To wonder why people have children when they clearly put their career first, by having a 24hr maternity nurse from day one and a full-time nanny from 3 months?

[gogetter]

Call me old fashioned but why bother when you are going to see your child for maybe an hour a day on weekdays?
It's not financially needed for mum to return to work (far from) so why leave your teeny weeny baby with a nanny during the most amazing time of their lifes?

A bit strange I fear!

my friends partner was a stay at home dad and the child progressed same as any other child and also had childminder for other child as dad went back to work when other child was born that child progressed perfectly fine too but they has reasons that both needed to be working it doesn't make you less of a parent im fortunate to be able to stay at home but if we couldn't afford it then i too would have to work we all have our own reasons fopr doing things i only disagree when you see programs of mums who work as the child disrupts there life then i agree they shouldnt have kids in first place and should be at home but not all mums have that opportunity so lets not be too hard on them

My degree is in child psychology and education; the articles Ihave immersed myself in regarding attachment have widely shown acceptance of the view that baby needs stability and love so that attachments can be formed (search John Bowlby). There are so many reasons for this.

My own views don't counter in this as I don't have children yet, but I will say that I will be returning to my teaching career as soon as the maternity leave ends (and I plan to take the full year).

I really like the idea of one of those 1950's wives.

Where can I get one?

I have to say I don't know a single SAHM who is on anti-d's but I knew plenty in the workplace. Maybe it was just where I worked but I wouldn't say it was particularly pressurised, although it had it's moments. In most cases SAHM are at home because they want to be - they chose to work at home not go into a paid environment. Working women may be in the workplace because they want to be but plenty are there because they have to be and that is very stressful.

I know plenty of SAHMs who are on ADs. It isn't always because of their work/non-work choices; there are other reasons. But I think there's a balance. Let's not be airy-fairy about it: the majority of mums returning to work do it because they HAVE to and because their husbands cannot support a huge mortgage that's been necessary to buy a modest house, three kids, a wife and all the bills. That's fact. It's how it is. But there are also lots of mums, regardless of financial situation, who find it difficult to stay at home... they love their kids enormously, dote on them and would do anything for them, but would be happier if they didn't spend every minute being reminded of how their life has been reduced down to 'mother of three'. That sounds harsh to those who don't agree with mums returning to work, but it's true. And I honestly think it is better for a child to have a happy mum most of the time and then grandma or daddy or uncle or aunty or nanny look after them some of the time, giving them the best care possible. I also believe in socialising a child as early as possible, so I do really think we're being harsh.

Ultimately, we are living in 2007 when, as expat says, just day-to-day living is vastly expensive, and mums and dads are both able to have a balance if they wish. It is the individual's choice to decide what is best for their family and their baby, and so long as the baby's wellbeing and development are central to any decisions made, I don't see it being anyone else's business!!

well said, tiredfedupnanny

Niecie - thats oversimplistic (as many of these arguemtns tend to be) plenty of SAHM dont work because they can't earn enough to pay for childcare and often (because it isnt achoice but a necessity) they don't spend too much time worrying about whether they would actually prefer to work because it isn;t an option.

Likewise I work because I have to. I don;t spend much time (outside of these pointless threads) thinking too much about whetehr I want to or not as it isn't an option. If I won the lottery tomorrow it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that I actually like working and probably wouldn't give up.

I still find it amusing that everyone seems to accept mothers working because they have to but are very disapproving of the ones who choose to. Like it makes any differnce to the child.

I know more about attachment in practice than most of you. John Bowlby's groundbreaking research in the 60's (IIRC) centred around removing the primary carer completely and not providing an alternative at all. Believe me it is perfectly possible to have a good attachment with your child an to work.

Attachment and bonding issues are serious and life altering and shouldn't be trivialised by implying that working mothers have children with attachment problems.

I don;t have a live in nanny.

My child does not have reactive attahcmetn disorder which is what John Bolwby was reseaching.

Kewcumber, sorry but the experiment you mentioned there sounds very inhumane....

and I have read a very good book, which actually changed my attitude towarsd workign mothers completely ( I used to be very ahrsh in my approach ) and in that it does say that as long as there is stability and love and care, it's a positive thing to have severeal more or less primary carers (which is why I can happily say that my dh, dispite being away a lot is not any less valued by my children,...however it also showed examples of some tribes where the Kids were pretty much left to loook after their own or by other children receiving the exect same treatment as those lil ones when they were little....and those tribes do not well at all for so many reasons (economically,. socially, emotionally...you name it....)...shudder...as there is no community spirit at all...

oh, or did that guy just research cases that were given by an agency like social services...I should hope so...

it wasn;t an experiment is was observational. Ground breaking stff which changed the way hospital and social workers dealt with paretns.

Mother went into hospital to have DC2. No family other than DH (DH wasn't considered competent to look after DC and I presume was working anyway) so DC1 was out into childrens home for 2 weeks. Heartbreaking video of him (about 3ish) trying desparately to bond with any of the carers but failing for various reasons (shift work = changing carers, too many children, he was quiet therefore didn;t get any attention).

