Well written! I really enjoyed your overall messages that quality of daycare matters and that we parents know what’s best for our kids.
I just want to untangle the implications if this quote: “mothers need helpers, friends, people to socialize with–and meaningful work that doesn’t include changing diapers and playing choo-choo trains all day long.” But what about childcare workers? Is that not meaningful work for them? And if it isn’t, and we demand more government subsided daycare options, are we admitting that we need to find a class of women willing to do thankless non-meaningful work in order for society to function so that other women can?
I know that some people really do find early childcare to be meaningful work, I’m one of them. But in a society where most women see childcare as non-meaningful, and demand more daycare options so that women can do more meaningful work, you end up with shortages of childcare workers. Many people who end up doing this work then are those who cannot find work elsewhere, as it is low paid and low status. And where I live, these people happen to be immigrants who don’t speak the language fluently and therefore can’t find other work.
I couldn’t agree more!! The whole idea that childcare is not meaningful work is so problematic imo. For me, there is no more meaningful work than tending to my baby, I wouldn’t want to trade it for anything else. This doesn’t mean that I want to do it alone without help/ community.
Capitalism has brainwashed us to believe that unless we are productive economically, then we are wasting our time. Even when it comes to arguably the most important work of a lifetime, raising our children. But that attitude is required to keep the worker bees working.
I agree with this ten fold. I was a nanny for two professors in college and I loved it. (Everything they say bolsters mental health was written into the job: being outdoors almost all day, eating healthy, home-cooked meals, "playing", and being in community with other parents and nannies.) But my parents (and friends) derided the decision as unambitious and low status—and the embarrassment that I wasn't living up to my intellectual potential pushed me into more "respectable" office work. I attained respect as both an advertising manager and later a magazine editor: I got to go to fancy press dinners and loved telling people, not only what I did, but what I *was.*
But I remember thinking how, even though I had been mortified as a "childcare worker" I sorta missed it: I wanted to be outside all day, and eat better, and giggle with a toddler who would place her cute little hands on my face, then squeal in delight—especially after 8+ hours of looking at a screen and sitting with an aching back and wrist strain from so much typing, and being in constant power struggles with narcissistic higher-ups, or the mental and emotional distress from standing up for junior employees who were constantly harassed and underpaid.
Today, I don't believe the social message that caring for children is meaningless, and after interviewing tens of neuroscientists at said previous job on addiction and mental illness, I came to realize that it might actually be the *most* meaningful. I left my office jobs when I became a mother and found the first year of our daughter's life the most wonderful of my life. During pregnancy, I had been terrified of infancy: My mom told me that babies just scream and cry all night and are little brats. Our newborn smiled in her sleep, giggled all day, and was the cutest thing I'd ever seen.
Counter to the cultural narrative we're incessantly fed about the mom-so-isolated-at-home, my working years were the most lonely and isolated I'd ever faced, and when our daughter was born, I met more friends (and talked to more strangers on the street) and spent more time socializing than I had the entire time I worked at an office. Place and infrastructure matter. We were fortunate, but this myth definitely added to serious anxiety and lost sleep in pregnancy for me, and I feel like we need to shift the narrative so we don't unnecessarily freak people out of having kids ... or suppress their desire to care for them if they do.
I had a similar experience, I worked in both childcare and tutoring starting as a teen and then through most of my life as a part-time job, and loved it. I also at times wanted to make it my full-time job, but got similar advice that I was wasting my potential, and that I was too smart to do this kind of work. I should have gone with my instincts. I’m now a stay at home with my baby and love it.
I am really happy we now live in a world where women can do so many things and can be economically independent from men. I think there are many great arguments for how we should structure maternity leave and daycare so that women who feel that their careers are important, don’t lose them when they have kids. There are some great points made in this piece. But the one argument that is not selling me is this idea that it is demeaning for a woman, particularly an intelligent woman, to stay home and change diapers all day.
If women in the US want long maternity leaves, they can’t be making these arguments that being home with your baby all day is boring, because that is what is you are expected to be doing on a government subsidized maternity leave. In places where there is both generous maternity leave and affordable daycare, daycare options don’t start your child turns 1, because you are expected to use your year-long leave to do full time care.
I think we’ve been trained to be suspicious of any work that can’t be tracked on a spreadsheet. And childcare certainly can’t. No matter how many diapers you change, it doesn’t matter as long as there is no diaper rash or god forbid something even worse. There is literally nothing to record. The GOAL is to have no rash to record.
Great post, as always. I think what's often missed when we talk about care outside of the house is that in best case scenarios, as you described in the home care your son went to, the child forms healthy attachments to the caregiver. The assembly line style care you described at the other center seems to be more what people are criticizing when it comes to daycare. It's not care outside of the house that is good or bad, but the sensitivity and continuity of the care itself. You do a lovely job of surfacing this distinction.
Exactly. And when we do get into the data in future newsletters, this is exactly what it shows. We are social animals. It’s all about the quality of our relationships. Kids need quality care. Where that takes place and who gives it is less important.
When I think of childcare in a hunter gatherer society, I imagine it's like a baby at a huge family gathering where everyone knows them and loves them. They might be spending a large amount of time with people they're not related to, but I don't really think that means the same thing at all when they live in small bands and know everyone intimately. They'd also be cared by the same people for their whole lives, and there would be a high investment in their well-being.
I'm sure some daycares might manage to duplicate this situation, but to be honest it sounds very difficult and unlikely. So I think it can be misleading to talk about how much non-maternal care babies receive in hunter gatherer societies. (You absolutely addressed this. But I do think it needs the nuance, and can be glossed over easily.)
Personally, I love getting a break from my toddler by dropping her off with grandparents or other families we're close to. I wish I could do that more often. But I can't imagine doing an all day daycare and not having it negatively impact our lives.
This is a well written article on a tough topic. Another (unpopular) opinion I’ve come to after pausing work for a few years to stay home with my children is that a large percentage of us do not really “depend on a dual income.” Yes, there are certain socioeconomic classes who may but often, those who write these types of articles (and the readers they attract), don’t depend on a dual income to survive, but rather depend on it to uphold a certain lifestyle that they want/feel they are entitled to. Which, by the way, I think is totally fine to want a certain lifestyle. But let’s call a spade a spade and stop hiding behind this uncomfortable truth: many of us can always simplify our life, move to a more affordable location, drive a less expensive car (or give up one vehicle), stop trying to keep up with Jones’, etc. and ultimately live comfortably on a single income. Which could possibly reduce the stress on the daycare industry and increase the quality for those who truly need it.
