dollar corporations are run by white guys. Nothing about that system is good for women.

thank you. I'm not trying to tear down moms who felt that they had to make that decision in order to stay employed long-term. This is a situation created by a sick capitalistic society, and it is simply not the case in most of the rest of the developed world. In Austrialia, the UK, Canada, and many other countries, you can take a full year and then come back to your job.

I really believe that if that was the rule here, this argument would disappear.

What if we just wanted to work and didn't want to stay home? Are we terrible moms in your opinion? Ignorant? Uncaring? At 5 months I was ready.

i have relatives and friends who had children in those places, and they took the year and then went on to have huge careers, and they find the idea of putting a 3 or 4 month old child in daycare horrifying. We have normalized it here, but it's very unique in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not controversial in many countries that are very similar to ours, like Canada, the UK, Australia and most of Europe -- parental leave for 1-2 years is the default.

If that was the default here and was supported from the top down, no one would be making the argument to send infants to daycare.

This. In American corporate culture it’s applauded if you take a couple years off to get a masters or start your own business or even run an ultramarathon or travel to an exotic place and you are welcomed back with open arms. But forget that if you do it to take care of a child. It’s just a toxic work culture that’s anti family and no, it’s not feminist, it’s not at all about supporting women. Daycare workers are among the lowest paid and mostly women of color whose million dollar corporations are run by white guys. Nothing about that system is good for women.

thank you. I'm not trying to tear down moms who felt that they had to make that decision in order to stay employed long-term. This is a situation created by a sick capitalistic society, and it is simply not the case in most of the rest of the developed world. In Austrialia, the UK, Canada, and many other countries, you can take a full year and then come back to your job.

I really believe that if that was the rule here, this argument would disappear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not controversial in many countries that are very similar to ours, like Canada, the UK, Australia and most of Europe -- parental leave for 1-2 years is the default.

If that was the default here and was supported from the top down, no one would be making the argument to send infants to daycare.

This. In American corporate culture it’s applauded if you take a couple years off to get a masters or start your own business or even run an ultramarathon or travel to an exotic place and you are welcomed back with open arms. But forget that if you do it to take care of a child. It’s just a toxic work culture that’s anti family and no, it’s not feminist, it’s not at all about supporting women. Daycare workers are among the lowest paid and mostly women of color whose million dollar corporations are run by white guys. Nothing about that system is good for women.

A system that says a parent must take 1 to 2 years out of the workforce when they have a baby is also not good for women. And that's what you get if you don't support daycare.

Anonymous wrote:This is not controversial in many countries that are very similar to ours, like Canada, the UK, Australia and most of Europe -- parental leave for 1-2 years is the default.

If that was the default here and was supported from the top down, no one would be making the argument to send infants to daycare.

This. In American corporate culture it’s applauded if you take a couple years off to get a masters or start your own business or even run an ultramarathon or travel to an exotic place and you are welcomed back with open arms. But forget that if you do it to take care of a child. It’s just a toxic work culture that’s anti family and no, it’s not feminist, it’s not at all about supporting women. Daycare workers are among the lowest paid and mostly women of color whose million dollar corporations are run by white guys. Nothing about that system is good for women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters saying “you can’t tell the difference” between daycare and sahm kids have no idea what is actually at stake.

Beyond a minor effect, it’s not actually about grades, athletics l, social skills or future criminality…. Early years childcare is about nervous system regulation. This shows up in our most intimate, private circumstances—in our sense of self-worth and ability to maintain secure attachments. All of this can be compromised even in someone who is successful and married well. You can’t tell from the outside looking in

If no one can tell, what is the consequence exactly?

Mothers who have their own income and retirement savings and can afford to divorce their husbands if they treat them poorly. Scary, I know.

100x

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t say daycare is bad. Just “bad” in terms of increased cortisol for kids under twelve months.I can totally see that. A baby needs one on one attention almost non stop and I don’t think daycare gives that to that age group

But a SAHM with a toddler or preschooler (or both) can't give a baby non stop attention either. In fact in large families from what I've seen the baby is largely ignored while the mom chases or drives around the older kids.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t say daycare is bad. Just “bad” in terms of increased cortisol for kids under twelve months.I can totally see that. A baby needs one on one attention almost non stop and I don’t think daycare gives that to that age group

Considering the kids are asleep for most of the time they are in daycare from 0-12 months they are getting plenty of 1:1 time.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot study this well—at least in the U.S.

Many American sahm’s are lower income and uneducated. Many well-resourced professional parents have flexibility and money that counteracts the negative effects of daycare.

But IF you could hold all variables the same you have to be insane to think a 0-2 child prefers institutional care staffed by low wage workers (kind as they may be) to a parent or grandparent. I would say 0-6 but 0-2 is the most critical as anyone who has ever spent time with a toddler would realize

My child would prefer to eat chocolate every night for dinner and that she wakes up every morning and it’s Christmas. She also has no idea how much her daycare workers are being paid. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot study this well—at least in the U.S.

Many American sahm’s are lower income and uneducated. Many well-resourced professional parents have flexibility and money that counteracts the negative effects of daycare.

But IF you could hold all variables the same you have to be insane to think a 0-2 child prefers institutional care staffed by low wage workers (kind as they may be) to a parent or grandparent. I would say 0-6 but 0-2 is the most critical as anyone who has ever spent time with a toddler would realize

To add, how exactly do you hold all variables the same when childcare choices directly impact other aspects of family wellbeing, like income, mental health and even parental educational attainment in some cases? Who do you compare the family with the SAHM to? The family with the same income but from two earners, or the family with the income the SAHM family would have if the SAHM had not decided to stay home?

Anonymous wrote:Why are we still tearing each other down with these mommy wars? We all try to do what’s best for our kids within our means. We should be respecting each other’s choices.

I agree with you but it's worth pointing out that on this thread the only people tearing others down are those who think it's "insane" to send a young child to daycare.

Why are we still tearing each other down with these mommy wars? We all try to do what’s best for our kids within our means. We should be respecting each other’s choices.

Anonymous wrote:You cannot study this well—at least in the U.S.

Many American sahm’s are lower income and uneducated. Many well-resourced professional parents have flexibility and money that counteracts the negative effects of daycare.

But IF you could hold all variables the same you have to be insane to think a 0-2 child prefers institutional care staffed by low wage workers (kind as they may be) to a parent or grandparent. I would say 0-6 but 0-2 is the most critical as anyone who has ever spent time with a toddler would realize

When DD was a baby the daycare staff were absolutely better at meeting DD's needs than my elderly parents. Now that she is older my parents do a lot better with her. Most neglect and abuse happens at home by relatives fyi. Vanishingly lite occurs at licensed child care centers.

You are assuming every family is the same. You are also only looking at one side of the equation. If having a parent at home is marginally better for the baby but devastating for the stay at home parent's mental health/career/financial independence the baby is probably better off in the long term having gone to daycare. I wish I had.

You cannot study this well—at least in the U.S.

Many American sahm’s are lower income and uneducated. Many well-resourced professional parents have flexibility and money that counteracts the negative effects of daycare.

But IF you could hold all variables the same you have to be insane to think a 0-2 child prefers institutional care staffed by low wage workers (kind as they may be) to a parent or grandparent. I would say 0-6 but 0-2 is the most critical as anyone who has ever spent time with a toddler would realize

Anonymous wrote:(also know so many many many kids with bad emotional regulation and ADHD who went through Daycare from an early age, and the parents will never make the connection. it's too far out in time.)

I know so many kids with bad emotional regulation and ADHD who ate blackberries. Have you eliminated blackberries as a cause?

Before we can listen to the science, we need better science education.