To ask if you couldn't imagine leaving your baby and then young dc with strangers?

Do what feels right for you and your family. It doesn't matter what works for me, or didn't work for someone else. It's your family. Your child. Your life. You know what's needed and what's best.

No idea... I'm started with a half day and I'll see how it goes. I need a bit of time in the day to catch up with jobs and workout. I think I'll send him and re-assess.

People always misconstrue attachment theory as it being solely about the child's relationship with it's main caregiver when it's not, it's only a component of it. His own studies of attachment and of theory have been criticised as being weak, too narrow minded and only focusing on the mother as an attachment figures.

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/demystifying-attachment

Another study found that issues like antisocial behaviour, also found evidence of anti-social behavior, affectionless psychopathy, and disorders of language, intellectual development and physical growth were not due to a lack of attachment to a mother figure but other factors such as lack of stimulation and social experiences.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html

But still we have armchair experts on here and politicians use attachment theory as a weapon against mothers to shame them into staying home and out of the work place in this belief that the absolute best thing for a child is to have their mother at home with them and women being told its OK if they can take a few years out of work and they can just skip back into work. Women can offer so much to the working world and have contributed to economy and society in so many ways yet a large part of society still thinks the best place for them is at home.

I work in social care and older adult care. About 90% of our work force is women and a large percentage is working mothers. It's the same for most caring professions too such as caring, nursing and teaching.

People on this thread say its fine for women to take a few years out their career yet offer NO ALTERNATIVE for who are going to fill these roles when these women are out of work. These professions are already short staffed and would become even more so if everyone took a few years out to stay at home. So perhaps these posters would be mindful to remember this the next time they need a nurse to care for them or their family member in hospital, or a midwife to deliver their baby, or a social worker or carer to help an elderly relative or teacher to teach your child.

I wish my grandmothers were alive to read some of this. They had multiple children and worked. Not in careers, but in let's- not- starve- today jobs. They would have been bemused at the idea of staying home with one or two moppets to lavish all their attention on.

Yes, they loved their children, as humans have done throughout history, but this whole idea of placing children on an altar and being in service to them would have been bizarre. Your children needed to be fed, clean and well behaved. Ideally, useful round the house too(but not the boys).

I'm lucky enough to have been born in an era where I could have a career, but I suspect I have more in common with my grandmothers than my mother, who did spend a lot of time at home with us, as there was no one else to look after us and childcare was prohibitive (80s and shit wage jobs).

At the end of the day we all do whats right for our own families.

My DS first went to a 'stranger' when he was 5 months old. She was a registered childminder but I had only met her once before. I had to work so didn't have a lot of choice. Having said that she was the 3rd setting I had visited and there was no way I'd have left him with the first childminder I met or the nursery I looked at.

Absolutely this. I’m also a hospital doctor and mum of two. I took a year of maternity leave with each child and, if I’m honest, would have loved to have stayed at home with them for longer. But it’s not feasible for huge chunks of healthcare staff to take years off and deskill in that time. Given that many people are keen to denigrate doctors, I’m sure there would be threads on here berating women for daring to train in the NHS and then have a career break. I’m sure it would be the same in other industries.

I have already stated my disgust at some of the responses on this thread, but it really is amazing that we can’t just trust other women/men/families to make decisions that make the best of their own situations.

Yes 18 YO DS went to a childminder part time from 4 months old. I got six months full maternity pay and as a single mum I couldn't afford to take longer off. I felt it better for his general life outcomes and quality of life to have his mum in work than on benefits.

If you think that putting kids in childcare is damaging children I would really urge you to make sure you tell this to

• the next woman who serves you in a shop
• the woman who does your hair
• the woman doing your next smear test
• the woman doing your nails
• the woman teaching your exercise class
• the woman teaching your school age children
• the woman who answers your call to a call centre
• the woman delivering your parcels
• the woman checking your tickets on the train

because a large number of them will have their kids in childcare and I’m sure they’d really love to hear your opinion. Or is it just strangers on the internet you want to tell are damaging their kids?