+1000000 to depending on a dual to uphold a certain lifestyle. When i was growing up - takeout and restaurant dining were infrequent treats. So were new clothes and new cars and vacations! We went on road trips and visited family or regional attractions. We ate at Olive Garden for birthdays. We didn’t go to Target every month and buy stuff or decorate our houses endlessly for new seasons. Halloween and Christmas were not monthlong sprints full of presents and treats and special activities. We consumed SO much less and, as a result, were less beholden to higher incomes.
I think Americans have really REALLY lost perspective on how much more we consume now and how those habits have become normalized, and, in turn, a prison that requires two working parents and daycare.
I think this is true AND I think many single-income households lack a long-term view of finances. My husband and I both grew up in single-income homeschool families. Seeing the impending cliff of retirement for our parents, and how woefully underprepared they are financially, has been a major factor in our choice to continue as a dual-income household (partly to avoid the same situation, partly because we realize we may need to help serve as a financial backstop - and already are, in fact - to our parents).
I don't think anyone is saying single income or dual income is better or worse, it absolutely depends on the individual family. But I think it is true that our consumption has skyrocketed, so when we say it's not possible to live on a single income,that's implying a different standard of living than people had in the past. And we don't like to acknowledge that because people don't like to scale back their standard of living.
I think that is totally fair and my comment is almost certainly written from a position of extreme privilege as I live in a HCOL city. I don’t want to suggest EVERYONE can make do on one income and, ultimately, people have to look at what’s best for their families. For some people that may be dual income. I just think we should be less afraid of saying the fact that daycare isn’t great outloud. Avoiding uncomfortable truths helps no one. Maybe dual income families can’t go down to one income long term - but if we all acknowledged daycare isn’t ideal - perhaps someone could pass up a promo and coast for a bit so they could do earlier daycare pickups, or they could cut expenses a bit and afford a nanny share (which, around us, is only 25% more than daycare at infant ages!). Et al et al
But I think many people *do* do exactly that, particularly the “choosing to coast and pass up career advancement in favor of more time with children.” And daycare isn’t automatically great, but neither is a SAHM - I will testify firsthand to how toxic a single-income family under financial stress can be as well. :) I absolutely believe my relationship with my parents would be far different (in a positive way) if I’d grown up in a dual income household with less financial stress.
So true. And the same could probably be said about many dual-income families lacking this same long term view, too, though. Funnily enough, the single-income (probably less than ~$135k) homeschool family with 5 kids down the street from me is about to pay off their home (Zestimate over $700k because I just creepily looked it up lol) before they turn 40! So while a higher income should theoretically make saving easier, financial discipline/knowledge can still be so powerful for those making a smaller income.
Certainly agree! But it’s also a gross oversimplification to claim that “you don’t need a dual income, you just need to take fewer international vacations.”
And financial stress created a massive amount of stress and strife in my FOO - I firmly believe it would have benefited everyone if my parents hadn’t been as wedded to the idea of a single-income household as a moral imperative.
Wonderful article, agree with everything and reinspired to fight for the policy and social changes you mentioned. I am a first-time mom with a 6-week-old in Canada, and I have the privilege of staying home with my child for one year with job protection and a small amount of pay roughly equivalent to unemployment benefits. Everyday I dream of a society wherein I could take my child to a communal space with children of mixed ages without having to REGISTER or PAY or show up at a specific time. I would gladly care for other people's children in exchange for getting to know them well and coming to rely on them to care for my own child when I need to do some task without her. Maybe this is just a matter of making friends in the neighborhood with young children; my husband and I are new to the area having moved here from the big city in order to afford a bigger space before having a baby. Perhaps I'll walk the neighborhood with my kid in my stroller and a sign that says what I'm looking for...
I think it’s possible but I agree that it can feel hard and intimidating! I discussed this in my podcast episode with Michaeleen Doucleff - coming soon
I have a close friend who literally created this, and now we have 7 families that swap childcare 3-4 days per week. It took her talking to literally every parent she met for 18 months and doing a ton of legwork, but she's proved to be truly amazing at community building, and I feel very fortunate that I get to benefit because I am in no way that social. All that to say it is possible but it takes a lot of investment and pursuit of that goal.
This is one of my favorites of yours yet- thank you for bringing nuance to an always black and white discussion. Our modern discussion of “science” and “proof” can be so ignorant of the realities of how scientific studies are designed and achieved and interpreted (see- all the research on “cosleeping”). It seems clear we have set ourselves up for a lose-lose situation here, and visualizing a third, integrated option is necessary for everyone to really do well. I think this seems easiest achieved (at least in my life, with my very flexible job) by technically staying home but working aggressively to build a close community that can exchange childcare and such on a frequent but flexible level, maybe partaking in part time school options (I have my eye on a part time forest preschool 👀). No easy task for sure.
Full disclaimer that I haven’t read your article on attachment theory ( we’re currently doing the one income thing lol so no paid subscriptions for me) so you may already know and write about this, but as a therapist who has studied a LOT of attachment theory at a post grad level- it has grown a lot since the original Bowlby work that only studied maternal bond. There are branches of research that indicate your attachment schema are active in ALL relationships- family of origin, romantic partner, friendships, God, and even your relationship with yourself. Most of us who have studied it intensively would likely deny it only being pertinent as a quality in maternal relationship, and see it more as an overall relationship schema that is based on your early childhood caretaking experience (whether that was one SAHM or ten-ish alloparents)
I’d also note that the term attachment is not conceptualized in the same way from attachment theory to attachment parenting. In attachment theory, attachment is a relationship schema that is formed, and the question is one of determining quality (what type of relationship is this?). Attachment parenting sees attachment as a yes or no, as something to achieve or fail to achieve, and so the question is of quantity (how attached is the child?). I could go on a much much longer spiel lol but I’ll reign myself in. Suffice it to say, attachment parenting as a philosophy has deeply confused the overall discussion
Yes that’s what my attachment article is all about. It’s crazy that we still think the maternal bond is the only one that matters in 2025. It just makes so much intuitive sense to me that all of a child’s relationships matter, especially given our evolutionary legacy as cooperative breeders. And yes, on attachment parenting versus attachment theory: my beef with attachment parenting is that it focuses way too much on the WHAT (baby wearing and breastfeeding and such) and not nearly enough on the emotional atunement between child and caregiver which is what attachment theory is actually about
Yes to that last bit, we get so caught up in the trappings we forget the attunement. M I think there’s a serious case to be made for the overlap between attachment parenting behaviors and anxious attachment patterns, aka intrusive and enmeshed patterns, and I think we need to be talking about that. You can’t spoil your kid from holding them too much, no, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be intrusive or over involved, especially if the primary goal is to meet your own emotional needs. Like I’ll be honest, I do a lot of the attachment parenting stuff like bedsharing and babywearing, but more because I think there’s separate arguments for it being most biologically appropriate, NOT because I’m afraid my baby will be ruined and not attached to me enough if I don’t 🙃
I don't understand your subtitle's assertion that it's a stupid question. Based on what you wrote it seems like the answer is "mostly yes" because most daycare does not resemble the home-of-six environment (which you also conceded was too much time apart) but is, as you put it, DAYCARE.
