Lots of people think that babies should be at home with parents - but how does this work in reality?

[Buthowdoesthatwork]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/thirty_days_only/5227945-whats-your-secret-viewpoint

I’ve noticed a lot of people on here, including the above thread, expressing the view that babies and toddlers should be “at home with mum” (they rarely say dad, but that’s another topic) when they are 2, 3, or until they start school. Many people also point out that nurseries are not the best environment for young babies.

Whilst I’m sure that there are many benefits to this proposed set-up, I’m genuinely curious as to how it translates into reality for most people in 2024? Not trying to bait anyone here - but I really do wonder how people are making it work?

I can imagine that it’s possible for families where one parent (again - dad?) is a very high earner, to the extent that the other can stay at home without causing any financial issues. Perhaps it also makes sense if one parent earns very little and/or is in a career where a long break wouldn’t harm longer term employment prospects, such that childcare costs are not offset by the benefits of working.

But, perhaps incorrectly, I imagine that most people fall somewhere in between these examples? For example, I know that I would have great difficulty in returning to the career that I’ve spent over a decade training for if I took three or four years off. I now work part time and childcare consumes a huge proportion of what I earn (shared money, but for the sake of illustration); however, I think it will benefit my children in the longer term if I can retain some of my career and earning potential. I’m not talking about fancy houses and flash cars either, as some critics seem to be suggesting are the drivers for both parents working, but just - maintaining an OK standard of living with heating on and clean clothes and fresh food? We couldn’t afford a nanny, we don’t have family on standby to help - so nursery it is.

I’m prepared to believe that it would be better for my children if I was at home all the time, especially whilst they are little. Or to have a nanny. But those aren’t truly realistic options for us. I don’t really know what the solution is. I’m wondering whether all those who pan nurseries are in a very privileged position, either financially or in terms of support? Or if there are other things I’ve not considered.

Sure.

I think as a society we should make it easier to there to be a choice for a parent to be at home with their children, especially under 3yo.

Why? Not every parent is a good one. And even for good parents, are the benefits of parental care significant enough to make a difference developmentally.

Financially, it will in most cases make the family, especially the one who stays at home who is usually the woman, worse off in the long run.

It is not something I would support with tax dollars.

I remember the aquarium one fondly, although it was like herding cats the whole time and trying to stop some of them spitting in the open pool was a challenge 🤦‍♀️

@blueshoes Attending nursery before say 2/3 years old also doesn't have any developmental advantages. Are you happy to fund nursery hours with your tax dollars?

Yes, because it supports working parents.

It keeps people in work, especially women, and their tax contributions. Women benefit at work with no breaks in their careers, a pension when they retire with and independence from their partner to avoid being trapped in an abusive relationship or if their partner becomes ill or maimed or leaves them. They will be in a better position to support the family and not fall into poverty.

The fact that women are working means they are contributing to the economy and GDP with their employable skills. They also are a working role model for their children. It also reduces inequalities in the workplace to see more women in senior positions.

Too cute 😂

Relying solely on a man financially was never going to be an option for me and having children didn’t change that.

I love my career and I’m allowed to enjoy my career as a woman. Men are, I’m no different.

My children have thrived at nursery because they go to an excellent one. One of the nursery workers is also our go to babysitter and has become a friend.

They definitely wouldn’t have benefited with me at home, bored out of my mind.

Depends on the kids, parents, job, house and 100 other factors.

One extreme you've got a woman who barely leaves home, is occupied with kids and house 24/7, doesn't know who she is anymore.

The other extreme you've got a woman with a hectic job, long commute, Nanny to pick up the slack and cover night wakes.

Most people are somewhere in-between. Nursery is better than a depressed mother in a grim flat. Mother is better than a crap nursery full of squealing kids and shit smells.

"No benefit" does not mean that kids are "better off" at home full time. It just means that there is no difference.

Being at home isolated with young children 24/7 is very unnatural, and it's not surprising that a lot of women struggle with that.

I find this discussion interesting because I'm a woman in a very well-paid partner-track career that I find incredibly interesting and which I wouldn't be able to return to if I took a career break of longer than the legally-mandated 12 months maternity.

I don't think it's an open-and-shut case that feminism means women should follow the male-pattern career path with no breaks and significant acceleration points (e.g. partner promotions) in the early 30s, i.e. in peak child-bearing season.

I wish I could have my very interesting, intellectually satisfying, globally impactful career... on a part time basis and/or with a few years out during this very short period of my life where child-bearing is my focus. But that doesn't exist in my industry.

I'm the poster girl(boss) for ambitious career women who can't imagine choosing stultifying hours with their pre-verbal children over fast-paced international dealmaking... and yet...

It irritates me so much when people say they 'couldn't do it' (look after their children and not work). Obviously, it's fine if you want to return to work at any point and the child won't necessarily suffer. however, there is a. assumption that paid work is more rewarding/edifying than looking after you own kids.For most of the world's population is a pretty inaccurate assessment. The vast majority of people don't work to fulfil themselves, they work to survive! I don't feel I need to defend my choice not to be in a paid role, nor do I struggle to find ways to be interested/stimulated whilst being a SAP. It was far more if a challenge when I worked full time.

Of course I know that, I've done it. But it's still the same stuff in a different location. You don't get to switch gears at all.

There are child care options which are not nursery which work better for under 2/3 year olds. Very easy to understand.

I got to do it for some years but we were in incredibly fortunate position that my husband had a good salary and while I have career that I had trained years for, it allowed for a gap and to return at similar level. If either of those two things weren’t there I’m not sure we could have managed it so I don’t think there’s a magic secret as such, just being very strategic about career choices.

Not sure what you mean by 'work better'. Parents have their own preferences for childcare which suit their circumstances and dcs.

I personally would not use a nanny or childminder over a good nursery because of the checks and balances which a nursery offers over children being cared for by one carer out of sight.

Grandparents are not always in a position to offer reliable or even good childcare beyond babysitting.

I thought we were considering what’s best for the child?

And what would they be? I think a high quality nursery with consistent staff can be the best option for some families.

That surely depends on the circumstances.

Not everyone has family that could or would be their childcare
Not everyone can afford a nanny or would feel comfortable with using a nanny
Childminders aren’t automatically better than nurseries either

It would only benefit the child if the mother staying at home feels happy and fulfilled.

How is it beneficial to a child if the mother is bored and miserable?

If I’d stayed at home they wouldn’t have got one to one adult attention as they are twins and grandparents are a flight away.

Who says she’s bored and miserable? 🤷🏼‍♀️

Having been the child of a burnt out mother, being a bored, undetstimulated mother is not in the best interest of the child.

Many women are. I would have been. My mother certainly was.

@Sweatinginthecold you're right about expectations. When I was still married, DS was unwell and had to be off nursery. I was speaking at a conference that day so really needed to go to work and we decided that now ex DH would take the day off. He was not doing anything specific that day and was also the secondary earner. His employer said that if it happened again he'd get a written warning and that he should "put his foot down" and insist that I take care of childcare matters in future.

My sons in a fantastic nursery too. He's really thriving