Absolutely!
What's 3 years in Intensive Care Medicine? Err, vast changes that's what! And the PP's 3 years seems to assume there's a one child rule. But I have 2 children 2 and a half years apart so my 3 years at home would have been more like 5 and a half years. I'd have been unemployable, unless I retrained. Assuming I could even find anyone to retrain me - and why on earth should they, given I'd already had one shot and a big chunk of the public purse - the impact on a young family of having Mum undergoing retraining, quite possibly in another part of the country, would be massive. It's not like they stop needing parenting once they're over 3. I think I found the school years more intense than the baby period in fact.
In reality, we'd have got used to living on one salary in those years and I'd probably never have returned. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of doctors I know who have had a significant career break and returned to work, and none of them regained the seniority they left with. If a relatively small number of people do it it's not a huge issue but if every female doctor decided to have a 3 year career break after every child it would be a complete disaster. Same would be true of most other health care professionals. Aside from the deskilling aspect, who the hell would do the work whilst all these women were away for their 3 or more years? It's hard enough to get maternity cover in many roles as it is. If 3 years off was the norm I can't imagine what impact that would have on the recruitment and career progression for women, and we don't truly have parity even now.
I'm talking health care because it is what I know, but I am sure there are many other professions where the same kind of thing applies. I doubt there are many jobs where you can stroll back in after 3 or 4 years, have an afternoon's induction and pick up where you left off.
I'm all for choice. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. And there are, without doubt positives to a family of having one parent at home. I'm quite happy to acknowledge that there were downsides to me working when my children were very young. But there were lots of longer term positives too, for them, me, and wider society. As they're now happy, successful and not in the slightest dysfunctional adults I'm fairly confident that the positives outweighed the negatives, but yes, there would have been plus points if I'd stayed at home too. But it works the other way too and denying the longer term impact of time out of the workplace, both on the individual and society does nobody any favours.

You're referring to research done on families in the 60s. The shape of families, childcare settings and the job market is entirely different to those that Bowlby studied. With regards to childcare settings, this is in part because of the research.

This was going to be my next point!

@HJA87 but there are lots of critiques of Bowlby. One in particular is the particular focus on the mother-child attachment when more recent research suggests children are capable of forming attachments with multiple caregivers.

All of the research you are relying on is referencing a childcare system that is very different to the UK system.

I'm not sure why you are so determined to tell women who have used childcare that they have damaged their children when it's not even true!

Bowlby did a lot of work on the different attachment types. Children can be securely attached AND attend childcare. They aren't mutually exclusive and neither Bowlby's work nor the NSPCC are saying that can't be the case.

Look.

You're allowed your opinion. You're allowed to make your own choices. Let us do ours.

And if you absolutely must tell internet strangers why your choices are the correct ones, just make sure you cite sources that are reliable and appropriate. And actually, make sure that you're using relevant, reliable and appropriate studies to make your own decisions. Whatever the outcome of your decision is, that's my advice to anyone. Be sure that the work you're reading is done by people who genuinely just care about the wellbeing of children and have no ulterior motive. And that it's relevant to your circumstances / location etc.

You're referring to research done on families in the 60s. The shape of families, childcare settings and the job market is entirely different to those that Bowlby studied. With regards to childcare settings, this is in part because of the research.

I've found your comments really interesting to read, HJA87. My DD1 has been in nursery since she was 4 months old. She seems to be thriving but of course I can't tell whether she'd be thriving 'more' if I'd kept her with me at home instead, or whether there will be long-lasting bad effects. Out of guilt, I've very much deliberately avoided looking at the evidence on this issue and engaging with anyone who has a critical viewpoint on nurseries for babies, so your posts have got me to come out of that bubble.

In my case I absolutely WAS looking for a break from DD - something which I do not think is the case for the majority of women out there by the way, but it was for me. I could have afforded to stay off work longer, albeit with some difficulty, and originally planned to take 12 months. I was shocked by how down and hopeless I felt during my MAT leave and became desperate to get back to work for my own benefit. I actually ended up applying for - and getting - a promotion just because the new role provided an excuse for why I was cutting my MAT leave short and I thought would make people less likely to judge me (I was wrong about that though - they still did judge of course).

I do also have to be honest about my shortcomings as a mother. I have a history of poor mental health and MAT leave really intensified these issues (my mental health has been way better since I started working again!). I tried to avoid letting my issues impact on DD and on my parenting but I'm sure they did. I don't want to use mental health as an excuse and it is something I continue to work on in the hopes of being more resilient in the future. But I do wonder whether my DD is genuinely better off getting away from me for a fair few hours each week given these circumstances. Since starting back at work, I do think I've become a better parent when I'm with DD precisely because I have more time away from her; I will admit that my job (despite being pretty challenging and emotionally draining) DOES feel like a break and that I now come back from work with far more energy and more gratitude for every moment with DD.