In my experience, people mostly do what they grew up with. My friends who went to daycare stuck their kids in daycare. My friends who had nannies got nannies. My friends (like me) who hung out with their moms all day till they turned 4 are doing the same thing with their kids.
Why is admitting that the answer to your question is "mostly yes" bad? Why should we protect mommies' feelings and preferences over the well-being of infants?
Most women don't have the courage to admit what you did, that they could have rearranged their life/career just a bit more for the benefit of their children. I give you a lot of props for your honesty, about that and in general throughout your writing.
However, I do not relate to or promote the negativity and victim-mindset reflected throughout Nightbitch and in statements such as "stay home, alone, with your child all day (until you want to stab yourself in the eyeball with a fork)." This is where faith in God has helped me and many other women to curb the difficult emotions and perhaps impulses that come up in the face of what can be difficult and tedious work. We do not have to give in to the moments that seem miserable. We can choose to be strong and dignified and stoic and to develop grit (something which the hunter gatherers you speak of had a TON of!), for our own spiritual benefit and for our children. Obviously, there's a learning curve, and each person has their limits. I have had my fair share of Nightbitch moments! But I think focusing so much on the rage/discomfort/misery of those moments can actually exacerbate the issue, to our children's detriment.
I feel I have some authority on this because I am a single mom who WFH (mostly at night) while I care for my kid during the day. Everyone has told me to try daycare and I will not budge because I am instinctively repelled by it until he is older. But I know and love many moms who put their babies in daycare and I don't judge them for it; we are all in a challenging and seemingly impossible situation as 21st century moms as you describe eloquently and explore thoroughly.
I agree with SO much of this. Especially WHY should we protect moms’ feelings over infants’ well being? What frustrates me endlessly about Elena’s post (and much of the discourse about daycare) is that at the end of so many hand wringing words - she fundamentally agrees with Erica! Daycare (as generally experienced by Americans) IS bad for kids under three. Even the home based idyllic daycare Elena found was too long of a separation from her baby. Hunter gatherer societies had lots of help but babies were rarely separated from their moms before age 3. We end up at the same place - we just are saying more gently and with a million caveats. But at the end of the day - daycare is bad for babies, full stop. We should be saying that loudly because it has become SO normalized to send babies as early as 12 weeks. We can still simultaneously acknowledge that daycare is necessary for many families. But knowing it is bad should help people try to make different decisions - maybe moving back in with family, maybe pursuing a nanny share while you cut some expenses et al. Maybe moving to alternating shift work with your partner. But we can’t be afraid to share important info because it may hurt moms’ feelings. Moms are tough, we can all do hard things!
And also - I just do not get the perspective that being a SAHM uniquely sucks. Working sucks too at times - idiot bosses, last minute deadlines, commutes, uncomfortable pumping rooms et al. As they say - pick your hard. Good things in life require grit and effort!
I stayed home with my mother (through schooling, as a homeschooler) and my children have been in daycare - partly because I grew up seeing a lot of the “not so romantic” parts of kids being home with mom, and I don’t want to inflict some of those costs on my own children.
Also, I just want to note that your claim about “most daycares don’t resemble the home-of-six” environment” implies it’s a vanishingly rare setup; in fact, for infants, about 25% of non-relative childcare is not center-based. A minority, certainly, but not a minuscule minority. (See: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4)
Hello! Great post! - as a working mom of two I didn't have any other choice than daycare to be honest and we started it at 5 months. In my home country France the majority of moms work and most kids are in public daycare from the infant age and its free or very cheap, the system is very different. I think our modern world makes it very challenging for us women financially especially in the Us and from an independence point of view too, to make decisions based on pure choice. I would say though that I had a great daycare experience where my child was thriving and made a lot of friends and learn how to be around other kids and another one that was not so great the kids were older and the level
of care was too hands off, I could see he was unhappy as he would tell me. Being attuned to your child and looking for connection, open dialogue and making it a safe space at home to talk about any topic is so important. I ask questions daily in the morning and at night even when they are not able to answer fully because I think this deep trust, observation and a mother intuition is what is going to help detect if its not a good fit for your child.
Yes it’s all about that attunement. My husband is French and all of my in-laws think this debate is crazy. In France it’s just a given that you will put your kid in daycare! What’s also interesting is that the research in the French context is generally very positive. So is it just better there? Or is the research politically motivated? Hard to know! I do think the quality is good in France on average (better than here).
I spent a lot of time gnawing on this piece, that interview, these comments. It’s been a ride, honestly. I have so many thoughts I can barely think straight. I want to start by saying, I wish each family was given the grace and trust to make the decisions that feel best for them–for everyone. Taking into account the society and systems they currently live within, their child’s unique needs and preferences –AND–the parent’s psychology, resources, and needs. If that’s forgoing daycare, great. If it’s utilizing a daycare they feel good about, great. If they can’t find that, hopefully having other resources–extended family, enough income to support staying at home– to help support them, great.
These types of unilateral statements, like the one Komisar is making, can start to sound like “mother” is just a thing everyone can unlock within themselves and then do it competently for over a hundred hours a week, mostly alone, with very little resource and guidance. That every mother, if they tried hard enough, is equally capable and fulfilled by mothering full-time. It encourages the myth of maternal instinct.
I also see a lot of questioning in the comments here about "why should we prioritize a mother’s feelings?"–which is frankly startling to read. Because mothers matter. How they feel matters. What fills them up inside matters. What contributes to a healthier psyche matters. Not just to the mother, but to the child. Being physically present and offering presence to a child are two different things.
A lot of the questions on the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) surround the mental health and wellbeing of the parents. That’s how much it affects a child. If childcare, working outside the home, etc. contributes to a parent taking care of their whole selves–financially, emotionally, creatively, physically, socially– I wish there could be more flexibility around how that also contributes to the wellbeing of the child, rather than this zero sum game that doesn’t seem to take into account that mothers are complex people, not a monolith.
