To think nurseries are not safe for young babies

I definitely think pre schools for a few hours is a good idea, they start teaching children to read and write, and toddlers socialise with other children so they are far more prepared for reception. Otherwise the shock of full time school can be too much for some children.

My son too never went to Nursery or child minder ( Worked from home) and aged 4 went to reception class at school and loved it!

Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. 99.9% of people in any group are not brilliant. Probably more like 20% are brilliant, 30% are very good, 40% are adequate, 5% are poor and the remaining 5% shouldn't be anywhere near children. I say this as someone who has worked with children. As with any role, there are plenty of people who shouldn't be in it and can put on a very good face for the parents. Often it's the ones who are most charming who you should be worried about the most.

As others have commented, nursery isn't the ideal setting for under twos. Ideally, they should be looked after by their primary caregiver, but what choice do most parents have. They need to keep a roof over their heads, so I don't judge them.

There is a real ignorance of children's development and needs, not just on this thread, but at a societal level. We don't want to face the truth, as it doesn't complement society's desire/need to have everyone in work, paying taxes, and keeping a capitalist economy churning.

Why did she work in a nursery if she couldn't cope with babies?
She didn't have too.
Hope they do the same to her in prison.

Bowlby's research paved the way for more responsive attitudes to young children when the prevailing ideas had their roots in the Victorian attitude of avoiding closeness or "spoiling" babies. I believe that the studies also fed into the research on RAD. However, it was definitely "of its time". Good nurseries today have responsive staff who know the children well. My daughter has strong attachments to her nursery teachers and trusts them to take care of her. There's also evidence to show that girls are more likely to go on to have fulfilling careers themselves and boys are more likely to take on a more equal share of household chores when their mother works.

Anecdotally, I've dated "men" who had stay at home mothers and I would tend to agree that the bulk of THEIR development happened prior to the age of 5. I would hope that my daughter will develop quite a bit further after age 5.

Bowlby has also been comprehensively discredited. In the 1950s they were trying to reverse the progress women made doing "men's jobs" in WW2.

I have done. And attachment theory has no links to attachment parenting.

Also, John Bowlby was writing in the 1950s and 60s when childcare was a very different thing to today and the vast majority of families had a stay-at-home mother.

And you would know whether you liked spending time with small kids or older ones BEFORE you had them exactly HOW??

Nobody knows for certain how you will take to parenthood until you've had the kids. After that you can't return them

I was a sahm with my first child, because of intense vulnerability and medical need. So, I did not have a choice to make, except hiring an actual nurse for childcare. I stopped working, then was self employed 6 hours a week, then 8 hours, until dc was well settled at nursery and it was clear that we were over the issues.

I went to baby/ toddler groups every day, sometimes twice, partly to introduce dc to lots of stimuli, partly because being at home with a very vulnerable baby terrified me. We were far from family etc, so I made us a community. All lovely.

Tricky with dc2. All straight forward health wise. I imagined using a nursery and working. We needed the money. Then it came to baby being born. Dp said her didn't want dc in a nursery. It didn't feel it fair that dc1 had me at home until 3, but baby would have "nothing" (so untrue though, we just needed to look then and have her name down etc.

But I went to so many things. I saw so many childminders. I did not like a lot of it. Just having tea and ignoring babies, telling off toddlers who had been hit for hitting back, making out that they were violent and badly behaved when they were defending their wee selves, shouting at babies, and one v hideous time, I watched a grown woman BITE a baby. Because the baby bit. SMH.

We still have not decided what to do, but I am vv wary of the home setting idea, because babies are so vulnerable there.

All deaths of infants are terribly sad, but they aren't terribly common.

Are nursery settings ideal for babies - no, but I don't think they are usually unsafe. Not more often than households.

I do find the "don't talk about the whether dycare is good for babies because it makes mothers feel guilty" bizarre. We do what we have to in the circumstances that confront us, but as a society we can't make the changes that make it possible to make better choices unless we know what choices might be better.

You didn't.

Though the fact that most mothers may want to be SAHM's is irrelevant to mothers who want to continue with their careers.

Sorry, my mistake.

I also never said "cope" 😕

Where did I say "ALL"??!

Clearly not all mothers or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

So fathers are allowed to not be able to 'cope' with staying at home but mothers should just get on with it no matter what?

Got it.

That is one example.

If a parent stays at home, it is almost likely to be the mother.
If a parent goes part time, it is almost likely the mother.
If a parent asks for flexibility, it is almost likely the mother.

Like I said, I agree that it would be ideal but it isn't going to happen any time soon.

But how does pp 'know'they would have struggled 1.5y later... they'd likely have been older and ready for school at that stage anyway. Neither of mine went to nursery and both ran into school, so no problems with 'school readiness'.

(Waits for someone to come along and share an anecdote that apparently proves the opposite: "I'm a mother and I wanted to work while my husband stayed with the kids!" 🍿)

Mothers are more likely than fathers to want to be the primary caregiver. I know this doesn't sit comfortably with the radical feminist worldview (which, by the way, is not true feminism), but it's true.

Disagree. I shared the care with DH 20 years ago. Insisted that I also wanted to work so we shared.

It almost always is a woman.

Men can absolutely parent too and I agree that shared care would be the ideal but I don't think it will be reality, not without a massive societal shift.

Read the research.

Isn't that what men with wives who are SAHM's do?

And well over 80% of all children are securely attached to their main caregivers, despite most of them spending at least some time in childcare. There is no evidence that "attachment parenting" is more likely to lead to secure attachments.

Parents? Or just mothers? Because it is mothers who are judged far more harshly than fathers for daring to want to have careers and are quickly deemed to simply never want to look after their own babies.

Most mothers are at home when they have very small babies on maternity leave. Most mothers go back part time so most 9-12+ month olds once maternity leave typically ends aren't in nursery full time anyway. Plenty of time that still involves them looking after their own baby.

Even if they are in nursery full time, it's almost as if mornings, evenings, night feeds if still applicable, weekends and annual leave don't exist. Not to mention how many more work places are flexible now since Covid.