Anonymous wrote:My concern has never been the quality and quantity of time I spend with my kids. My concern is the quality and quantity of time they spend with others. Am I going to warehouse my children 10 hours a day so that they can spend 2 hours in a luxurious home with me? Am I going to drop them off to a middle class daycare in a home where I would not be comfortable for 10 minutes?

It's such a small amount of time to sacrifice to raise your children to school age. What good is your career satisfaction if your kid is being warehoused by people who do not love them during the most formative years of their lives? I didn't love being a SAHM, but I loved my children and I made that sacrifice for them. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't your very first choice in the world, but you do them because they're right.

I don't understand "middle-class daycare." A middle-class home is not acceptable as a daycare setting? That's...bizarre.

And you do understand that most parents work because they have to, yes? That it's a matter of paying for basic housing, food, and insurance rather than luxuries? That the "sacrifices" to which you refer are not the sacrifices most working people would be making if they quit?

If I didn't work, we'd have no affordable healthcare. We would not own a vehicle. We could not pay rent. What "sacrifices" do you suggest that I make?

Interesting that no SAHMs have posted since that most recent study was quoted.

*crickets*

My kids have had a stable, loving, calm, wonderful environment since the day they were born.

I worked some throughout my maternity leave and went back to my full-time job happily when they were almost 4 mths old.

I travel a lot in my job. I maintain outside interests. I get my kids up and put them to bed every day, and if I'm travelling my husband does it. Their world is a happy, healthy, stable place - that I built.

I am totally comfortable with the decisions my husband and I have made thus far, and will continue to make. I am quite certain I am exactly the kind of person many here would flame.

Jimmy crack corn. My life is great, my kids are great, and we'll all happy.

I really don't care what anyone else thinks and I wish that were true for more people.

If you are not abusing or neglecting your kid, if you and your family are happy and healthy and law-abiding, then I support whatever parenting decisions are right for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who needs another study to know the obvious?

It matters less WHO is the primary caregiver,
but that person must be:

Competent
Loving
Stable (0-3)

This is why I counsel parents to FIRST find a worthy caregiver, and THEN determine if, and when to resume office pursuits.

For most families, that person is simply not affordable,
unless she's a family member or friend.

Leaving a young child with a primary caregiver who is incompetent, unloving, or unstable, will create problems down the road. Sooner or later.

Are you a therapist?

You may argue your point if you disagree.
Do you feel stability during the foundation years is irrelevant?

The PP wasn't arguing, just asking why you used the phrase "I counsel parents."

It's professional language. S/he wanted to know if you were a therapist. Are you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who needs another study to know the obvious?

It matters less WHO is the primary caregiver,
but that person must be:

Competent
Loving
Stable (0-3)

This is why I counsel parents to FIRST find a worthy caregiver, and THEN determine if, and when to resume office pursuits.

For most families, that person is simply not affordable,
unless she's a family member or friend.

Leaving a young child with a primary caregiver who is incompetent, unloving, or unstable, will create problems down the road. Sooner or later.

Are you a therapist?

You may argue your point if you disagree.
Do you feel stability during the foundation years is irrelevant?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has turned into something out of The Onion: "Study Shows You Are Living Your Life All Wrong."

I got very far in life -- through high school and college and graduate school -- without the general public weighing in on what the heck I wanted to do with myself every day. Nobody cared what I majored in, or what kinds of summer jobs I had, or who I dated, or where and how we wanted to live. (I can only assume I was living my life all wrong back then too.) Suddenly, when I have a kid, women started criticizing me for whether and how long I breastfed, whether my kids were eating organic, whether and how much I worked, even what kind of stroller or baby carrier I used. And they could all show me a study to demonstrate their point.

I'm not quite a SAHM and I'm not quite disputing the article, but come on, did you expect SAHMs to say "you're right, I've been doing what was working for my family for 5 years, but now that I've read this study I'm totally convinced I was wrong and will start sending our resumes ASAP"?

I agree with you completely and, no, I would never expect SAHMs to say that at all. I'm not looking for them to say that. I am a big believer in minding your own business and not spending a lot of time worrying about the choices other people make. That being said, though, I sure would appreciate it if SAHMs would stop either implying or stating definitively that I love my child less than they do, that I'm not raising my own child, and that I'm making a lesser choice for my child. I would never ever presume to say such a thing to another person (mostly because I wouldn't believe it, AND because it's incredibly smug and presumptuous).

This. I know a lot of moms who work--mostly by choice, not because they have to--and I've never once heard any one of them say anything nasty about someone else's choice to stay home (other than to say that it's just not for them). On the other hand, I see a TON of stay at home moms (including multiple times on this thread) imply that they love their kid more than I do, or are more willing to "sacrifice" or that I'm not raising my own kid, or that they are somehow just doing a better job at this mom thing than I am. Your choice to stay at home does not make you a better mom. It just doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:This has turned into something out of The Onion: "Study Shows You Are Living Your Life All Wrong."

I got very far in life -- through high school and college and graduate school -- without the general public weighing in on what the heck I wanted to do with myself every day. Nobody cared what I majored in, or what kinds of summer jobs I had, or who I dated, or where and how we wanted to live. (I can only assume I was living my life all wrong back then too.) Suddenly, when I have a kid, women started criticizing me for whether and how long I breastfed, whether my kids were eating organic, whether and how much I worked, even what kind of stroller or baby carrier I used. And they could all show me a study to demonstrate their point.