As Elena points out, much of this conversation could be aided by systems changing to offer better options–whether that’s higher quality day-care (including better pay and benefits for the people that work there), better parental leave policies, and/or a society with more space for alloparents in general. Also as you point out, it’s so much more nuanced than if it’s bad or good for each individual family, but it sure is flashy to boil it down to that.
It really riles me that we constantly focus on measuring at the ‘long term’ impact of these things on children or how it affects their development. What about how it impacts them here and now? Isn’t that valid? I experienced every flavour of childcare myself growing up; daycare and in home care and I just wanted to be at home. That was the overwhelming feeling. I’m an adult now and I think I’ve turned out pretty well (!) But I want my children to have a childhood thats different to mine in that respect, not because I think it will make them a high achiever in later life, just because I think childhood should be cherished in a way that it’s not by our society.
thank you for talking about the nuance. seems really important.
one curiosity: who is facilitating feeding and sleeping for infants (under3) in Hunter gather societies? are the alternative caretakers responsible for either?
Great question! Shocker: no one is facilitating sleeping. Which is to say, there is no schedule, no one is “putting the baby down” but babies and kids while nap in the arms or in the sling, while being held by anyone. Similarly with feeding there’s no assigned schedule or responsibilities. Of course breastfeeding is mostly done by the mother but shared breastfeeding is also common. And when kids start solids anyone can kiss feed them! It’s considered a sign of affection and closeness
I think a rarely-made-explicit point is that a lot of the stuff we do is for the benefit of the parents, not because it is better for the child. Not saying it is worse or catastrophic for the child. But a lot of stuff we do is because we as parents are struggling to get through modern life.
Like, sure, hunter-gatherers don't need to schedule sleep times because if they feel sleepy -- because baby's sleep has been crazy -- while picking tubers they just lay down and take a nap and someone else will share a bit of their gatherings for dinner. Not many adults have that option, or that level of support, so yeah they look for sleep training or whatever to try to figure out how to function in a typical regimented modern job.
Yes, everything was done communally so there was not as much of a need for anyone to be “on” all day. Most people probably had several hours of work at most.
The enormous and stark difference between daycare and hunter-gatherer societies is that the non-maternal adults caring for those babies are functionally the same as mothers because these communities are so close-knit. You will know your non-maternal caregivers until they die if you live in a H-G society. Contrasted with wage-earners in high turnover daycares - there is no comparison. It’s not about mom vs not-mom. It’s about family vs employees. “Family” care and literal family care is going to involve a loving relationship which lasts for decades and is the water and sunlight that kids thrive with.
The thing I cannot read past when I read about this is when moms work from home and then also take care of their young kids. The only explanation is that we are raising different species—or perhaps are different species ourselves. I literally cannot imagine that arrangement being remotely successful. Between colic, triple feeding, exclusive contact napping for six months (not by choice) and crappy napping after that, almost the entire first year with even just one of my babies made working while in the same building impossible. Now I have two (one almost 3 and one 14 months), and the thought of working from home without help for them is even crazier. I solo parent them 2-4 days a week, and every minute of it is a circus. Their naps don’t overlap for more than 15 minutes on any given day. Food is everywhere. They won’t stop talking to me and when I ignore them, pulling on my pants and crying. Life-threatening situations appear constantly and out of nowhere. The other day I was helping the older one go to the bathroom, and the one year old scaled the walls of the kitchen island, crawled across it, and went to town on a loaf of banana bread. I spend every minute after bedtime restoring enough order to the house to sort of function the next day. I’m not afraid of screens, but the little one won’t watch them and the older one maxes out after a couple hours a day. Not saying I hate all this! It can be exciting, and I am grateful for the days I get with them. But I am also grateful that I am not trying to strategize and take phone calls and send emails while my kids are swinging from the kitchen light fixtures with a loaf of banana bread hanging out of their mouths, or smearing poop on the toilet seat since they can’t go alone. Based on my experience, I think oscillate between skepticism that staying home with a working parent is actually better than being in an environment where the adult doesn’t have a whole other job to prioritize… and just feeling like a big fat failure of a parent. My kids seem so wonderful to me, but then I hear about other kids who play (or sleep, or just exist) independently, safely, and contentedly enough that their mothers can adequately care for them WHILE WORKING, and I feel like something must be wrong with us.
I’m sorry, but you lost me at your six month old getting “sick of you”. You don’t know anything about children or babies if you think a 6 month old can get sick of her mother.
I appreciate you sharing your experiences and perspective on child care. It’s always valuable to hear how other parents are navigating this journey. As someone who has walked a bit further down the road, I’ve come to realize that so much of parenting wisdom only becomes clear over time, often when we start to see the long-term impact of our choices on our children’s well-being, relationships, and mental health.
It’s easy to feel confident in our approach when our children are young, but many of the deeper lessons reveal themselves only later. Looking back, I’ve had to reckon with decisions I made when my kids were little and how those choices played out as they grew older. That’s not to diminish your insights or experiences, every parent’s journey is valuable.
But I do feel it’s important to be mindful about the advice we share, especially when our own parenting journeys are still unfolding. The impact of certain choices may not be evident until much later, and influencing others without that broader perspective can be risky.
I just wanted to share that perspective with you, not to discourage you, but to encourage a bit of caution and humility in sharing advice. Parenting is such a long, winding road, and we’re all learning as we go.
It's true that modern American society likes to separate children from adult's social lives. However, it's different within religious communities. I am Catholic and we are always hanging out with multiple families, children come to church events/potlucks, and we have weekly park meetups with other moms and their children. The children grow up with a weekly (at least) Mass where they are around other adults and learn how to be respectful, quiet, and attentive. It is great practice for them and we take them out to eat a lot because they have that foundation (they're all toddlers). You also see this with Hasidic Jews–they are very children, family, and community centric.
Hasidic Jews have so many children NOT out of choice. I am an RN and when I worked with them,many (65%)were often exhausted, stressed and suffering with gynaecological conditions etc. I am a very friendly curious person so I got told all the stuff they wouldn't normally share.
Well written! I really enjoyed your overall messages that quality of daycare matters and that we parents know what’s best for our kids.
I just want to untangle the implications if this quote: “mothers need helpers, friends, people to socialize with–and meaningful work that doesn’t include changing diapers and playing choo-choo trains all day long.” But what about childcare workers? Is that not meaningful work for them? And if it isn’t, and we demand more government subsided daycare options, are we admitting that we need to find a class of women willing to do thankless non-meaningful work in order for society to function so that other women can?
