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

Good attachment is paramount for development but it does not follow that just because I child is in the mother’s presence until three, that good attachment will be formed. Lots of children of sahm’s have attachment disorders.

What is far more important is parents (plural) engaging in consistant and positive bonding behaviors. That said, the way our society is structured does not place children at its centre and it should. Children do need intensive exposure with their caregivers and if this were a priority then we may see a society that is structured to allow parents more time during those formative years to focus on firm bonds without the specter of financial or career loss, which is especially pertinent for mother’s.

This dude is all about keeping women in their place though, he’s coming from a male centric point of view not a child centric one.

When I read about this subject I always wonder how far we've moved from what is nature? I believe human babies need a parent (ideally their mother) when they are young. They're not build to be away from their parent otherwise they would be born talking etc. I don't understand why this has to be so controversial, we don't take puppies away from their mothers so why do we think it's okay for babies? We can argue all day about money and misogyny but ultimately it comes down ti what is best for our children and nature knows best. I say this as someone who did have to put my child in nursery from a very young age. Yes, they were fine, yes he doesn't know different but I still think the best would have been for him to stay with me no matter how routine that would have been.

If the baby will take a bottle, then there is absolutely no reason why Daddy would be a poor substitute for Mummy, if left for an extended period of time (i.e. longer than the next feed) during the early months.

Surely we want to raise babies (with a present Daddy), who view both of their parents as equal, loving and sufficient to their needs. Why would you want a baby to view Daddy as less relevant?

This is obviously written by a man who wants to take a back-seat in parenting. Perhaps he wants to come and go as he pleases, rather than feeling tied to a baby. So he needs a wife who will ALWAYS be on hand. His wife can't possibly go out for more than 4 hours because, what if he feels the urge to pop to the gym, or go on a bike ride? It's just too inconvenient.

Grow up Dr George Wootan.

I agree with this man, i think mothers are better staing at home with their children until they are 5 and go to school,
Admitted these days when both parents need to work it is difficult
I was able to do this ,and my children have grown up well adjuxted and no trouble
A friend of mine always worked and her son especially was always in trouble,
When the Detective once went to her house about her son, he said this is what happns when parents work, and the children are affected,they were also latch key kids,
My friend reallly preferred to work, and didnt have much interest in them anyway,
I am grateful that i was able to be a stay at home mum
I dont agree with putting babies ibn nurseries,they need to bond with mum

…..and my children were always left with either myself or my DH. As a result they have a very close bond with Daddy. Which is something he cherishes.

This dude is all about keeping women in their place though

The irony being that women who go out to work just get other women to do their job.

Childminders, nursery staff, cleaners, 98% women on fairly low wages.

It isn't at all unusual for kids to not want to leave their parents, and training them out of it earlier and earlier may be essential for working etc but isn't a milestone for the child. My daughter wasn't ready to be away from home at 4, despite trying school. She came out for a few years, and has just re-entered at 8 very happily. For the first few years I was primary carer, then split between dh and I, and then for another year or two they've been with grandparents, childminders and all sorts.

Not sending them off at 1 or whatever doesn't mean parents are clingy by any means.

That's not to say that people shouldn't do what feels right for their family, and they certainly shouldn't feel any guilt about doing what has to be done. Children from a loving home tend to turn out ok. But personally I agree with Pictish and that has been our approach too.

You can find research to support anything but the consensus in the quality research shows that kids who have been at home/with a relative or nanny have better social skills and do better in school. A childs primary need before the age of 3 is love and attention from an adult. They learn social behaviour from what is modelled and they are secure, more often than not, that their needs can be immediately met. They don’t get this in a nursery environment that is staffed to the bare minimum level that the law allows - which most are as they are businesses. Kids are often left distressed as there simply aren’t enough staff to be changing all of children, supervising feeding and doing the admin they need to do. That is my experience from research and working in nurseries with very competent childcare professionals who simply don’t have enough pairs of hands.

I thought the original attachment theory of the 1950 never mentioned mothers - just one care giver could be any adult - but others interpreted this as the mother.

I also thought most of it was a reaction to the very prescriptive child rearing that went before 4-hour feeding, leaving to cry and putting at bottom of garden for naps.

The working class women had to work whether that be taking in washing, cleaning etc. The children were often there but mum was not focusing on them singing ‘the wheels on the bus’. A lot of the time the kids would be left with another bunch of kids of varying ages, an older child, a grandparent, unrelated woman or just left to their own devices for huge swathes of time

That pretty much how my parents were brought up – my MIL found cleaning work she could take DH to as a young child. My parents managed as Dad’s work paid overtime – wouldn’t now and then Mum found work around school later on. One of my regular delivery people was a mother with her toddler in her small van – she only did a few hours’ couple of days a week.

I also disagree that children not in nursery don’t socialise– I was home with mine in two different locations and there were plenty of toddler groups and classes – though not all people there were SAHM – many worked p/t or other relatives took the children grandmothers, aunts and occasionally Dads and sometime child minders. I also wasn’t only parent attending these groups with more than one child.

I’m not sure how outcomes would be measured – a large number of parents I know use a mix of childcare such as nursery, child minders, family and pt or condense working or working shift around each other but that never seems to get mentioned.