It lead to the acceptance that parents should be able to stay with children when they go into hospital.

Very importnat research but IMHO not to be used as an argument against working.

and IMO problem with children in creches is due to lack of attachmetn to a primary carer. Its down to quality of care not who gives the care.

my child predominantly goes to a CM and one day a week to my mum.

He has had a developmental and behvioural assessment by a specialist paediatrican, he is visited by a social worker every 6 weeks. No-one has any concerns about his behaviour, developement or attachment.

MOST working women are forced to put their kids in CRECHES - WTF?

I don't know a single working parent - of either gender - who uses a creche, except the ones at the swimming pool. I use a childminder. Lots of people use nurseries. Never been near a creche in my life, except for ones at conferences.

Haven't read the entire thread but why is it presumed that women find babies interesting/fun/rewarding?

I took 12mths maternity with my first and was bored shitless to be honest - it was lonely, isolating and mundane. Yes the occasional smile or gurgle was nice but it didn't make me jump with joy or grab the phone to share with all n sundry.

2nd lot of maternity was much shorter!

think Kerry in in Ireland, where Nurseries for under 3's or 2's are called creches...

Kewcumber, thank god it was just observing what happened to make things better... bit like my examples then
I think as long as there is some stabililty a Kid will be o..k....which is why I chose to stay at home...even if we both worked we could not afford a good nanny...or f we could I would work to afford her salary, and as I didn't like my job that much, lo...it would be pointless....my Kids have always gone to part time sessions in nurseries or playschools, to give me a break...but then, never needed to feel guilty about that, because no matter what happened in thsoe few sessions I would have been there to catch dc...saying that, I have never had a reason to doubt childcare I used....indeed ys, and previously also ms nusery is the best and loveliest nursery I ever encountered, and I know all teh staff work for a pittance and there is little space...but they are all so enthusiastic and loving...they are just amazing...

kewcumber, you're preaching to the converted. I didn't say I knew more than anyone about attachment and you know nothing about my working knowledge, so I think it's pretty out of order for you to come and shout the odds at someone who plainly agrees with you.

Nurseries, have, if I am infomred correctly teh same adult to kids key as any childcare provider....so with cm or nursery you will always have this...although with creche age children the adult/kids ratio is less Kids per adult....
with nanny obviously you employ privately and therefore it mght be a 1-1 or whatever number children you have to 1 or however many number of nannies you choose to employ!

Good nurseries have a pretty good staff to child ratio, actually, much the same as you'd get in a big family. My nephew had the most splendid tatooed Geordie bloke.

Excellent post earlier tiredfedupnanny.

The research about children being "damaged" by nurseries relates only to children under 2 years old.

IMHO (not based on any science but only my motherley instincts) I have placed my children with a CM up until the age of two as I felt a "home from home" was an appropriate environment for my babies. Once they reached 2yrs, I felt they benefitted from socialising with other children.

My kids are incredibly confident socially and doing very well at school. I really and honestly don't think my being a working Mum has been to their detriment in any way at all - my CM was marvellous - an experienced Mum of 4.

I think the real issue is the ecconomic one alluded to by fed up and Kew - the reality is that the majority of Mums of small children do work. Whether it is out of neccessity or by choice makes little difference - except that if it is by choice you may get a happier Mum.

Foxcub, I liked your earlier point about the ideal of a mother at home alone with her baby being an idealised concept, emanating from the 50s.

Even in today's nuclear family, where the mother is an SAHM, it is likely that she has more than one child, of different ages. This one-to-one gazing into your baby's eyes with dyadic intensity only applies to the first. The reality is mother dragging baby on school run, or trying to cook a meal with pre-schooler at her skirts and baby crawling off somewhere, laundry waiting to be hung up, postman at the door.

I have always taken 1 year's maternity leave, and the amount of attention the second got certainly fell off dramatically. Now if I had 3 ....

Whereas, with my dcs at nursery, the carers are 100% there for the children. They have activities. They have nicely planned meals. If one child is crying, a carer goes to them immediately. The nursery my dcs go to are biggish, there is always an extra pair of hands to help, with more staff drafted in at mealtimes. As far as I can see, the children were happy and occupied and if they needed attention, were given it.

I know this because I spend time in the rooms, whilst settling them in. I come and go as I please, the staff don't mind. What I see is the reality of life there - it is not a show they put up for me. And they take their child-to-staff ratios very seriously (it is all regulated by Ofsted anyway). They were large happy chaotic rooms of children and staff. I was always happy to leave my dcs there and they settled quickly.

My children have always gone in to nursery from 1. As have a lot of their friends. I have yet to see any "emotional damage". On the contrary, the children thrive there. They are polite and friendly.

I dare say my second child got more attention at nursery than he got from me as his mother at home, busy with chores and the school run!