I know that some people really do find early childcare to be meaningful work, I’m one of them. But in a society where most women see childcare as non-meaningful, and demand more daycare options so that women can do more meaningful work, you end up with shortages of childcare workers. Many people who end up doing this work then are those who cannot find work elsewhere, as it is low paid and low status. And where I live, these people happen to be immigrants who don’t speak the language fluently and therefore can’t find other work.
I couldn’t agree more!! The whole idea that childcare is not meaningful work is so problematic imo. For me, there is no more meaningful work than tending to my baby, I wouldn’t want to trade it for anything else. This doesn’t mean that I want to do it alone without help/ community.
Capitalism has brainwashed us to believe that unless we are productive economically, then we are wasting our time. Even when it comes to arguably the most important work of a lifetime, raising our children. But that attitude is required to keep the worker bees working.
This is very well said!!! We need to overhaul how we value childcare!
I agree with this ten fold. I was a nanny for two professors in college and I loved it. (Everything they say bolsters mental health was written into the job: being outdoors almost all day, eating healthy, home-cooked meals, "playing", and being in community with other parents and nannies.) But my parents (and friends) derided the decision as unambitious and low status—and the embarrassment that I wasn't living up to my intellectual potential pushed me into more "respectable" office work. I attained respect as both an advertising manager and later a magazine editor: I got to go to fancy press dinners and loved telling people, not only what I did, but what I *was.*
But I remember thinking how, even though I had been mortified as a "childcare worker" I sorta missed it: I wanted to be outside all day, and eat better, and giggle with a toddler who would place her cute little hands on my face, then squeal in delight—especially after 8+ hours of looking at a screen and sitting with an aching back and wrist strain from so much typing, and being in constant power struggles with narcissistic higher-ups, or the mental and emotional distress from standing up for junior employees who were constantly harassed and underpaid.
Today, I don't believe the social message that caring for children is meaningless, and after interviewing tens of neuroscientists at said previous job on addiction and mental illness, I came to realize that it might actually be the *most* meaningful. I left my office jobs when I became a mother and found the first year of our daughter's life the most wonderful of my life. During pregnancy, I had been terrified of infancy: My mom told me that babies just scream and cry all night and are little brats. Our newborn smiled in her sleep, giggled all day, and was the cutest thing I'd ever seen.
Counter to the cultural narrative we're incessantly fed about the mom-so-isolated-at-home, my working years were the most lonely and isolated I'd ever faced, and when our daughter was born, I met more friends (and talked to more strangers on the street) and spent more time socializing than I had the entire time I worked at an office. Place and infrastructure matter. We were fortunate, but this myth definitely added to serious anxiety and lost sleep in pregnancy for me, and I feel like we need to shift the narrative so we don't unnecessarily freak people out of having kids ... or suppress their desire to care for them if they do.
I had a similar experience, I worked in both childcare and tutoring starting as a teen and then through most of my life as a part-time job, and loved it. I also at times wanted to make it my full-time job, but got similar advice that I was wasting my potential, and that I was too smart to do this kind of work. I should have gone with my instincts. I’m now a stay at home with my baby and love it.
I am really happy we now live in a world where women can do so many things and can be economically independent from men. I think there are many great arguments for how we should structure maternity leave and daycare so that women who feel that their careers are important, don’t lose them when they have kids. There are some great points made in this piece. But the one argument that is not selling me is this idea that it is demeaning for a woman, particularly an intelligent woman, to stay home and change diapers all day.
If women in the US want long maternity leaves, they can’t be making these arguments that being home with your baby all day is boring, because that is what is you are expected to be doing on a government subsidized maternity leave. In places where there is both generous maternity leave and affordable daycare, daycare options don’t start your child turns 1, because you are expected to use your year-long leave to do full time care.
I think we’ve been trained to be suspicious of any work that can’t be tracked on a spreadsheet. And childcare certainly can’t. No matter how many diapers you change, it doesn’t matter as long as there is no diaper rash or god forbid something even worse. There is literally nothing to record. The GOAL is to have no rash to record.
Great post, as always. I think what's often missed when we talk about care outside of the house is that in best case scenarios, as you described in the home care your son went to, the child forms healthy attachments to the caregiver. The assembly line style care you described at the other center seems to be more what people are criticizing when it comes to daycare. It's not care outside of the house that is good or bad, but the sensitivity and continuity of the care itself. You do a lovely job of surfacing this distinction.
Exactly. And when we do get into the data in future newsletters, this is exactly what it shows. We are social animals. It’s all about the quality of our relationships. Kids need quality care. Where that takes place and who gives it is less important.
When I think of childcare in a hunter gatherer society, I imagine it's like a baby at a huge family gathering where everyone knows them and loves them. They might be spending a large amount of time with people they're not related to, but I don't really think that means the same thing at all when they live in small bands and know everyone intimately. They'd also be cared by the same people for their whole lives, and there would be a high investment in their well-being.
I'm sure some daycares might manage to duplicate this situation, but to be honest it sounds very difficult and unlikely. So I think it can be misleading to talk about how much non-maternal care babies receive in hunter gatherer societies. (You absolutely addressed this. But I do think it needs the nuance, and can be glossed over easily.)
Personally, I love getting a break from my toddler by dropping her off with grandparents or other families we're close to. I wish I could do that more often. But I can't imagine doing an all day daycare and not having it negatively impact our lives.
This is a well written article on a tough topic. Another (unpopular) opinion I’ve come to after pausing work for a few years to stay home with my children is that a large percentage of us do not really “depend on a dual income.” Yes, there are certain socioeconomic classes who may but often, those who write these types of articles (and the readers they attract), don’t depend on a dual income to survive, but rather depend on it to uphold a certain lifestyle that they want/feel they are entitled to. Which, by the way, I think is totally fine to want a certain lifestyle. But let’s call a spade a spade and stop hiding behind this uncomfortable truth: many of us can always simplify our life, move to a more affordable location, drive a less expensive car (or give up one vehicle), stop trying to keep up with Jones’, etc. and ultimately live comfortably on a single income. Which could possibly reduce the stress on the daycare industry and increase the quality for those who truly need it.
+1000000 to depending on a dual to uphold a certain lifestyle. When i was growing up - takeout and restaurant dining were infrequent treats. So were new clothes and new cars and vacations! We went on road trips and visited family or regional attractions. We ate at Olive Garden for birthdays. We didn’t go to Target every month and buy stuff or decorate our houses endlessly for new seasons. Halloween and Christmas were not monthlong sprints full of presents and treats and special activities. We consumed SO much less and, as a result, were less beholden to higher incomes.
