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

Inion and grandparents to 21! His poor wife/ daughters.

There is so much written about attachment theory, I don’t know how this idiot thinks he’s come up with something meaningful. The very idea that children need a mother, rather than a loving care giver, goes right back to John Bowlby’s theories of the 1950s.

It’s typical that yet again a man is telling women what’s best. This man should be ignored.

Honestly, just let it go over your head. You get 'experts' arguing the opposite of each other all the time.

Even real experts (ie if you read peer reviewed articles about pre school education or gender roles or attachment etc) don't always agree. Off the top of my head from my dissertation I remember that there were some links to raised cortisol levels of babies in nursery but otoh boys whose mums worked ended up having much less stereotypical ideas of gender roles...

(My DS goes to nursery)

I think he probably half right in that it is optimum for a parent to stay at home with the child for the first 3 years. However not optimum doesn’t mean bad and if you can’t or don’t want to do it then it’s not ruinous for the child. Fwiw DD has been in childcare since she was 14 months old so I have no axe to grind here.

This is nearly 20 years old. I do believe that small children need to be with close caregivers though.

I have mixed feelings about this. My little boy and I are very attached, still bedshare at 17 months. He went to nursery part time when he was 9 months and I agonised over it because of articles like this. In the end he seemed to really enjoy it and developed so much over the few months that he was there, particularly his social skills. In the end I had to leave my job but now I'm thinking about going back to work and I'm conflicted again although I know in my heart nursery is actually a good thing for him.

Pure horseshit.

Dual wage? No, I actually love my career and education.

Villainelle
It’s hard making these decisions I dreaded going back to work. The thought of only seeing my DD for few hours on the days I worked was devastating but in reality it was really good for both of us.

does he have kids? If so I feel sorry for them, being raised in a home where father is a sexist twat and Mother presumably just does what he says

I always think anyone who holds this sort of view must be mightily pissed off when they see the children of working parents being perfectly well adjusted, doing well at school, and basically growing up into happy, well rounded adults (while having parents who still have a successful work life!)

There’s a thinly veiled layer of resentment... it’s just about acceptable for mother to work as long as there’s some downside, as in unhappy, unsettled children who grow into emotionally stunted adults!

Must be very disappointing for this chap to see its not like that.

Stay at home if you want to because it’s your personal choice, but don’t create spurious arguments as to why mothers ‘ought’ to do it

He's rehashing John Bowlby's theory on attachment which Bowlby developed in the 1950's and passing it off as his own idea.
As you can imagine many other theories/. Experiments on attachment has since been conducted, which challenge this theory.

This guy is basically a thief. He provides no evidence and passes the idea off as his own. I hate people like this.

This is just an opinion. Other people’s opinions will vary even in peer reviewed articles, which this is not. The interesting bit of information I read is if you are away from your child for extended periods every day, co sleeping and breastfeeding help. That makes sense to me. The rest is just pie in the sky fantasy. And DrMomma when he’s a bloke. That’s soooo patronising.

Both mine went to nursery from the age of six months because I work, and because....my sanity.

However, from a child’s viewpoint, he’s probably correct. It’s probably optimal. I don’t see anything controversial or sexist about that.

That’s not to say it’s practical or possible, and I personally would have gone mad if I’d had to do it.

I went back to work when both my DC were 3.5 months.

Partly this was due to the fact that where I live, 3 months maternity leave is standard and we can't afford for me not to work.

But also, I wanted to go back to work. I love my children but I don't want to be a SAHM 24/7.

FWIW, IMO, they are both very happy, well adjusted kids.

Of course, no one every asks the under 3’s where they’d rather be.
I’m certain most would rather be at home with their mum.

Ideally a child of that age would have one to one care from someone. In my mind the best option would be for that to be with a parent, then grandparent or a professional childcare worker.

It’s very backwards to say that care should be from the mother only.

It is not something that everyone wants to do or can do, and I am not convinced by the theories.

However It was something that I wanted to do and we managed on my OHs salary.
I used no childcare until my kids went to school.

What a load of crap. Up until now I've been a SAHM, but, I'm sending my daughter to nursery for a day a week in December, after she's turned two and the price drops slightly, as she needs it!

She loves playing with other children and I'm no longer enough to fulfil her needs! She needs the extra stimulation a nursery setting can offer her, as opposed to a couple of groups and some walks in the park!

I'm not saying I won't enjoy a day to myself, but, if I didn't think she needed it, I'd be much happier to keep the £200 per month it's going to cost!

Bloody idiot.

I can’t honestly see what’s controversial about it. We can’t take it as a personal attack on our choices.

The practicalities of our own situation and our feelings on it don’t change what is probably a fact.

I really don't think it's a fact that only mothers should be the main care giver till children are 3. That's an opinion, based on nothing.

All children under 3 would want their mother constantly with them. However, all children under 3 would also love to exist solely on a diet of jelly and ice cream so as an adult it is up to me to decide what is in their long term best interest.

I would never decide to stay at home for 3 years. I stayed home on mat leave with DD for 1 year and she had a nanny for 2 years before going to nursery at 3. I secured several payrises and promotions over the years and we are all happy and secure. She’ll be off to secondary school in a couple of years and I couldn’t have wished for a happier/healthier more secure child. She knows she is our top priority and loved.

I’d like to know his credentials. Except I rather expect it’s just his opinion he thinks rather a lot of.

FWIW for me it was important to be a SAHM. That absolutely doesn’t mean it is right or desirable for any other person.

I agree that most under-3s would probably prefer to be with their mums, but I don't think this is beneficial nowadays because it means they will have none, or limited, contact with other toddlers. Life is no longer like it used to be, when everyone had numerous children that were in and out of each other's houses. Children need loving, consistent care from an adult, but they also need daily contact with a group of other children that they know and see regularly (tumble tots once a week is not the same). This is why I believe that part-time nursery is essential for toddlers between one and three.
His idea that only mums are supposed to stay at home is sexist though, but I'm not suprised he didn't fancy staying at home with 11 kids!

Not read the thread - read the first post and wondered why you feel the need to share a load of crap.