Um, is this the same George Wootan who was suspended for gross negligence?

www.nytimes.com/1983/10/22/nyregion/state-regents-cancel-license-of-doctor-in-home-birthings.html

I have not read the thread because I can't deal with another WOHP vs SAHP bunfight but if we are allowing such people to divide us as women we need to take a good hard look at ourselves.

I was able to do this ,and my children have grown up well adjuxted and no trouble

could you please find me statistics that demonstrate, without a doubt, that children whose mother's work grow up poorly adjusted and trouble?

What a load of guilt tripping shit.

Sure, anyone who has had a baby can see pretty early on that it highlights how far we’ve moved from nature. We are clearly meant to live in a large group in a cave, where there are lots of humans around to pick up a crying baby whilst the mother gets some sleep, or to stop a toddler from wandering into the path of a sabre tooth tiger or eating poisonous berries.

But as we don’t live like that any more, things have moved on. This chap is the only hangover left from the dinosaur era!

If you’re talking about women in the past as either needing to work to make ends meet or being so rich they had staff you are missing out the vast majority in the middle.

What historical period would this be when:

a) the middle class constituted the vast majority?

b) the middle class had nothing else to do but play with their children?

Just interested.

To me the situation of a nursery or childminder actually sounds far more like either the prehistoric situation described by ilike or the situation in the medieval/early modern period were even relatively poor households would have had at least one servant and there would be several adults around to see to the needs of a child. The situation of lonely mother at home all the time with her main focus on the child is a very specific 1950s/1960s construction, one suspects largely promoted by male authors who were worried that women would use the independence won through two world wars and compete with men in the workplace.

The irony being that women who go out to work just get other women to do their job.

Childminders, nursery staff, cleaners, 98% women on fairly low wages.

Yeah, we all know that if a family unit containing both males and females employs a cleaner, it's the woman's job the cleaner is doing. Having a penis means cleaning isn't your responsibility. Same with looking after kids. You need a vagina. Also, women who go to work while their male partners look after the DC are imaginary.

I’d say for the previous 2 generations the majority of women didn’t work and the majority also didn’t have paid staff. I would describe the people who had staff as middle class personally.
When I went to school nearly every mum was a sahm. I had one friend who’s mum worked and she was a single parent and her gm looked after her while her mum worked.
My mum certainly wasn’t middle class. My dad worked as a labourer and brought home enough money to support all of us.

The irony being that women who go out to work just get other women to do their job.

Apart from not being "our job", it's easier to find a child minder than someone with a PhD in my field.
And I didn't get one to take care of a baby.

@princesstiasmum that's a rather odd anecdote - must be true then if the detective said.

Most women who want a decent standard of life need to work nowadays to pay mortgages, save for pensions and university fees etc. Life is very expensive.
My partner earns 85k and I still need to work. So if you don't need to go out work you are extremely lucky (depending on how you look at it.) I would work anyway as my independence is extremely important to me and I feel being able to support myself completely is for the benefit of my children too.

I imagine there a women that stay at home and don't engage with their children at all. In my view it's about spending quality time with them.

Like it or not its just basic biology. Animals stay with their mothers until capable of looking after themselves - mammals generally self wean when they can eat, run, survive and as they feed less, mother becomes fertile and new offspring come along.

We've developed an artificial life full of pharmaceuticals and over-reliance on technology. There's no going back. Putting your child in nursery etc is perfectly acceptable, but there's no disputing that their naturel position is with mum.

If your partner earns £85k you don’t NEED to work (unless we’re talking bf and you are both financially independent rather than partner??).
You may want to work which is your choice but a family could live very comfortably on that wage even in the South.

Chesterfieldsofa this is what I was trying to say!

When the Detective once went to her house about her son, he said this is what happns when parents work, and the children are affected,they were also latch key kids

Gosh, what a clever man - a police detective and a fully qualified child psychologist!

@princesstiasmum

In Scandinavian countries the vast majority of parents work full time and the vast majority of children are therefore in childcare by a year old.

These are the countries with the good social conditions and low crime and all that.

Do you think 'what that detective said' is better evidence than three entire countries?

I moved to Denmark a few years ago. There is no issue with large swathes of the population walking around with attachment issues. None. Just none.

The ones with attachment issues are the ones with shit, unloving parents, regardless of if one of them stays off work to be with the child. Same as any country.

Like it or not its just basic biology. Animals stay with their mothers until capable of looking after themselves - mammals generally self wean when they can eat, run, survive and as they feed less, mother becomes fertile and new offspring come along.

This is clearly true - but I'm not raising my child to be a wild animal, I'm raising him in 21st century developed society. Almost nothing about how he, or any of us, are raised is strictly 'natural', which is why his odds of surviving past five are so high. People seem very keen to pick and choose which bits of nature they are following. It isn't natural for me and my child to live in a centrally heated home, but I think it's the right choice for both of us.

@chesterfieldsofa - naturally our life expectancy would be about 30, we would have barely any teeth by the age of 25 and many of our children would've been eaten by cave lions. Every time you wash your hands after you've been for a wee you're benefiting from thousands of years of civilisation and education. Harking back to our biological roots is ridiculous (besides which we actually DON'T KNOW for sure what those ancestors did for childcare but you can bet it wasn't one woman alone with one child, crying with loneliness and boredom).

And, by the way, I SAH until my youngest was 6!