I think Americans have really REALLY lost perspective on how much more we consume now and how those habits have become normalized, and, in turn, a prison that requires two working parents and daycare.
I think this is true AND I think many single-income households lack a long-term view of finances. My husband and I both grew up in single-income homeschool families. Seeing the impending cliff of retirement for our parents, and how woefully underprepared they are financially, has been a major factor in our choice to continue as a dual-income household (partly to avoid the same situation, partly because we realize we may need to help serve as a financial backstop - and already are, in fact - to our parents).
I don't think anyone is saying single income or dual income is better or worse, it absolutely depends on the individual family. But I think it is true that our consumption has skyrocketed, so when we say it's not possible to live on a single income,that's implying a different standard of living than people had in the past. And we don't like to acknowledge that because people don't like to scale back their standard of living.
I think that is totally fair and my comment is almost certainly written from a position of extreme privilege as I live in a HCOL city. I don’t want to suggest EVERYONE can make do on one income and, ultimately, people have to look at what’s best for their families. For some people that may be dual income. I just think we should be less afraid of saying the fact that daycare isn’t great outloud. Avoiding uncomfortable truths helps no one. Maybe dual income families can’t go down to one income long term - but if we all acknowledged daycare isn’t ideal - perhaps someone could pass up a promo and coast for a bit so they could do earlier daycare pickups, or they could cut expenses a bit and afford a nanny share (which, around us, is only 25% more than daycare at infant ages!). Et al et al
But I think many people *do* do exactly that, particularly the “choosing to coast and pass up career advancement in favor of more time with children.” And daycare isn’t automatically great, but neither is a SAHM - I will testify firsthand to how toxic a single-income family under financial stress can be as well. :) I absolutely believe my relationship with my parents would be far different (in a positive way) if I’d grown up in a dual income household with less financial stress.
So true. And the same could probably be said about many dual-income families lacking this same long term view, too, though. Funnily enough, the single-income (probably less than ~$135k) homeschool family with 5 kids down the street from me is about to pay off their home (Zestimate over $700k because I just creepily looked it up lol) before they turn 40! So while a higher income should theoretically make saving easier, financial discipline/knowledge can still be so powerful for those making a smaller income.
Certainly agree! But it’s also a gross oversimplification to claim that “you don’t need a dual income, you just need to take fewer international vacations.”
And financial stress created a massive amount of stress and strife in my FOO - I firmly believe it would have benefited everyone if my parents hadn’t been as wedded to the idea of a single-income household as a moral imperative.
Wonderful article, agree with everything and reinspired to fight for the policy and social changes you mentioned. I am a first-time mom with a 6-week-old in Canada, and I have the privilege of staying home with my child for one year with job protection and a small amount of pay roughly equivalent to unemployment benefits. Everyday I dream of a society wherein I could take my child to a communal space with children of mixed ages without having to REGISTER or PAY or show up at a specific time. I would gladly care for other people's children in exchange for getting to know them well and coming to rely on them to care for my own child when I need to do some task without her. Maybe this is just a matter of making friends in the neighborhood with young children; my husband and I are new to the area having moved here from the big city in order to afford a bigger space before having a baby. Perhaps I'll walk the neighborhood with my kid in my stroller and a sign that says what I'm looking for...
I think it’s possible but I agree that it can feel hard and intimidating! I discussed this in my podcast episode with Michaeleen Doucleff - coming soon
I have a close friend who literally created this, and now we have 7 families that swap childcare 3-4 days per week. It took her talking to literally every parent she met for 18 months and doing a ton of legwork, but she's proved to be truly amazing at community building, and I feel very fortunate that I get to benefit because I am in no way that social. All that to say it is possible but it takes a lot of investment and pursuit of that goal.
That's so cool!!! Thank you for sharing that, very inspiring ❤️
This is one of my favorites of yours yet- thank you for bringing nuance to an always black and white discussion. Our modern discussion of “science” and “proof” can be so ignorant of the realities of how scientific studies are designed and achieved and interpreted (see- all the research on “cosleeping”). It seems clear we have set ourselves up for a lose-lose situation here, and visualizing a third, integrated option is necessary for everyone to really do well. I think this seems easiest achieved (at least in my life, with my very flexible job) by technically staying home but working aggressively to build a close community that can exchange childcare and such on a frequent but flexible level, maybe partaking in part time school options (I have my eye on a part time forest preschool 👀). No easy task for sure.
Full disclaimer that I haven’t read your article on attachment theory ( we’re currently doing the one income thing lol so no paid subscriptions for me) so you may already know and write about this, but as a therapist who has studied a LOT of attachment theory at a post grad level- it has grown a lot since the original Bowlby work that only studied maternal bond. There are branches of research that indicate your attachment schema are active in ALL relationships- family of origin, romantic partner, friendships, God, and even your relationship with yourself. Most of us who have studied it intensively would likely deny it only being pertinent as a quality in maternal relationship, and see it more as an overall relationship schema that is based on your early childhood caretaking experience (whether that was one SAHM or ten-ish alloparents)
I’d also note that the term attachment is not conceptualized in the same way from attachment theory to attachment parenting. In attachment theory, attachment is a relationship schema that is formed, and the question is one of determining quality (what type of relationship is this?). Attachment parenting sees attachment as a yes or no, as something to achieve or fail to achieve, and so the question is of quantity (how attached is the child?). I could go on a much much longer spiel lol but I’ll reign myself in. Suffice it to say, attachment parenting as a philosophy has deeply confused the overall discussion
Yes that’s what my attachment article is all about. It’s crazy that we still think the maternal bond is the only one that matters in 2025. It just makes so much intuitive sense to me that all of a child’s relationships matter, especially given our evolutionary legacy as cooperative breeders. And yes, on attachment parenting versus attachment theory: my beef with attachment parenting is that it focuses way too much on the WHAT (baby wearing and breastfeeding and such) and not nearly enough on the emotional atunement between child and caregiver which is what attachment theory is actually about
Yes to that last bit, we get so caught up in the trappings we forget the attunement. M I think there’s a serious case to be made for the overlap between attachment parenting behaviors and anxious attachment patterns, aka intrusive and enmeshed patterns, and I think we need to be talking about that. You can’t spoil your kid from holding them too much, no, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be intrusive or over involved, especially if the primary goal is to meet your own emotional needs. Like I’ll be honest, I do a lot of the attachment parenting stuff like bedsharing and babywearing, but more because I think there’s separate arguments for it being most biologically appropriate, NOT because I’m afraid my baby will be ruined and not attached to me enough if I don’t 🙃
As always, a compelling article. Thank you!
