To ask if you couldn't imagine leaving your baby and then young dc with strangers?

[A2J]

As in nursery/childminder etc?
I was OK once they could talk but before that I couldn't have left them with anyone except very close friends (female) or family.

It probably stems from my own childhood although any abuse I experienced was when older. Weird friends of my parents.

Luckily I was bolshy and stuck up for myself. More than I can say for my parents.

Really? What other people do with their children doesn't affect you? You don't think there'd be any impact on your life if every woman with a child under 3 in the country took your advice, left their jobs and stopped paying taxes? I beg to differ!
There's a reason why successive governments have taken steps to encourage parents of young children into work and it's not out of the kindness of their hearts because they think new Mums need to go back to work for a break! It would be an economic and social disaster if every woman gave up work when she had a baby. And no, before anyone says it, it wasn't ok when that happened in the past, because it never did. There have always been working mothers, but now there are working mothers in a wider range of roles. And the world has changed anyway.
If you are in a position to stay at home for whatever length of time and it's what you want to do, then that's great for you and your family. But if everyone did so there would be profound effects. None of us lives in a bubble and I'm pretty sure we would all notice very quickly if all the mothers who work outside the home disappeared.

This is not talked about enough. You only have to look at this thread where everyone claims their baby „got so much out of nursery” to see that people falsely believe nursery is beneficial to babies. Nursery is there for the parents so they can work, it’s not to benefit the babies.

But people are often talking about the whole nursery journey not just the baby years.
My DS was in nursery from 9 months through to pre-school. He was almost 5 when he left to start reception.
He absolutely did benefit from that whole experience and still talks fondly about his time there and he's 10!
It also allows us to work which benefitted the WHOLE family.

What are the primary sources of this research? What countries are they looking at? US? Canada? UK? Australia? France? Sweden? Norway?

BTW my DD doesn't act out at school. And the school and some other settings are impressed by her social skills particularly when she is interacting with children they find disruptive. I know other children and young adults who are similar who were in childcare before a year and before 2 years.

I've done 30s of digging into that source. It's a SM page quoting American journals. Their evidence can't be applied over here, because the way their childcare runs is different to ours.

With more digging I'd be able to find out who funded those studies, and the likelihood is that they would be biased towards keeping mothers at home.

You can make stats show whatever you want. And that means that whoever funds the study usually does so because they want to prove something.

It’s not forever and it’s not all women at the same time, is it? What is a few years out of say 40-50 years at work? Mentally stable children and then adults also benefit the society. What government does is mainly with their own benefit in mind anyway. No government can tell me I should give up this precious time with my own children and have someone else look after them especially as it’s all self funded (we get zero help from the government).

„I've done 30s of digging into that source„

you lost me there

Oh, now children in nursery are mentally unstable?

Good to see you've gone back to your ridiculous statements after pretending you don't care what others do.

Staying at home with children doesn’t mean they will be mentally stable. DT’s, their cousins and friends all went to nursery from six months old - all happy healthy young adults.
Why have you only referred to women staying at home - do children not have fathers who could stay at home with them?

Why should you be funded by the government to stay at home?

I lost you there because you're blindly following "studies" on the internet which in 30 seconds I managed to see don't actually apply to UK based childcare.

Where did I say I should? But on the contrary- why should you be funded by the government to send your kid to a nursery while you’re on mat leave and therefore at home, for example? And by the way I wouldn’t even get funding when back at work as apparently I earn too much (but if I paid for childcare I would actually be worse off than some of those who earn less than me).

It’s not forever and it’s not all women at the same time, is it? What is a few years out of say 40-50 years at work?

Now this IS my area of expertise.
You're very keen to say that women taking time out of their career is no problem..... except it is.
Women still do not have equality in the labour market, we aren't in enough of the top jobs and we don't earn as much as men. We are far more likely to work part time too. Why? A major factor is women being seen as the default childcare.
This has a profound effect on your financial security in old age.

There are lots of careers (mine included) that are negatively impacted by career breaks.

Nobody is forcing you to work but less of the 'your career won't be impacted' 'it's only a few years' bollocks.

First source I clicked on that she mentions is published by a UK source (Cambridge university) Maybe if you spent more than 30s digging into it you would stop talking nonsense to support your own agenda. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/from-early-care-and-education-to-adult-problem-behaviors-a-prevention-pathway-through-afterschool-organized-activities/71AC59B2D00E399B53EBA19F39A3C598

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view. Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.

First source I clicked on that she mentions is published by a UK source (Cambridge university) Maybe if you spent more than 30s digging into it you would stop talking nonsense to support your own agenda.

That source is still American. Carried out at the university of California looking at an American childcare system.

• For age 1, childcare may improve cognitive skills a little, though certainly less than starting at age 2. But it also has even larger negative effects on later behavior in school.There is no boost to social skills.
• For children aged 0–12 months, daycare likely damages cognitive skills and children’s later behavior at school is even worse. There is no boost to social skills.

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view.

Seriously? Should only childless women or men be teachers, doctors, social workers, nurses, midwives.... or any job really?

Also, you know, money 🤷🏼‍♀️

Wanting to work, earn money and provide for your family is not sad or brainwashed. It's being an adult.

Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.

I agree. And won't shouldn't be judged for working.

But why is working/staying in the labour market the most important thing? This is a brainwashed and sad view.

