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

gah what a dickhead, mine have been in nursery since very small (i dont live in UK and maternity pay stops at 5 months) They went a couple of mornings a week for the first year but we were struggling financially, so they went more after 18months every morning, I can safely say that my son was a lot calmer and happier when he started going everyday he thrived on the routine and now at 2 years old he launches himself at his key worker in the mornings and says bye bye to me and then does the same when I pick him up.

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

Never met a single police officer (and I'm a detective with 11 years in the force) who thinks parents working is a bad thing.

In Scandinavia, pretty much every child goes to nursery from an early age. Last time I checked, Denmark and Norway weren't suffering from a mass epidemic of poorly adjusted children.

Basic biology? Basic generalisations. It's perfectly within the sphere of normality for human children to have self weaned before 3, or to breastfeed sufficiently rarely for them to be able to spend long periods away from their mothers. Thus also for their mothers to be capable of conceiving again.

Early humans were tribal surely? Childcare would have been a tribal duty. Even the immediate nuclear family as sole caregivers is probably a more modern construct.

Well yes society moves on for better and for worse. I’m sure none of us would be without modern medicine and hygiene practices.
But is working to pay for someone else to care for your child progress? In many cases people are paying for a fraction of one persons time considering the number of children they are looking after.
Everything modern isn’t progress. More processed food certainly has it’s advantages in modern, time-poor, society but I’ve no doubt that home cooking is healthier.

And you can’t compare Scandinavian and UK nurseries. Childcare in Scandinavia is much better quality. Adult/child ratios are higher. And childcare professionals are much more highly trained and better qualified.

Better paid as well.

Very silly and designed to make mums feel bad.

Does he acknowledge single mums/dads? There's an awful lot of single parent households and we have no choice but to work, whether we want to or not.

It isn't possible to be a single SAHM. so are we supposed to feel guilt both for not having a father figure and having to work?

Mine were in nursery from a couple of months old. Probably not ideal but I needed the money and I love work.

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.

Attachment disorders are a result of neglect, abuse and non responsive parents. Any half decent parent will not have a child with attachment disorders.

And you can’t compare Scandinavian and UK nurseries. Childcare in Scandinavia is much better quality. Adult/child ratios are higher. And childcare professionals are much more highly trained and better qualified.

That's not the point though, is it? This person wasn't referring exclusively to the UK. He said mothers should remain with their kids until the age of 3, full stop.

And in traditional tribal societies, babies spend up to half their time away from mothers being looked after by other adults.

What a load of shit, I'm a happy confident person and I was left with a mix of childminder, granny and preschool from about 9 months.

A bonus was that I went on lovely holidays to various places and did exciting hobbies because we could afford it due to their jobs too. Also instilled a great work ethic.

Also, the whole idea of a woman's role being exclusively to look after the house and the children is very new - only goes back to about the 1950s. Before then, the vast majority of women worked, maybe not outside of the home, but they worked and certainly were not devoted to 'nurtering' their children. And the rich women who did have the means to spnd all their time caring for their children almost always chose not to, preferring to hire nannies to do the heavy lifting in childcare.

Our idea of the stay at home mother is very new and very much a historical oddity.

But is working to pay for someone else to care for your child progress?

Well, that's debatable, isn't it? I personally do think that a world where mothers have a range of fulfilling careers is better than one where they don't have that option. I don't think our world is perfect by many means - I'd like to see better quality, better funded childcare as standard - but I do think it's better and a mark of progress that women are more and more able to work after having children.

And parents who work pay someone else to care for their child some of the time. People in these debates always make it sound like if you work you'll never see the child again. I'm sending my baby to nursery, not baby boarding school!

There is also a very interesting correlation between early nursery attendance and reduced risk of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

Aside from the pros and cons of nursery, perhaps there is some truth in the concept that it takes a village to raise a children, rather than this more modern idea of children needing 1:1 care from a single caregiver.

But is working to pay for someone else to care for your child progress?
There is often an assumption that women only work because they have to for financial reasons. If that was the case then you would be right to question if we have made any progress.
However, that would be ignoring the fact that the reasons women choose to work is multi-faceted.

I choose to work full time. Of course i enjoy the money they pay me but i also love my job, i'm passionate about what i do and i've worked my arse off to get here. Having a child does not change that. I don't feel that i should have to sacrifice my career just because i'm now a mum. The same would not be expected of my husband.

So, have we made progress? Of course we have. Most women now have a choice.

Women have always worked. The narrow notion of mother at home with children/father going out to work is neither historically typical nor demonstrably optimal.

I do think that women in some Western countries (including the UK) currently receive a great deal of pressure to give up their careers and stay home with their children. It is no coincidence IMO that the rise of helicopter parents and corresponding reduction of independence in children is connected with the cultural shift that has allowed more equality between men and women at work. When women were mostly limited to low-paying, low-status jobs, the status quo was acceptable. But once cracks in the glass ceiling began to appear, a societal anxiety took hold, since it represented a distinct change in power relations. Women were then encouraged to end/suspend their careers because children were suddenly perceived to need much more supervision than in previous generations. I'm not implying any sort of vast conspiracy with men in grey suits controlling our every action. However, the messages we receive within the culture are strong and compelling.

Well yes it is progress for the women who have a choice. But what about those who don’t? It’s increasingly becoming impossible to live on one wage so often families don’t have the choice for either parent to stay home. Some are lucky enough to have gps to help but as people are retiring later this will also become less common. The people who have to work are also less likely to be able to afford high quality childcare. It’s not progress for the majority imo.

And ime it is only the partners of high earners of either sex who have the choice to stay at home. Not the majority.

That's why I didn't say all....but there is a choice for a lot of people. Unfortunately, in relation to career development, that choice often favours men.

This expert sounds like my dh...

gsummer

I suppose this 'expert' has the funds to dish out to families that cannot afford to live on the man's wage for 3 years huh? To support them financially and pay some of their bills?

FFS, what world do these numpties live it?!

Just because you are now so conditioned to believe the government and the way the system is set up making it harder and harder for both parents to not work with huge mortgages and longer than ever working hours doesn't mean this isn't slightly true. The family dynamics has changed and not for the better. Lool around again. Sorry but I believe young kids need their family more than anything at thus stage. If it triggers you it's because deep down you know modern life is massively manipulated and not quite right for majority of people.

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.

It is indeed very basic biology.
Anyone with medium or advanced biology knowledge knows that in some species the males care or also care for their offspring.
There are also male bats that lactate.

Many animals are also raised in groups of relatives.

Not sure I could have fitted my DS under my desk at work.