I don't understand your subtitle's assertion that it's a stupid question. Based on what you wrote it seems like the answer is "mostly yes" because most daycare does not resemble the home-of-six environment (which you also conceded was too much time apart) but is, as you put it, DAYCARE.
In my experience, people mostly do what they grew up with. My friends who went to daycare stuck their kids in daycare. My friends who had nannies got nannies. My friends (like me) who hung out with their moms all day till they turned 4 are doing the same thing with their kids.
Why is admitting that the answer to your question is "mostly yes" bad? Why should we protect mommies' feelings and preferences over the well-being of infants?
Most women don't have the courage to admit what you did, that they could have rearranged their life/career just a bit more for the benefit of their children. I give you a lot of props for your honesty, about that and in general throughout your writing.
However, I do not relate to or promote the negativity and victim-mindset reflected throughout Nightbitch and in statements such as "stay home, alone, with your child all day (until you want to stab yourself in the eyeball with a fork)." This is where faith in God has helped me and many other women to curb the difficult emotions and perhaps impulses that come up in the face of what can be difficult and tedious work. We do not have to give in to the moments that seem miserable. We can choose to be strong and dignified and stoic and to develop grit (something which the hunter gatherers you speak of had a TON of!), for our own spiritual benefit and for our children. Obviously, there's a learning curve, and each person has their limits. I have had my fair share of Nightbitch moments! But I think focusing so much on the rage/discomfort/misery of those moments can actually exacerbate the issue, to our children's detriment.
I feel I have some authority on this because I am a single mom who WFH (mostly at night) while I care for my kid during the day. Everyone has told me to try daycare and I will not budge because I am instinctively repelled by it until he is older. But I know and love many moms who put their babies in daycare and I don't judge them for it; we are all in a challenging and seemingly impossible situation as 21st century moms as you describe eloquently and explore thoroughly.
I agree with SO much of this. Especially WHY should we protect moms’ feelings over infants’ well being? What frustrates me endlessly about Elena’s post (and much of the discourse about daycare) is that at the end of so many hand wringing words - she fundamentally agrees with Erica! Daycare (as generally experienced by Americans) IS bad for kids under three. Even the home based idyllic daycare Elena found was too long of a separation from her baby. Hunter gatherer societies had lots of help but babies were rarely separated from their moms before age 3. We end up at the same place - we just are saying more gently and with a million caveats. But at the end of the day - daycare is bad for babies, full stop. We should be saying that loudly because it has become SO normalized to send babies as early as 12 weeks. We can still simultaneously acknowledge that daycare is necessary for many families. But knowing it is bad should help people try to make different decisions - maybe moving back in with family, maybe pursuing a nanny share while you cut some expenses et al. Maybe moving to alternating shift work with your partner. But we can’t be afraid to share important info because it may hurt moms’ feelings. Moms are tough, we can all do hard things!
And also - I just do not get the perspective that being a SAHM uniquely sucks. Working sucks too at times - idiot bosses, last minute deadlines, commutes, uncomfortable pumping rooms et al. As they say - pick your hard. Good things in life require grit and effort!
“We’re just saying it more gently with a million caveats.” Yes. Everything else is really just a difference in worldview.
Love this comment. I completely agree with every word.
I stayed home with my mother (through schooling, as a homeschooler) and my children have been in daycare - partly because I grew up seeing a lot of the “not so romantic” parts of kids being home with mom, and I don’t want to inflict some of those costs on my own children.
Also, I just want to note that your claim about “most daycares don’t resemble the home-of-six” environment” implies it’s a vanishingly rare setup; in fact, for infants, about 25% of non-relative childcare is not center-based. A minority, certainly, but not a minuscule minority. (See: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4)
Hello! Great post! - as a working mom of two I didn't have any other choice than daycare to be honest and we started it at 5 months. In my home country France the majority of moms work and most kids are in public daycare from the infant age and its free or very cheap, the system is very different. I think our modern world makes it very challenging for us women financially especially in the Us and from an independence point of view too, to make decisions based on pure choice. I would say though that I had a great daycare experience where my child was thriving and made a lot of friends and learn how to be around other kids and another one that was not so great the kids were older and the level
of care was too hands off, I could see he was unhappy as he would tell me. Being attuned to your child and looking for connection, open dialogue and making it a safe space at home to talk about any topic is so important. I ask questions daily in the morning and at night even when they are not able to answer fully because I think this deep trust, observation and a mother intuition is what is going to help detect if its not a good fit for your child.
Yes it’s all about that attunement. My husband is French and all of my in-laws think this debate is crazy. In France it’s just a given that you will put your kid in daycare! What’s also interesting is that the research in the French context is generally very positive. So is it just better there? Or is the research politically motivated? Hard to know! I do think the quality is good in France on average (better than here).
I spent a lot of time gnawing on this piece, that interview, these comments. It’s been a ride, honestly. I have so many thoughts I can barely think straight. I want to start by saying, I wish each family was given the grace and trust to make the decisions that feel best for them–for everyone. Taking into account the society and systems they currently live within, their child’s unique needs and preferences –AND–the parent’s psychology, resources, and needs. If that’s forgoing daycare, great. If it’s utilizing a daycare they feel good about, great. If they can’t find that, hopefully having other resources–extended family, enough income to support staying at home– to help support them, great.
These types of unilateral statements, like the one Komisar is making, can start to sound like “mother” is just a thing everyone can unlock within themselves and then do it competently for over a hundred hours a week, mostly alone, with very little resource and guidance. That every mother, if they tried hard enough, is equally capable and fulfilled by mothering full-time. It encourages the myth of maternal instinct.
I also see a lot of questioning in the comments here about "why should we prioritize a mother’s feelings?"–which is frankly startling to read. Because mothers matter. How they feel matters. What fills them up inside matters. What contributes to a healthier psyche matters. Not just to the mother, but to the child. Being physically present and offering presence to a child are two different things.
A lot of the questions on the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) surround the mental health and wellbeing of the parents. That’s how much it affects a child. If childcare, working outside the home, etc. contributes to a parent taking care of their whole selves–financially, emotionally, creatively, physically, socially– I wish there could be more flexibility around how that also contributes to the wellbeing of the child, rather than this zero sum game that doesn’t seem to take into account that mothers are complex people, not a monolith.