Seriously? Should only childless women or men be teachers, doctors, social workers, nurses, midwives.... or any job really?

Also, you know, money 🤷🏼‍♀️

Wanting to work, earn money and provide for your family is not sad or brainwashed. It's being an adult.

Women should have the freedom to make a choice on whether they want to look after their own kids.

I agree. And women shouldn't be judged for working.

I'm so pleased you chose that one.

Read the discussion. It notes that the children attended nurseries 20+ years ago.

Can you really apply two decades or more childcare experiences to today?

Or are you just using it to support your nonsense?

And I spent 30s on it because I'm on my lunch break from work while my well adjusted happy child is in nursery. Oops.

😂😂😂

Thank you!

Sorry but this is ridiculous. It only takes a few minutes on a Salary Calculator to see that all parents earning above a certain amount are most definitely better off paying nursery fees, high though they are. Factor in the opportunity cost of losing 5+ years of work experience whenever they did try to return to a career, meaning they would be on a much lower salary at that point than if they'd carried on working. I'm usually not a fan of bringing everything down to money but with the cost of living as it is, every family should feel free to do what they can to live comfortably, without such ridiculous judgment and incorrect conclusions.

The evidence shows lots of women are not going back to work though.
Technology advances fast and organisations change. Years out of the workforce means that when you go back it feels like starting again- even after my 1 y MAT leave, there were a substantial number of changes to my dept and the processes we use which I had to get to grips with.
After 4-5 years out, many women feel lower on confidence and employers are often not very receptive to someone with a big gap in their CV.
Some careers rely on "who you know" and you have 5 years where you've not been making connections. Your peers have all overtaken you and even if you do go back, your salary is years behind where it would have been, for the rest of your working life.

The reality is it's very hard to return to work after an extended period of being a SAHM and most women don't.

You will not convince me that nursery hasn't been beneficial to my daughter because I've seen it. However, considering the impact of nursery in isolation is illogical. If you look at your whole life, considering that at the very best, it's going to delay your career by several years, and at worst, you have given up your career for good, and the consequences of that on household finances for the rest of your life, considering the example you set for your children about careers and motherhood, considering your financial independence and the consequences if your marriage ever breaks down, considering security in retirement, considering how all of the above is going to impact on your family and your children's lives, the research you put forward suggesting a minor impact on the behaviour at school of children in nursery looks kind of weak and irrelevant.

That's not to say that if you want to be a SAHM, you shouldn't, but the choice should not be made solely based on what is best for your baby right at that moment, but based on what is going to be best for them for the next 18 years.

a lot of these studies are based on the underlying, well established research by British psychologists for example Bowlby:

A child should receive the continuous care of this single most important attachment figure for approximately the first two years of life.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html

John Bowlby (1907 – 1990) was a psychoanalyst (like Freud) and believed that mental health and behavioral problems could be attributed to early childhood.

NSPCC (so a very legitimate UK source) also quotes Bowlby before anyone says his theory is BS.

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-health-development/attachment-early-years#:~:text=In%20particular%2C%20attachment%20theory%20highlights,impact%20on%20their%20future%20relationships.

I've found your comments really interesting to read, HJA87. My DD1 has been in nursery since she was 4 months old. She seems to be thriving but of course I can't tell whether she'd be thriving 'more' if I'd kept her with me at home instead, or whether there will be long-lasting bad effects. Out of guilt, I've very much deliberately avoided looking at the evidence on this issue and engaging with anyone who has a critical viewpoint on nurseries for babies, so your posts have got me to come out of that bubble.

In my case I absolutely WAS looking for a break from DD - something which I do not think is the case for the majority of women out there by the way, but it was for me. I could have afforded to stay off work longer, albeit with some difficulty, and originally planned to take 12 months. I was shocked by how down and hopeless I felt during my MAT leave and became desperate to get back to work for my own benefit. I actually ended up applying for - and getting - a promotion just because the new role provided an excuse for why I was cutting my MAT leave short and I thought would make people less likely to judge me (I was wrong about that though - they still did judge of course).

I do also have to be honest about my shortcomings as a mother. I have a history of poor mental health and MAT leave really intensified these issues (my mental health has been way better since I started working again!). I tried to avoid letting my issues impact on DD and on my parenting but I'm sure they did. I don't want to use mental health as an excuse and it is something I continue to work on in the hopes of being more resilient in the future. But I do wonder whether my DD is genuinely better off getting away from me for a fair few hours each week given these circumstances. Since starting back at work, I do think I've become a better parent when I'm with DD precisely because I have more time away from her; I will admit that my job (despite being pretty challenging and emotionally draining) DOES feel like a break and that I now come back from work with far more energy and more gratitude for every moment with DD.

People and situations are complicated. Again on an individual level, I'm sure there are lots of young children - even babies - out there who get more attention, stimulation and consistent kindness and affection at nursery than they would get if they were home all the time. Not everyone is a particularly good parent to babies and toddlers (or at least not a good parent all/most of the time). Babies and toddlers can be hard, and a lot of people who have children have numerous problems of their own - whether their fault or not.

Or perhaps I am just telling myself all this as another strategy to lessen my own guilt? I'm genuinely not sure. Just putting it out there.

You're referring to research done on families in the 60s. The shape of families, childcare settings and the job market is entirely different to those that Bowlby studied. With regards to childcare settings, this is in part because of the research.