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!

Blueshoes - so true - my baby's day consists of being carted around to activities arranged for his older siblings. He is a very calm and happy baby - he enjoys being surrounded by loads of kids and lots of activity.

I remember reading some research ages ago saying that Asian babies who live within extended families tend not to get colic. Apparently due to the fact that some family member or other is always holding them - i.e. they do not live in a nuclear family with their Mum being their sole carer. Don't know if this was true, but I found it interesting. (the research was linking colic to stress)

well, that would be where slings come into it and atachement pareting...saying that, my bubble was very much burst with dc3..and I think if In had been able to justify working fulltime dispte being again new in my fiels needing retraining..I would have gone for it,,,because anything would have been better then the hell at home...sigh....thank god them days are over......

tiredfedupnanny - sorry you think I am "shouting the odds" at you. Have no idea what your practical experience is with attachment problems, I said "I know more about attachment in practice than most of you" - which I believe to be true.

There has been talk of this thread about bonding and attachment and most people don't know their arse from their elbow about it (no thats still not directed at you personally).

the ratio of carer:child at my CM is remarkably similar to any larger family. Presumably those who are anti-childcare will also now start petitioning against larger families

,ust admit..lol. having 3 Kids...it is a struggle at imes...but lets hope no one petitions agains t lar5ger families...

kewcumber - I am not disapproving of any mother who choose to work - that is not what I have been saying for the last few days at all. What I am disapproving of is those who can't live and let live and criticise all SAHM or indeed working mothers. I have made my choices for good reason, I assume others have done the same. Maybe 'choice' is the wrong word; maybe it should be called a factor in the decision to work or not work. I assume that you can agree that people decide to work or not work even if you won't agree that people choose to work or not work. We have all thought it through.

Even if some don't work because if simply isn't worth if after you factor in the coast of childcare (and part of my reason for not doing so is just that) according to some on this thread we should all work regardless of this fact, for the greater good of womankind and the economy. What nonsense. I am not saying that is your opinion. Just because they work they expect everybody else to do the same regardless of personal situations.

I am not sure why we are bothering to mention Bowlby; his research is over 40 years old - it was ground breaking at the time but things have moved on. He was a product of his time and believed that the primary carer-giver was the mother and that the withdrawal of the mother could have a detrimental effect. May well be true in the situations he looked at, ie where the child is hospitalised but as with so many things, that was too simplistic to say withdrawal of the mother=attachment problems. However, more recent research still maintains that a child under the age of 3 needs the security of a primary care-giver. One person to whom the child returns in moments of stress. That doesn't have to be the mother and there can be more than one, depending on the situation the child is in. I can't remember the name of the researchers but there is some evidence to suggest that children under the age of 3 placed in care situations for more than 16 hours a week, where they don't have a primary caregiver, such as in a day nursery, will suffer. Yes, I know mothers who have more than one child don't give one-to-one care to each and every child but the nature of the relationship is completely different so the two are not really comparable.

I also know that there will be somebody who can come up with research that says differently. It is a matter of interpretation.

These things are never simple. Every parent, child, family, nursery, cm, and nanny is different. We all work through what we need to do to make our children and ourselves happy. I might not agree with others on this board, I know that plenty don't agree with me but I defend to the bitter end everybody's right to do what they need to do and what they think is right for them and their families. I don't make my decisions lightly and I don't expect to be told that I am somehow mad, bad or stupid just because my lifestyle is not the same as somebody elses.

By the way, on the question of history of parenting, I would argue that once a w/c woman married and had children she often didn't work, they became reliant on their husbands. M/c and u/c women may not have worked or looked after their own children but they were very much in the minority. Anybody who has looked at the census results for the 19th century can see this. Women didn't have jobs. Very often they had dozens of children so couldn't have worked if they wanted to!

As tirednanny says and I think I said below children need loving adults they can attach to. It's that the Victorians etc didn't realise and those who sent children to board at 4 etc. We now know what children need much better. But Bowlby principally studied children who were not just in day care but separated from their parents for a longer period.

It was only with the industrial revolution that people "went to work".Before they tended women and men to work from home and most under 5 died didn't they? Then we had a huge lot of children working as well. I would imagine 200 years ago most children worked too. Very different world but certainly the valid point below that a mother at home with chidlren actually sometimes has less time for the children than the nanny is true. The nanny often has someone else who cleans and does family admin etc etc so she gives more attention to the child.

