Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes wonderful...glad the Harvard "experts" figured it out....for THEIR sake
I believe kids (whose mothers work outside the home) are just as happy and productive as their peers whose mothers stayed home.
I believe the "key" is having at least one of the parents working outside of the house.
It demonstrates a work ethic needed to pay the bills.
I don't believe (at all) the children whose mothers worked outside of the home are any happier though, nor that they do any better in the work force than children whose mom stayed and worked in the home.
Kids learn what they see....if the families on prolonged welfare, and nobody has a job ,the kids won't learn that work ethic.
Doesn't matter if it's mom or dad...someone has to bring home the dough....even better if the parents are together and one of them can stay home to maintain a cozy comfortable place to live in.
BLUF: No parent should feel guilty for making the best choice for their family. However, the optimal arrangement is having as many parents with as much involvement in child-rearing as possible. I hope this study assuages the guilt of working mothers who have no better choice than to trade time with their children for money and career advancement. In the end, it is completely possible to raise stable, happy, self-actualized adults in a household where both parents work.
Parental involvement is the key to children's success. This obvious message is drummed into every parent both by literature and common sense. If it were the natural and best order of things for children to be raised by care-providers (grandparents, daycare workers, etc.) then that is how our social primate society would have been structured from the very beginning. There are many mothers and fathers who are better bread-winners than childcare workers. Yet we do not place our children in creches to be raised solely by the best child-care workers in our society. That would be incredibly disruptive to homo-sapiens who have evolved to be biologically programmed with chemicals and hormones which make us the best caregivers to our offspring--and disturb, perhaps even stunt or limit their growth when we are not present.
Harvard can publish all the studies they want, encouraging mothers to return to being worker drones asap after childbirth (no word about SAHD's I see. Encouraging men to immediately "go back to work" rather than be involved in their child's upbringing runs counter to the narrative they would like to promote, clearly. Ask, and I'm sure the rote answer is "That is beyond the purview of this study"). The truth is written into our genetic code. The best way to raise a child is with both parents as involved as possible. Everything else is sub-optimal.
So SAHM's and SAHD's should be proud of the immense sacrifice they make, socially, and career-wise. Working moms who must be away from their children in order to put food on the table should rest assured that their resilient children will manage in their absence.
As for all those in the grey area, who are determining if being passed over for that promotion, and thus not being able to afford private school/university, etc. etc. is better or worse than reducing the myriad childhood traumas of not having your parent there for many hours a day, are just going to have to keep struggling with what decision is best for their individual circumstance.
Thanks for nothing, Harvard. Maybe try performing some actual research instead of just promoting your flavor-of-the-month social editorial.
BLUF: No parent should feel guilty for making the best choice for their family. However, the optimal arrangement is having as many parents with as much involvement in child-rearing as possible. I hope this study assuages the guilt of working mothers who have no better choice than to trade time with their children for money and career advancement. In the end, it is completely possible to raise stable, happy, self-actualized adults in a household where both parents work.
...
Wow. Your post strikes me as rather defensive. All I will say to this the best people to determine "the best way to raise a child" are the child's parents (assuming those parents are fit). Children are very adaptable and happy, successful, well-adjusted children spring from many types of homes. There are professional women who are neglectful. There are SAHMs who are neglectful. The working status of the mom usually has very little to do with it.
In my opinion, the choice about whether a woman stays home usually comes down to economics rather than whatever the studies say is best for the child. If the mother has very high-income earning potential, then more likely than not the woman is going to continue to work because the economic advantages of working outweigh the benefits of the mother being with the child 24/7. OTOH, if the woman is not going to get much of a financial benefit from returning to work, then her time may be best spent with her child. There are many women who wish to return to work after having a child, but it makes little financial sense after daycare costs are factored in. After being out of the workforce for several years, it is often hard for such women to return to the workforce and be competitive.
Also, daughters tend to follow in the footsteps of their mothers. The daughter of a mom who is a professional like a doctor or lawyer is likely going to be a working professional as well. Daughters of SAHMs are more likely follow in the footsteps of their mothers.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 5 days ago)
35,619 posts, read 17,948,343 times
Reputation: 50641
This study didn't seem to take into account mothers who are educated but choose, while the children are little to stay home to raise them.
