If you read Stephanie Koontz book, or any good American Women’s Economic History text, you’ll discover than Sven is very right.
Prior to around 1950, more women worked outside the home than worked in the home. The numbers at the turn of the century are pretty astounding - there was little middle class - the whole family - including children - worked if you were poor. Sometimes at home. There are histories of immigrant families where the three year old watches the baby while the five year old helps mother and grandmother make silk flowers.
The house I used to live in was a turn of the century middle class home. With a servants stairway and a butlers pantry. No live in help, but the people who lived there 100 years ago would have hired in an Irish girl for a pittance to help with household chores and take care of the children.
The middle class at the turn of the century participated in the cult of the woman. A woman’s first responsibility was to her husband - keeping him comfortable, keeping his home comfortable. This often left children to fend for themselves. This was repeated in the 1950s - women had more conviences and more time to spend with their children, but raising their children was often seen as secondary to keeping the husband happy. The cult of the child we are now in began developing in the 1960s - and is, to some extent, a result of the feminist movement that said a woman is independant of her husband. Women used to stay at home with the goals of taking care of husband, home, then children - note they were called “Housewives”. We’ve now moved to a world of “stay at home moms” whose first responsibility is their children, second responsibilty is the dishes, and the hubby comes last.
In a traditional farm ecomony, everyone works at home, so the children are with their parents, but everyone WORKS. There is no situation that we now see with a SAHM who has time to give a lot of quality time.
Remember that historically speaking a woman pre WWII had no “modern conviences” She beat her rugs, did her laundry with tools I’d consider primative, baked her own bread, canned her own beans, and often sewed the families clothes. It doesn’t leave time for the idyllic view of traditional childhood we hold, Mommy may have been home, but the quality time was limited.
Even in the 1950s that we so often idealize, many women worked outside the home (I’d be giving stats from memory, but I believe its in the 30% range). Poor women, black women, widows - these women have always needed to work.
But that is historical. Today is a different story - but Cranky is right. The populations are - to an extent - self selecting - especially where you are talking about the segment of the population that has a choice - instead of the parents who don’t have a choice but to work - either because neither of them makes a good enough income to remain middle class with a single job or because there is only one parent. “Aggression” is hard to measure (and may not be a bad thing - I’d rather have an aggressive kid than a doormat). Likewise, we can speak to an increased stress measurement, but can’t speak to it outcome without long term studies.
There is an additional factor that never gets put in…in our current world most people can expect to go through a period of unemployement. Having two incomes in a household can mitigate the risk of one parent losing a job. Stressful as daycare is, going through a parents job loss is no picnic for children - even young ones that pick up on a parent’s stresses - either.
Ancedotally, in my neighborhood my kids would be very lonely if I were a SAHM - nearly everyone in the neighborhood sends their kids to daycare. If we take a week vacation and hang at home, my kids are bored - nothing to do, no one to play with. That’s not even speaking to my own incompetence as a SAHM - I’m not the fingerpaint type and my kids spend far too much time in front of the TV.