ANyway some housewives continue valiantly on. I doubt most manage to meet the standards of wifely perfection in that linke these days. Perhaps they are worse housewives than their 1950s counterparts and should be sent on training courses to do the job better.

Niecie, you said: " I can't remember the name of the researchers but there is some evidence to suggest that children under the age of 3 placed in care situations for more than 16 hours a week, where they don't have a primary caregiver, such as in a day nursery, will suffer."

I take issue with the words "will suffer". It could well be that the study revealed a higher percentage showed more aggression, but there is no certainty of a detrimental effect on all children. I am just pointing this out because this study is being cited over and over again to slam nursery care and perpetuate this nightmare scenario of indifferent staff, high staff turnover and neglected children - sheesh.

I am not quarrelling with you, as you admit that every parent, child, family, nursery, cm etc is different. There are some dubious nurseries out there. I am only speaking as a parent who has used a high quality nursery which I carefully researched for both of my dcs, who attended ft from a young age, along with many other similar children. It is a setting in which many children can and do thrive!

Most of the aristocracy did this for their children and didn't work either. Then off to boarding school.

Having gone part-time 3 years ago, having longer maternity leaves and essentially lost my career, I have to say that I find it a far harder choice in retrospect than I did at the time.

Maybe this person has decided that being richer is a far better start for their children than round the clock care from the birth parent.

You know what? They might be right. Who knows? None of us, that's for sure.

Xenia makes a good point about the training. Future housewives used to be given proper training in school(home ec) and then off to finishing school where they learned how to be a hostess, flower arranging and so on. I was very lucky to have had a mother and two grandmothers who knew how to keep house and entertain flawlessly and passed these things on. I have so many friends who struggled in the beginning because they lacked some of these very basic skills.

Work can be overated. Why work if you don't have to or choose to, you can enjoy your time not being a wage slave. Why is selling your time to an employer the only work considered worthwhile? Like has been said, often you end up no better off with childcare costs etc. There are lots of other ways you can help society and womenkind.

I'd rather my daughters got an education in, you know, education than learned how to be a flawless hostess.

Still can't arrange flowers worth a damn. Strangely enough this doesn't seem to have hampered my life much.

oh how depressing. I am going to have to return to work soon, now it seems i am going to be damaging my child if i do so. I had just about managed to convince myself that i was being selfish staying at home because i DO want to be with my little girl and i get so much out of it. And so it goes on........thats it, because i simply cannot stay at home any longer (for financial reasons) my DP is going to have to be a stay at home dad.

Why can't there be a positive, factual, rational approach to this, i do not think quoting research is helpful TBH as you can use statistics creatively to make things appear how you want them to in your own mind. I know a lot of scientists like this (ha ha).

Its never bloody simple is it - ok new mantra, its only for another two years, its only for another two years, its only.........lets hope the bank will understand that too

xenia, you mentioned a day time nanny in my other thread. Is there a difference between this and a CM. My problem with a CM (and i could be wrong here) is it seems that the children fit into their day, so they still have to clean their houses, care for their own children etc. If i leave my child with someone i (perhaps niavely) want them to be occupying and attending to my child ALL of the time. Yes, i know i dont do that, but it is different surely, if mummy is not around. Of cousre i do realise that self directed play is useful etc. I feel very strongly about this, which is why i'm pulled more in the direction of nursery, but of course there are other children there (a good thing) so DD wouldnt get 100% carer attention here either. Is it reasonable to expect it to be differnt with a nanny coming into my house - i wouldnt expect her to clean, other than cleaning up after lunch, snacks etc but that could simply be stuffing the stuff in the dishwasher and i can sort the rest out. But of course, the most important thing being - how much does it cost?? My mum cares for DD when i do my part time job but couldnt ask her to do more as she is quite old and not in the best of health.

sorry in my knee-jerk reaction to John Bowlby being quoted in the context of a working mums debate I have made created a problem whereas in fact most people probably wouldn't even have noticed the reference.

I do tend to over-react when people tlak about bonding and attachment in situations like this when generally they have no concept of what reactive attachement disorder is and how serious it can be and how unlikely it is to be caused by a mother working (unless of course you left DC in truely dreadful 24 hr care).

There are plenty of sensible debates to be had - about the quality of childcare and which type suits which children best and at what ages, about how children with non-working mothers are far more often caught in the poverty trap and what should be done about it, whether in fact teenagers require more attention from a parent than babies etc

None of these issues is in my view exclusive to either SAHM/WOHM.