People and situations are complicated. Again on an individual level, I'm sure there are lots of young children - even babies - out there who get more attention, stimulation and consistent kindness and affection at nursery than they would get if they were home all the time. Not everyone is a particularly good parent to babies and toddlers (or at least not a good parent all/most of the time). Babies and toddlers can be hard, and a lot of people who have children have numerous problems of their own - whether their fault or not.

Or perhaps I am just telling myself all this as another strategy to lessen my own guilt? I'm genuinely not sure. Just putting it out there.

a lot of these studies are based on the underlying, well established research by British psychologists for example Bowlby:

A child should receive the continuous care of this single most important attachment figure for approximately the first two years of life.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html

John Bowlby (1907 – 1990) was a psychoanalyst (like Freud) and believed that mental health and behavioral problems could be attributed to early childhood.

NSPCC (so a very legitimate UK source) also quotes Bowlby before anyone says his theory is BS.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-health-development/attachment-early-years#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20attachment%20theory%20highlights,impact%20on%20their%20future%20relationships.

The evidence shows lots of women are not going back to work though.
Technology advances fast and organisations change. Years out of the workforce means that when you go back it feels like starting again- even after my 1 y MAT leave, there were a substantial number of changes to my dept and the processes we use which I had to get to grips with.
After 4-5 years out, many women feel lower on confidence and employers are often not very receptive to someone with a big gap in their CV.
Some careers rely on "who you know" and you have 5 years where you've not been making connections. Your peers have all overtaken you and even if you do go back, your salary is years behind where it would have been, for the rest of your working life.

The reality is it's very hard to return to work after an extended period of being a SAHM and most women don't.

You will not convince me that nursery hasn't been beneficial to my daughter because I've seen it. However, considering the impact of nursery in isolation is illogical. If you look at your whole life, considering that at the very best, it's going to delay your career by several years, and at worst, you have given up your career for good, and the consequences of that on household finances for the rest of your life, considering the example you set for your children about careers and motherhood, considering your financial independence and the consequences if your marriage ever breaks down, considering security in retirement, considering how all of the above is going to impact on your family and your children's lives, the research you put forward suggesting a minor impact on the behaviour at school of children in nursery looks kind of weak and irrelevant.

That's not to say that if you want to be a SAHM, you shouldn't, but the choice should not be made solely based on what is best for your baby right at that moment, but based on what is going to be best for them for the next 18 years.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. It only takes a few minutes on a Salary Calculator to see that all parents earning above a certain amount are most definitely better off paying nursery fees, high though they are. Factor in the opportunity cost of losing 5+ years of work experience whenever they did try to return to a career, meaning they would be on a much lower salary at that point than if they'd carried on working. I'm usually not a fan of bringing everything down to money but with the cost of living as it is, every family should feel free to do what they can to live comfortably, without such ridiculous judgment and incorrect conclusions.

😂😂😂

Thank you!

I'm so pleased you chose that one.

Read the discussion. It notes that the children attended nurseries 20+ years ago.

Can you really apply two decades or more childcare experiences to today?

Or are you just using it to support your nonsense?

And I spent 30s on it because I'm on my lunch break from work while my well adjusted happy child is in nursery. Oops.

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view.

Seriously? Should only childless women or men be teachers, doctors, social workers, nurses, midwives.... or any job really?

Also, you know, money 🤷🏼‍♀️

Wanting to work, earn money and provide for your family is not sad or brainwashed. It's being an adult.

Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.

I agree. And women shouldn't be judged for working.

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view.

Seriously? Should only childless women or men be teachers, doctors, social workers, nurses, midwives.... or any job really?

Also, you know, money 🤷🏼‍♀️

Wanting to work, earn money and provide for your family is not sad or brainwashed. It's being an adult.

Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.

I agree. And won't shouldn't be judged for working.

• For age 1, childcare may improve cognitive skills a little, though certainly less than starting at age 2. But it also has even larger negative effects on later behavior in school.There is no boost to social skills.
• For children aged 0–12 months, daycare likely damages cognitive skills and children’s later behavior at school is even worse. There is no boost to social skills.

First source I clicked on that she mentions is published by a UK source (Cambridge university) Maybe if you spent more than 30s digging into it you would stop talking nonsense to support your own agenda.

That source is still American. Carried out at the university of California looking at an American childcare system.

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view. Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.