As Elena points out, much of this conversation could be aided by systems changing to offer better options–whether that’s higher quality day-care (including better pay and benefits for the people that work there), better parental leave policies, and/or a society with more space for alloparents in general. Also as you point out, it’s so much more nuanced than if it’s bad or good for each individual family, but it sure is flashy to boil it down to that.
It really riles me that we constantly focus on measuring at the ‘long term’ impact of these things on children or how it affects their development. What about how it impacts them here and now? Isn’t that valid? I experienced every flavour of childcare myself growing up; daycare and in home care and I just wanted to be at home. That was the overwhelming feeling. I’m an adult now and I think I’ve turned out pretty well (!) But I want my children to have a childhood thats different to mine in that respect, not because I think it will make them a high achiever in later life, just because I think childhood should be cherished in a way that it’s not by our society.
thank you for talking about the nuance. seems really important.
one curiosity: who is facilitating feeding and sleeping for infants (under3) in Hunter gather societies? are the alternative caretakers responsible for either?
Great question! Shocker: no one is facilitating sleeping. Which is to say, there is no schedule, no one is “putting the baby down” but babies and kids while nap in the arms or in the sling, while being held by anyone. Similarly with feeding there’s no assigned schedule or responsibilities. Of course breastfeeding is mostly done by the mother but shared breastfeeding is also common. And when kids start solids anyone can kiss feed them! It’s considered a sign of affection and closeness
refreshing to hear we've survived this long without baby schedules 🤯🤭
🙏🏽
I am very anti baby schedule, though I know many people swear by them
The modern world has schedules, so unfortunately we must 😭
I think a rarely-made-explicit point is that a lot of the stuff we do is for the benefit of the parents, not because it is better for the child. Not saying it is worse or catastrophic for the child. But a lot of stuff we do is because we as parents are struggling to get through modern life.
Like, sure, hunter-gatherers don't need to schedule sleep times because if they feel sleepy -- because baby's sleep has been crazy -- while picking tubers they just lay down and take a nap and someone else will share a bit of their gatherings for dinner. Not many adults have that option, or that level of support, so yeah they look for sleep training or whatever to try to figure out how to function in a typical regimented modern job.
Yes, everything was done communally so there was not as much of a need for anyone to be “on” all day. Most people probably had several hours of work at most.
The enormous and stark difference between daycare and hunter-gatherer societies is that the non-maternal adults caring for those babies are functionally the same as mothers because these communities are so close-knit. You will know your non-maternal caregivers until they die if you live in a H-G society. Contrasted with wage-earners in high turnover daycares - there is no comparison. It’s not about mom vs not-mom. It’s about family vs employees. “Family” care and literal family care is going to involve a loving relationship which lasts for decades and is the water and sunlight that kids thrive with.
The thing I cannot read past when I read about this is when moms work from home and then also take care of their young kids. The only explanation is that we are raising different species—or perhaps are different species ourselves. I literally cannot imagine that arrangement being remotely successful. Between colic, triple feeding, exclusive contact napping for six months (not by choice) and crappy napping after that, almost the entire first year with even just one of my babies made working while in the same building impossible. Now I have two (one almost 3 and one 14 months), and the thought of working from home without help for them is even crazier. I solo parent them 2-4 days a week, and every minute of it is a circus. Their naps don’t overlap for more than 15 minutes on any given day. Food is everywhere. They won’t stop talking to me and when I ignore them, pulling on my pants and crying. Life-threatening situations appear constantly and out of nowhere. The other day I was helping the older one go to the bathroom, and the one year old scaled the walls of the kitchen island, crawled across it, and went to town on a loaf of banana bread. I spend every minute after bedtime restoring enough order to the house to sort of function the next day. I’m not afraid of screens, but the little one won’t watch them and the older one maxes out after a couple hours a day. Not saying I hate all this! It can be exciting, and I am grateful for the days I get with them. But I am also grateful that I am not trying to strategize and take phone calls and send emails while my kids are swinging from the kitchen light fixtures with a loaf of banana bread hanging out of their mouths, or smearing poop on the toilet seat since they can’t go alone. Based on my experience, I think oscillate between skepticism that staying home with a working parent is actually better than being in an environment where the adult doesn’t have a whole other job to prioritize… and just feeling like a big fat failure of a parent. My kids seem so wonderful to me, but then I hear about other kids who play (or sleep, or just exist) independently, safely, and contentedly enough that their mothers can adequately care for them WHILE WORKING, and I feel like something must be wrong with us.
This is the best comment ever. Hilarious yet absolutely 100% true. Don’t worry, you are not the only one with a circus.
I’m sorry, but you lost me at your six month old getting “sick of you”. You don’t know anything about children or babies if you think a 6 month old can get sick of her mother.
I appreciate you sharing your experiences and perspective on child care. It’s always valuable to hear how other parents are navigating this journey. As someone who has walked a bit further down the road, I’ve come to realize that so much of parenting wisdom only becomes clear over time, often when we start to see the long-term impact of our choices on our children’s well-being, relationships, and mental health.
It’s easy to feel confident in our approach when our children are young, but many of the deeper lessons reveal themselves only later. Looking back, I’ve had to reckon with decisions I made when my kids were little and how those choices played out as they grew older. That’s not to diminish your insights or experiences, every parent’s journey is valuable.
But I do feel it’s important to be mindful about the advice we share, especially when our own parenting journeys are still unfolding. The impact of certain choices may not be evident until much later, and influencing others without that broader perspective can be risky.
I just wanted to share that perspective with you, not to discourage you, but to encourage a bit of caution and humility in sharing advice. Parenting is such a long, winding road, and we’re all learning as we go.
It's true that modern American society likes to separate children from adult's social lives. However, it's different within religious communities. I am Catholic and we are always hanging out with multiple families, children come to church events/potlucks, and we have weekly park meetups with other moms and their children. The children grow up with a weekly (at least) Mass where they are around other adults and learn how to be respectful, quiet, and attentive. It is great practice for them and we take them out to eat a lot because they have that foundation (they're all toddlers). You also see this with Hasidic Jews–they are very children, family, and community centric.
Hasidic Jews have so many children NOT out of choice. I am an RN and when I worked with them,many (65%)were often exhausted, stressed and suffering with gynaecological conditions etc. I am a very friendly curious person so I got told all the stuff they wouldn't normally share.
I hate subsidized daycare.
I don't want my kids in daycare. I want them home. Why should women who choose the work get a subsidy and those that don't get nothing.
Give people cash and let them decide what to do with it.