to be saddened by a three week old baby in full time childcare?

[lilystyles]

At a local toddler group last week there was a childminder who I'm friendly with, she had with her a new child, a baby of 3 weeks who's mother had gone back to work full-time in teh pub she and her husband own. I am not judging this woman, it's her choice but I couldn't help but feel sad at the situation.

"If women work everyone is happier and it also makes it more likely you can do things like afford univesrity fees for your children never mind feed them"

My children beg me not to go to work. They love having me at home. If they could swap me for Mary Poppins they'd probably be quite happy to see the back of me, but somehow crappy after-school clubs and Swedish au-pairs just don't give them the same quality of life as I can.

And I nearly had a breakdown when I went out to work full-time because I found I didn't have time or energy to scratch my arse, let alone read a book, supervise my kids piano practice and homework, exercise, spend regular time with my elderly parents, volunteer, etc, etc.

Would love to know how other people fit all this in, plus 7 or 8 hours sleep a night.

(re: university fees: I'm hoping dc's will be able to pay their own!)

It's good to be challenged, does us all good. Isn't that what most decides how well children do in life - income of family though? Prove me wrong. Obviously you can be an awful parent including father - never forget fathers in all these debates, children have 2 parents except perhaps in rather sexist sets ups some silly women tolerate, but assuming all things being equal you have loving parents then add in a high family income and the child tends to do better - thus a housewife damages children and a woman on £100k benefits then. Simple.

If housewives want to start these threads saying they feel sorry women work whilst they have babies but of coruse aren't sorry for men who have to work and have babies (because these housewives really are sexist to the core and need re-education) then they ahve to take what they get. They started it. I have never started a thread saying how damaging housewives can be for children, families other women and the nation.

Woman probabloy had no choice but to go back to pub - probably couldn't afford not to. Why are you sad the woman went back to work, but not the man??

Xenia, you say:

"There is certainly a case to be made that children and mothers do better if the mother is back at work very quickly and you rarely see that suggested in the press which is a great pity given large numbers of women do return to full time work and find it works very well for them."

Make it, then. Have you any evidence this is the case? Can you explain in any way why returning to work quickly will lead to children and/or mothers 'doing better'? You say that working women are better at psychology, care to explain your theory in a bit more depth?

YANBU......poor little baby

As someone once said to me, I think I can safely say that on my deathbed I shan't be thinking: I wish I'd spent more time at the office.

On the subject of whether babies need emotional or physical care, I'm amazed by those who say they don't need emotional care until they're older. Are you serious?

As regards babies being looked after in a community setting, that is a totally different thing from the professionalisation of childcare, which is what largely happens in this country. An excellent, professional nursery down the road is no match for a close-knit community of extended family looking after/ breastfeeding a baby. Nor is a fantastic nanny. The family have an emotional, genetic, historical and future connection and investment in the child which no professional can ever have. All of these factors heavily influence and enrich their care in a way that no 'external' carer can provide.

I do agree that a baby who knows their non-parental carer earlier will be less traumatised by the transition from parent to carer. However, again we hit the issue of the distinction between family and professional care.

Xenia, having my mum at home gave us such a happy childhood.

Ok - if she'd gone out to work and doubled the family income I might be a barrister now, instead of a teacher. But I love my work, have a great relationship with my mum who I speak to twice a day on the phone, and feel my happy childhood set me up for a happy adulthood. Being a 'high-flyer' is no guarantee of happiness or fulfilment and you can't put a price on happy childhood memories. I'm hugely grateful for the love, time and effort my mum put into caring for us as children.

Sorry, quick aside- My daughter was quite definitely playing with other (usually older) children at 6 months- as soon as she could sit up unaided. She is unusually interactive however.

As you were.

I don't understand how it is sexist to think a mother and baby have a different (not better/more important just different) bond to father and baby

titty - well said. And besides, what's an extra £100k going to get you? More possessions? Please. Do we really need to buy all the crap that's peddled on our screens every day? Does it make us happier? No. Safer? No. Healthier? Again one could argue no. It's just stuff, for goodness' sake, it's not going to change lives.

titty- having my mother at home full time mostly gave me insights into how very bad for everyone it is when your mother is unhappy and unfulfilled and trying to toe some bizarre cultural line. My father tried to encourage her to go back to work and let us be looked after by a nanny, but she preferred to do it herself. Which mainly consisted of just about remembering to feed us and subcontracting most of the childcare and supervision to me (oldest child by 21 months). The rest of the time she spent thoroughly depressed and lethargic and unable to see her way to financial independence in order to leave my philandering and cruel bastard of a father. When my brother was 12 (I was 17 by that stage, our 3 sisters spread out between those ages) she went back to work and has never looked back.

I can't remember only happy times from her being at home with us. I remember far more about the enormous difference in apparent power between my parents, and that colours my feelings about being economically inactive to this day. I'm a freelancer and I start to get twitchy if I go even a few days without anyone calling me for work.

Brilliant post arses

(the 20:47 one)

"And I nearly had a breakdown when I went out to work full-time because I found I didn't have time or energy to scratch my arse, let alone read a book, supervise my kids piano practice and homework, exercise, spend regular time with my elderly parents, volunteer, etc, etc.