The question is not comparing working mothers to mothers on welfare and not working, I think everyone can guess that children raised in poverty will not be as successful as children raised in financially secure homes.
I'd like to see a comparison between upper middle class homes containing both parents, with good schools, with mothers who choose to work outside the home although there isn't a financial need, vs. mothers who choose to stay home and state they enjoy the process while the children are little.
THAT's where you'll get the question answered of the impact of a stay at home vs. mom who puts the child in non family care full time.
Parental involvement is the key to children's success. This obvious message is drummed into every parent both by literature and common sense. If it were the natural and best order of things for children to be raised by care-providers (grandparents, daycare workers, etc.) then that is how our social primate society would have been structured from the very beginning.
Well aside from the rather biased, to my mind nonsensical screed , the bolded is particularly thoughtless. The challenges and realities of life are, clearly, radically different now than they were in "the very beginning".
BLUF: No parent should feel guilty for making the best choice for their family. However, the optimal arrangement is having as many parents with as much involvement in child-rearing as possible. I hope this study assuages the guilt of working mothers who have no better choice than to trade time with their children for money and career advancement. In the end, it is completely possible to raise stable, happy, self-actualized adults in a household where both parents work.
Parental involvement is the key to children's success. This obvious message is drummed into every parent both by literature and common sense. If it were the natural and best order of things for children to be raised by care-providers (grandparents, daycare workers, etc.) then that is how our social primate society would have been structured from the very beginning. There are many mothers and fathers who are better bread-winners than childcare workers. Yet we do not place our children in creches to be raised solely by the best child-care workers in our society. That would be incredibly disruptive to homo-sapiens who have evolved to be biologically programmed with chemicals and hormones which make us the best caregivers to our offspring--and disturb, perhaps even stunt or limit their growth when we are not present.
Harvard can publish all the studies they want, encouraging mothers to return to being worker drones asap after childbirth (no word about SAHD's I see. Encouraging men to immediately "go back to work" rather than be involved in their child's upbringing runs counter to the narrative they would like to promote, clearly. Ask, and I'm sure the rote answer is "That is beyond the purview of this study"). The truth is written into our genetic code. The best way to raise a child is with both parents as involved as possible. Everything else is sub-optimal.
So SAHM's and SAHD's should be proud of the immense sacrifice they make, socially, and career-wise. Working moms who must be away from their children in order to put food on the table should rest assured that their resilient children will manage in their absence.
As for all those in the grey area, who are determining if being passed over for that promotion, and thus not being able to afford private school/university, etc. etc. is better or worse than reducing the myriad childhood traumas of not having your parent there for many hours a day, are just going to have to keep struggling with what decision is best for their individual circumstance.
Thanks for nothing, Harvard. Maybe try performing some actual research instead of just promoting your flavor-of-the-month social editorial.
Do you really believe that women who don't work (outside the home) are just sitting there waiting for junior to make a gesture and she runs over to meet his need? You don't think that families through the generations required the women to do JUST as much work as the man? She didn't drop the laundry, or mending the clothes or fixing food, or any of a hundred tasks she had to do to keep the family running. The kids were sandwiched in there with all the rest that had to be done...just as they are now. No child gets 100% of the attention because households don't take care of themselves....well, maybe if dad would pitch in more...ha.
Except for the very rich, both parents have had to work to keep the family running and to prioritize kids as well as they could. Now is really no different.
Do you really believe that women who don't work (outside the home) are just sitting there waiting for junior to make a gesture and she runs over to meet his need? You don't think that families through the generations required the women to do JUST as much work as the man? She didn't drop the laundry, or mending the clothes or fixing food, or any of a hundred tasks she had to do to keep the family running. The kids were sandwiched in there with all the rest that had to be done...just as they are now. No child gets 100% of the attention because households don't take care of themselves....well, maybe if dad would pitch in more...ha.
It is not skin off my nose, but that is not what I have observed in the SAHM crowd that I hung with back when my kids were small. The majority of Mom's in that crew focused hugely on "child enrichment". Housework and general home stuff was not in it At All. They were not, after all, housewives, to hear them tell it.
Lots of helicopters in training there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