Many people have said that they are only talking about the OP where the child appears to be looked after by a non-parent 24/7 during the week and my parents at weekend. But the problem with that approach is that parenting is a continuum and at what point o you judge what is acceptaible and what isn't. I have asked (as have others) how many hours of childcare mean you are no longer a parent who should have children but nobody wants to answer that. Presumably because it is unanswerable.

Totally agree with you Jellybean. You don't have to earn money to have a meaningful and worthwhile life.

blueshoes - I am trying very hard to be fair, honest . I am only citing the research because I was trying (probably badly) to make the point that it is the one-to-one nature of the relationship that is important and that nurseries are most likely situation in which this is going to be a challenge. Staff do come and go even in the best nurseries, people have days off or go on holiday. A small child could find it distressing over a long period, not to know who to turn too. Not all children obviously but some. Still not sure I have made my point very well but I am sure somebody will sort me out!

I only mention the Victorians as there were some that said the SAHM was a modern invention. It clearly is not. Society has moved on, technology has moved on, family relationships have changed. It is a spurious argument to say that I shouldn't be a SAHM just because they arguably didn't have them before WWII. So what?

paula, i dont think xenia was being literal about the training, just her usual scathing self (its why i love her so much - i think im her biggest fan, even though she talks IMO a lot of shit, she does,on occasion give some sound advice - LEM practices being sypchophantic and makes mental note to improve spelling before applying for jobs). I remember being taught to iron and fold sheets at school, if i hear that this is taught to my children at school, i will be at the heads office, foaming at the mouth like a deranged rotweiller.

I wouldn;t have a problem if it was taught to the boys as well as the girls (though basic literacy and maths would perhaps be a better use of most teachers time). But then I come form an era where the girls did cookery and needlework and the boys did woodwork

to be fiar it isn't the one-to-one aspect which is important. Childrne do not need on-to-one care to develop properly. They need a primary carer (and there can be more than one but not at the same time). That means they understand which adult is there to take care of them and fulfill their needs - perfectly acceptable for that carer to be looking after more than one (within reason).

Also I beleive (but would have to check my noted to be confident) that the priamry carer/development issue is only really an issue up to the age of 2yrs. Children should have developed the normal pathways in their brain by that point (obviously not recommending neglect after that!)

Lucyellensmum - re the nanny debate. I think I read your comments on the other thread. My opinion is that nannies are great (the right one obviously). I think the child has more variety in the day than at a nursery. And if you like to feel in control, then they're your employee and it's easier to ask for things. You think your child would like to go swimming regularly, the nanny takes them and so on. You wouldn't get that with a cm or a nursery. The downside is the cost. They cost a lot and it's a very personal relationship so doesn't suit everyone.

Kewcumber - I agree with you - a primary carer not one-to-one carer is important. I think I used the wrong one in my last post and said that children in nurseries needed one-to-one care. I have no doubt they get that depending on what activity they are doing. I meant primary carer as somebody to turn to if the child is in distress and with whom they have formed a bond. A child could go to a nursery and do one-to-one things with 10 different carers all day but isn't necessarily what young children need. I think the research suggest this is the case for children up to 3 rather than 2 but I am sure that you could go and look up you notes and I could go and look up mine and we could both find something to support our opinions. We could probably agree on the fact that it is the youngest children we are talking about not school children or teenagers.

do toddler in nursery really have 10 different carers in a day? Have no experience of them but that seems a bit much.

NFK - thanks, i will have to look into this, like you say, the cost and the fact that it is such a personal relationship could be a negative factor for something that would appear to be perfect. I have been to M&T where i have seen a CM more or less completely ignore her mindee. She basically sits and chats with the other mothers and is definately more attentive to her DS then the mindee, who to my mind, looked a bit lost and abandoned. Of course this is just one example and i am sure most CMs are wonderful, but it does seem a little swayed towards something that people do because they are at home anyway so why not child mind, as apposed to a career choice. I realise this isnt always the case

kewcumber - It was a number plucked out of thin air - what I am saying is that the child could do a number of activities on a one-to-one basis with a number of different staff over the course of a day but that is not the same as having a primary carer. It is Sunday and I am obviously not putting things very well today. I am a SAHM so I am not used to grown up thinking