Would love to know how other people fit all this in, plus 7 or 8 hours sleep a night."

I just don't bother with the exercise ... or the sleep.

I have said this before on MN but it has a great deal to do with how you view your work. For me, work is part of "me time".

The "more time at the office" thing isn't that great really. Because the office, no. But my job is a passion. I love it, it's important and I make a difference. Much like my role in my family in fact. And I get to do both, which makes me very lucky. Had I let my career fall by the wayside, I think I might have been regretted it long before my deathbed.

Random been. Whoops.

Madonna - I also have a (burgeoning) career which is fun and which I love. But I definitely want more time with my family while my kids are little.

duchesse - presumably part of your mother's unhappiness was not just being an unhappy SAHM but also your father being so awful? I'm not using this as evidence against your argument, just trying to get a fuller picture of what you've described.

Gonzalez- it's v difficult to unpick the separate issues from each other. I'm sure my mother would have been very much happier being a SAHM if the circumstances had been more conducive. But that was my childhood and my inoculation so to speak against being economically dependent. Although my husband is lovely, and my staying at home for 6 years was an economic decision which I do not regret at all, it has set me back in any career for ever really. I am now forging a career as a freelancer, but had I not had children or had I begun to do this earlier, I would not have lost so much ground re earnings and seniority.

People can do what they like. I was just saying that I think it's a phrase that misses the point for a lot of people.

Sorry OP I'm sure someone else will have picked you up on this but your statement:

" I am not judging this woman, it's her choice but I couldn't help but feel sad at the situation."

is false. You are judging this woman, who you do not know, whose circumstances you have no insight into and not only that you are expecting everyone here to do judge her also.

YABU.

Regardless of choosing to stay at home or work, children need emotional support - yes this is true, however, where ever that comes from is fine. My dds adore their nanny and she does them, always bringing them things in, taking them places without wanting expenses (I can't aford them at the minute). Does lots with them, gets them christmas presents and lots of cuddle time. They miss her terribly when she is off at the weekend. They run to her open armed when she comes in on Monday. THEY ARE HAPPY and well balanced even though I choose to work full time and study (not out of any real choice due to circumstances and would rather be part time but I can't on this course.)I don't berate myself because what I am teaching them is the value of education and work. That it is important to study or try to better yourself and that people sometimes have to do things they don't want to achieve in the long run .

YABU

I'm just surmising here, but if the family run a pub they probably can barely afford to keep it going in the current climate, it will also be their home (i.e. they will be homeless if it goes under) they will owe the bank/brewery a whack of money and will be regularly working 12-14 hour days 7 days a week. If they can't afford to employ daytime bar staff or a chef then probably the baby is at CM during the day so that one partner can staff the bar whilst the other does the backoffice/off premises stuff/lunches. My sis & BIL used to own a pub, it is not a job, it's your life.

It's a totally different case to someone choosing whether or not to go back to a salaried 40 hour job with statutory maternity leave.

The baby is with a childminder who if they are worth the name will be a kind, responsive, affectionate person who will form a relationship with the baby as a third person alongside the parents - the child hasn't lost its parents just gained a third consistent carer.

I'm sure they don't feel it's ideal but everyone's circumstances are different and it won't have been a decision lightly taken, nor may it be a permanent arrangement.

Duchesse do you not think your family's problems were caused by your father's philandering? Not your mother's lack of a job? Maybe the only thing keeping her feeling that she was in any way useful or wanted was her children and her familiar surroundings? Maybe she was so depressed by life with your father that it was impossible for her to conceive of happiness for herself or any kind of fulfillment? Maybe she was suspicious of any suggestion of his that she would be happier if she got a job, because she knew deep down what and who the real problem was?

duchesse my experience was the opposite to yours. My father wasn't that great of a husband, and my mother got around this by building up a career and becoming the main breadwinner.
WHat she should have done was divorce him, probably, but she needed to tip the power balance in her favour and her way of doing that was through work- and she worked very long hours, weekends, evenings- so I realise this is an extreme case.
Like you, it has coloured my views on child-rearing. We had lots of posessions but no real home-life.
I have reacted by going the opposite way, and have stayed at home. However I, like you, am trying to gain ground in free-lance work and I'm aware that staying at home as scuppered my career chances, which is a problem.

We all try to do our best with what we can.

I don't understand why people come on this thread saying that feeling sad at a 3 week baby is in chilcare is a thinly veiled argument against working mothers, rather than a comment on the way society has been set up. Society can and should be improved.

Women who work by choice have no reason to feel offended at any supposed attacks. Just like women who stay at home have no reason to feel offended by the "neurotic" quips. If it's your choice, then it's your choice and to hell with what others think.

If, however, you are staying at home because you have no choice, or you're working to keep a roof over your head then these are real social problems that must be addressed. Traditionally, mothers have worked, but not been separated from their babies at 3 weeks . MOre recently, mothers were kept from the workplace, and promotions, simply because they were mothers.

"I didn't start it."
"They started it."

PMSL Xenia. Are you 14?