To think we're deluding ourselves over childcare?

[aliteralAIBUforonce]

I have a child who goes to nursery one day a week. I am very lucky that I can go part time and family have the rest of the time.

He's been doing this since he was 11 months and I hate it. He doesn't dislike it but he doesn't look forward to it either. A couple of times o have dropped him off then had to duck back into the cloak room and I've seen him looking rather lost and alone at the breakfast table. Breaks my heart.

A few times when I've been out and about I've seen staff from nurseries taking groups of kids out. They never, ever engage with the kids. Just each other. Bloody joyless experience by the looks of it. Those are the better ones too.

AIBU to think that we're going to see an epidemic of adolescent mental health problems is the next few years?

This is a shit was to bring up our kids.

Just read the first few pages. So you are actually only sending your DS for 1 day and then you spread him across other childcare options such as family. Children need stability and a routine. I’m not surprised he looks lost to be honest

I agree. Recently I saw nursery workers with children at our local park and they were really interacting with the children, running round with them, gentle play wrestling etc and it occurred to me that I had never ever seen that before. I thought that must be a good nursery.

PS most good nurseries don’t accept for just one day

woah ! Mental health linked to nursery care? Literally no evidence at all that nursery impacts attachment or happiness of small children if it is a good nursery where the staff properly care for the children.

I have to be honest- I prefer the idea of one adult childcare - ie. nanny or childminder - that is because I think small children and babies (ie. under 3 ) really need to know who their caregiver is.

So - I chose a childminder who I could tell loved the children she cares for - the picture you paint of nursery staff chatting to each other not the kids - that is BAD CARE> Please do not assume all childcare is like that.

However though I personally found the best childcare for me was a childminder I know there are well run caring nurseries where staff put the bond with children first.

Yes, ignore the uncomfortable preposition... it's goady and horrible! 👍

I think they would've sang and talked to them while working. Where do people think nursery rymes come from? Anyway, there are plenty of women living traditional (what would have once been called traditional or tribal) lifestyles. They work, take the kids with them and sing to them a plenty.

I think they would've sang and talked to them while working.

Of course. While doing very labour intensive work on the farm or in the home, they'd have been singing educational songs to their kids and making sure they puree enough kale and quinoa for their lunch. Because of course they would.

Anyway, there are plenty of women living traditional (what would have once been called traditional or tribal) lifestyles. They work, take the kids with them and sing to them a plenty.

Do you actually know that? Or is that some idealised notion you have of 'traditional' societies? And even if these 'traditional' are cooing away to their kids while shlepping massive buckets of water (yeah right) so what? Do you fancy the same lifestyle yourself?

I think youre very naive, op.

Some of the work was probably quite dangerous OP so taking babies would have been hazardous. Also many men would not have allowed their womenfolk to work as it would have brought shame on the family that the men couldn't provide. In India with a lack of laws and formalised childcare, many babies would have been left home in their cots for 7 hrs a day.

@IcedPurple

"Do you actually know that? "

Yes actually

PS most good nurseries don’t accept for just one day - This. One of the signs of a good nursery is that they'd rather have a child not come than come and never really settle because it's so long between sessions. It's refusing to put money before the child.

I think according to your own theory OP you must have been in nursery 24/7 as a child , 365 days of the year, given how unstable you are coming across.

You have two options: you or your partner stop working or you start settling your son better into the nursery by increasing his days.
If you think the situation is that dire as you portray it you should put your money where your mouth is.

The OP seems to think that modern ideas of childcare applied in the past. The idea that children deserve constant attention and 'nurturing' is a very new one. Look at rich women. They certainly didn't look after their own babies, but rather inspected them for 10 minutes a day after a nurse had cleaned and fed them. This was the case in the aristocracy until quite recently.

Obviously, the vast majority of women wouldn't have been able to afford nannies, but the fact that those women who did have a choice did not choose to 'nurture' their own children suggests that what we consider normal motherhood wasn't the norm then.

How the hell else do you get through a hard days work with a baby? You sing. That is exactly what you do.

What mother here hasn't sang to your kids?

Not sure why we're debating this particular point.

How the hell else do you get through a hard days work with a baby? You sing. That is exactly what you do.

No. You leave your baby with his or her older siblings, or leave it to scream in its cot. That's what you do.

Not sure why we're debating this particular point.

Well, you're the one who brought it up.

I don't really get why people would be offended by this thread or think it's goady?

If there's a chance that widespread use of daycare is bad for children, and stuff like this does hint that it could be: www.researchgate.net/publication/222525572_Children's_elevated_cortisol_levels_at_daycare_A_review_and_meta-analysis

then why wouldn't you want that investigated further?

We don't need to go back to "traditional" lifestyles of women strapping babies onto their back while they work away all day at unpaid manual jobs. We could just move forward instead, to allow parents of either gender to take time off to raise their kids and still be able to pay the rent/mortgage.

Oh come on, OP, all this singing nonsense is overegging the pudding.

If mental health issues are being raised in adolescents NOW, and a link is suspected to care in babyhood, then we need to look at the circumstances around that babyhood.

The problem is in Britain as soon as you raise the question of better care for babies and kids, we all know damn well who is going to have to sacrifice themselves, their time, money and health, to care for those children. Clue: it is NEVER the men.

When the question is raised honestly, in good faith and with no strings attached, involving questions like 'how can wider society support women to take on this huge responsibility and economic burdens', then we might listen. Solutions like Finland's parental leave, greater advice and perhaps a state appointed help in the home, which I'm sure France had once.

It's not going to be like that though is it? It's always all about giving men more freedoms at our expense. You can guarantee that in this country all discussions raised about absolutely anything are purely to enable greater exploitation and abuse by more advantaged groups.

aliteralAIBUforonce, you're completely ignoring the questions about what you think should be done about this, or what the ideal situation should be.

You're too busy quoting the negatives and not suggesting anything that you see as a remedy or alternative.

And don't simply say more staff, because more staff/higher ratios costs money, and we already know childcare costs a huge amount

@IcedPurple

Aristocratic kids were mothered - just not by their biological mothers. That's what wetnurses did. It wasn't just about the milk.

Breastfeeding delays the next conception and aristocratic women were supposed to have as many children as possible.

They were also supposed to be completely available to her lord and master at all times.

Less choice involved than you think.

Op doesn’t want any problems to be solved her sole aim is to be an irritant

Are people really suggesting that consistency of care, from a main caregiver (usually the mother, lets face it) is totally irrelevant in child development? Really?

You don't sound as if you know much about attachment theory at all, particularly secure attachment.

I retired recently after 40 years in childcare.

Standards of care have been raised exponentially in that time.

I have worked both in nurseries and as a CM.

For preference I would not put a child under 2 in a nursery, and certainly not for one session. The child does not have a chance to form a bond with any of his care givers.

To form a opinion, on the very small experience you have if childcare, is very unfair.

@aliteralAIBUforonce no shit! My point, which appears to have whooshed over your head, is that you have a thesis with zero supporting evidence. And positing a “suggestion” without some evidence to support it is piss poor writing/debate.

Another thing I find annoying from a feminist POV is women like the OP who say they are “very lucky” to be in this situation. Lucky?

Lucky to earn half a salary and shunt your baby around different child care settings day after day, one of which you’re extremely unhappy with? What’s lucky about that? Stop being a martyr