Mothers should always be with their children until they are 3 years old

[abacucat]

This is what one parenting "expert" is recommending in the name of attachment parenting. And he does mean mothers, not fathers. AIBU to think this is a load of rubbish? Babies and toddlers are not damaged as is alleged, from spending time apart from their mother.

www.drmomma.org/2010/07/mother-toddler-separation.html

So Dr Twat had 10 children? Presumably his wife spaced the kids out to spend 30 years providing 1:1 care for each of them.

She must have started young... and she’d never have been able to fit a successful career in anyway!!

Lweji, apologies I don't have time to read it in full right now, but does it address mental health, as that is my primary basis for my rather unpopular rather than just general development?

Rather unpopular opinion that should read 😁

What a load of rubbish.

So Dr Twat had 10 children?

Actually he had 11 children, according to the author's note! So 33 years of childcare for Mrs. Dr. Twat.

does it address mental health

Aspects of it, as far as I could tell. Not much time either.

I think the point is that there are benefits and problems with all sorts of care.

'brass tacks of it, while babies and toddlers will be ok in full-time childcare, it’s not how it’s supposed to be.'

If you're talking about 'supposed to be', traditionally there wouldn't have been one child at home with their Mum both bored senseless in front of CBeebies half the time. How it's supposed to be in that sense would be a house full of children all playing together, helping out round the house and on the farm etc. But children don't have as many, if any siblings and cousins to socialise with, and they don't have land to go out to play and work on, and they don't have as many skills to learn and mums don't have as much to do around the house. So nursery provides vital stimulation and socialisation that most children just wouldn't get otherwise in this day and age.

My take is that there are many aspects to consider, from financial to the mother's well being and mental health too.
The effects on the children either way have to be small or it wouldn't take sophisticated studies to find them.

We do what works best for ourselves and our families.

And here is my opinion and belief. We shouldn't put children ahead of everything regardless of consequences. It's not healthy for them and could lead to mental health problems when they find out in the real world that they're not priorities for others. And mothers who sacrifice everything for their children tend to not only feel a void when they leave, as tend to not want to release control of their lives.
Maybe it's instead the trend of SAHM that's causing whatever mental health epidemic some people think exists.
See how easy it is to construct beliefs to put down people and justify our own choices?

Buncakes - indeed. My paternal great-grandmothers had 21 children between them. I doubt that their experience of motherhood involved spending six months sitting on the sofa all day enjoying newborn cuddles, or spending whole afternoons finger-painting with a toddler.

(Incidentally, one of my colleagues has five siblings, all quite close in age. She is very vocal about the benefits of her childhood and says that having to fight her siblings tooth and nail to get any parental attention made her grow up strong and confident. She's told me that she wouldn't ever want fewer than four kids because 1-1 parental attention is bad for children and makes them spoilt and immature. So there's no one accepted view of what makes a great childhood!)

TBH all children would benefit from having a happy, well balanced, loving and engaged SAHM for the first three years of their life. There is nothing very scandalous about believing that. There is also nothing very scandalous about acknowledging that many children won’t get that, for perfectly good reasons.

Tbh all children would benefit from having a loving home, good food, a roof over their head and a healthy level of stimulation and responses to their physical and emotional needs. Nothing scandalous about that.

(See, it’s perfectly possible to outline what children need without referencing whether one, both, or neither parents are working!)

@user SAHM or SAHP??? Again, purely the mothers responsibility 🙄

TBH all children would benefit from having a happy, well balanced, loving and engaged SAHM for the first three years of their life. There is nothing very scandalous about believing that. There is also nothing very scandalous about acknowledging that many children won’t get that, for perfectly good reasons.

Sums it up really.

Blaa until men can get pregnant and lactate it's fairly safe to assume that, in the majority of cases, mothers will play a more prominent role in looking after their babies. This is one area where there will never be equality of the sexes.

It sums up one opinion, of this Dr person plus a few posters. That is all. There is no evidence to support it as a fact.
Just as if Someone were to say all children would benefit from having both parents with successful work lives - that would be an opinion.

@peaky so you're saying dads can't be equal parents??? Jeez what decade is this?
Apart from giving birth dads absolutely can contribute equally if you choose that as a family. I didn't breastfeed therefore my DH contributed equally to parenting responsibilities from the outset.
I also know an excellent SAHD so enough of your sexist bullshit.

Well if need peer reviewed studies to prove to you that a child benefits from spending their days with a happy, engaged parent then you're possibly over educated...

Of course fathers CAN be just as good as mothers at looking after children. My point is they WON'T be... at least not in our lifetime. The mother plays the bigger part in childcare for the vast majority of families, hopefully that will change but as I don't know a single SAHD I'll not hold my breath!

Blaaablaaablaa I did bf (long term) but still returned to work when dc1 was 3 months and then after longer 6 month maternity leaves with dc2 and 3. I partnered a man who has always seen himself as an equal parent, hands-on with the kids and in the home. Our children are now all adults, happy and successful in their work and relationships and they have a close bond with each other and with us.

I think the point you touch on is spot on... some women don’t want to aim for that sort of set up. They want to stop work and be at home and if their partner is happy to be sole earner and hand over the majority of child and home stuff to the mother then that’s fine - it’s no one else’s business. The problem starts when these women (and it always seems to be the women not men!) try to extrapolate from that, that it’s the ‘best way.’

Our set up worked great for our family. I would never have wanted to be sole earner, neither would I want to totally give up my career and have dh being sole earner. It worked for us to balance things as equally as possible (in fact the only thing dh couldn’t do was feed milk directly from the breast. Everything else he could do and did do. ) But I wouldn’t presume to tell anyone else that they should do what we did. It’s horses for courses. Raising happy, loved, well adjusted human beings is what counts.

@peaky dads won't ever be as good as mums at looking after they're children??? Seriously? My DH would be incredibly offended. In my experience dads are just as good and in some cases better.
Views like yours just perpetuate sexist, misogynistic views. Thankfully my son is being brought up to see parents of both sexes contributing equally.

@momo you're spot on. 👌

*their children

Blaa I'm obviously not making myself clear. I'm saying it falls to women to do the majority of childcare and it most likely will always be that way. I'm not saying I think it should be that way I'm just saying that's the way it is and will likely remain - be it due to patriarchy, biology or the mothers choice (most likely a combination). Your DH being an excellent dad and knowing one SAHD does not a massive cultural shift make!

I'm not being sexist I'm just stating the reality for the majority.

Ugh can't even be bothered to read the link. What a crock of shit.
YANBU

I might only know one SAHD but I only know one SAHM too. In my circles ( both professional and social) the norm is for both parents to work and both parents to contribute equally to childcare responsibilities.
There has been a cultural shift and it's still happening. Some of the sweeping generalisations and outdated veiwpoints actually prevent that shift happening as quickly as it should.
People saying it should be 'mothers' and using the term SAHM exclusively make it difficult for people to go against the perceived norm. Same applies when you say dads can't be equal parents.