I'm not quite a SAHM and I'm not quite disputing the article, but come on, did you expect SAHMs to say "you're right, I've been doing what was working for my family for 5 years, but now that I've read this study I'm totally convinced I was wrong and will start sending our resumes ASAP"?

I agree with you completely and, no, I would never expect SAHMs to say that at all. I'm not looking for them to say that. I am a big believer in minding your own business and not spending a lot of time worrying about the choices other people make. That being said, though, I sure would appreciate it if SAHMs would stop either implying or stating definitively that I love my child less than they do, that I'm not raising my own child, and that I'm making a lesser choice for my child. I would never ever presume to say such a thing to another person (mostly because I wouldn't believe it, AND because it's incredibly smug and presumptuous).

This has turned into something out of The Onion: "Study Shows You Are Living Your Life All Wrong."

I got very far in life -- through high school and college and graduate school -- without the general public weighing in on what the heck I wanted to do with myself every day. Nobody cared what I majored in, or what kinds of summer jobs I had, or who I dated, or where and how we wanted to live. (I can only assume I was living my life all wrong back then too.) Suddenly, when I have a kid, women started criticizing me for whether and how long I breastfed, whether my kids were eating organic, whether and how much I worked, even what kind of stroller or baby carrier I used. And they could all show me a study to demonstrate their point.

I'm not quite a SAHM and I'm not quite disputing the article, but come on, did you expect SAHMs to say "you're right, I've been doing what was working for my family for 5 years, but now that I've read this study I'm totally convinced I was wrong and will start sending our resumes ASAP"?

Anonymous wrote:I wonder why men never have these debates. Plenty of kids also still manage to be very close to their dads also.

I find it strange that sahms want to dispute the research.

Agreed.

6) Goldberg, W. A., & Lucas-Thompson, R. G. (2014). College Women Miss the Mark When Estimating the Impact of Full-Time Maternal Employment on Children’s Achievement and Behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 0361684314529738.

The goals of the current study were to apply the construct of stereotype accuracy to the domain of college women’s perceptions of the effects of full-time maternal employment on children. Both accuracy/inaccuracy and positive/negative direction were examined. Participants were 1,259 college women who provided stereotyped projections about the effects of full-time employment on children’s IQ scores, formal achievement tests, school grades, and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Their stereotype effect sizes were compared to meta-analytic effect sizes used to estimate the “actual” effects of maternal employment on children. Individual differences in these stereotypes were also examined. Results indicate that, on average, college women overestimated the negative effects of full-time maternal employment on child outcomes, especially behavior problems. Significant variability in the direction and accuracy of the stereotypes was explained by individual characteristics such as gender ideology, extrinsic work values, and beliefs about the costs of maternal employment. Concerns are that college-educated young women may retreat from the labor force due to stereotypes about the effects of their future employment on children. Efforts by researchers, practitioners, and policy makers should be directed toward disseminating accurate information and dispelling myths about the likely impact of maternal employment on children’s development.

If there is such a thing as a bottom line to this endless debate, I think it may be that staying home doesn't automatically make you a great mom and working doesn't automatically make you an absentee or neglectful mom. Likewise, working doesn't automatically make you a great mom and staying at home doesn't make you a lesser mom or wife in any way.

Great moms come in all shapes, sizes, schedules and vocations. The same is true for bad moms. Can we at least agree that we all love our children equally and want the best for our families, no matter what that looks like?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My concern has never been the quality and quantity of time I spend with my kids. My concern is the quality and quantity of time they spend with others. Am I going to warehouse my children 10 hours a day so that they can spend 2 hours in a luxurious home with me? Am I going to drop them off to a middle class daycare in a home where I would not be comfortable for 10 minutes?

It's such a small amount of time to sacrifice to raise your children to school age. What good is your career satisfaction if your kid is being warehoused by people who do not love them during the most formative years of their lives? I didn't love being a SAHM, but I loved my children and I made that sacrifice for them. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't your very first choice in the world, but you do them because they're right.

Are you suggesting that mother's work so they can live in a luxurious home? If this is what you think - you need to broaden your horizons.

Yeah seriously, I work hard to balance career and family life so I can buy fancy curtains and designer furniture ... get real. How about I work so my family can live in a safe area with good schools, my family can eat nutritious food, we can save (for emergencies, retirement, college, etc.), we can afford enrichment activities for our children, etc. I can promise you that owning luxury things is just about the bottom of my list, especially with young kids in the house!

I wonder why men never have these debates. Plenty of kids also still manage to be very close to their dads also.

I find it strange that sahms want to dispute the research.

Anonymous wrote:Who needs another study to know the obvious?

It matters less WHO is the primary caregiver,
but that person must be:

Competent
Loving
Stable (0-3)

This is why I counsel parents to FIRST find a worthy caregiver, and THEN determine if, and when to resume office pursuits.

For most families, that person is simply not affordable,
unless she's a family member or friend.

Leaving a young child with a primary caregiver who is incompetent, unloving, or unstable, will create problems down the road. Sooner or later.

Are you a therapist?

*The "Primary Caregiver" is the person who cares for the little child most of her waking hours during the first three years of life, known as the "foundation" years.

Who needs another study to know the obvious?

It matters less WHO is the primary caregiver,
but that person must be:

Competent
Loving
Stable (0-3)

This is why I counsel parents to FIRST find a worthy caregiver, and THEN determine if, and when to resume office pursuits.

For most families, that person is simply not affordable,
unless she's a family member or friend.

Leaving a young child with a primary caregiver who is incompetent, unloving, or unstable, will create problems down the road. Sooner or later.