to honestley wonder, why have children if you WANT to work fulltime and are not prepared to make ANY sacrifices?

[milkgoddessmakesthefinestmilk]

i don't mean parents that HAVE to work to provide.

i mean the ones that choose to for no other reason, other than they enjoy their job so much.
if you enjoy your job so much, thats great.
but what i really do not understand is why have children?
no one makes any of these parents have children, you can go though life without having children.

this is 100% genuine question, i just do not get it.

Soph - IIRC the OP on the other thread said that in NY, the childcare provision is slightly different there in terms of the way in which nannies tend to work. I think she felt that the day care centre had the better chance of providing good quality long term care, which is why she was reluctant to change to a nanny.

and that's great cristina, but do you understand why daycare generally might not be the best option? that your experience is not typical?

Yes, it's the same in northern italy, nurseries have in general highly qualified staff. I'd have chosen nursery over a nanny in Italy.

Christina - I think, basically, the authors think part-time work (whatever that is) until DCs are school-age. Importantly, they think that government should provide support to parents to enable them to make this choice if they decide that they want to.

Franca - the atudy looked at siblings, with the aim of filtering out some of the confounding variables (assuming that siblings will have experienced roughly similar familial experiences).

I'm not saying that this study is infallible, but as far as I'm aware it is the best and most recent research available.

Hey just saw this thread and had to post!!!

Am starting a new job on Monday for financial reasons as baically we could not keep a roof over our heads and eat if I didn't my DP works full time so TC have decided he earns to much for wTax and at £230 before tax I think this is shocking he walks away with £190 and we get £20 Ctax how can anyone be expected to ive on that?

I have to say ds is 22 months am heartbroken to leave him at nursery but it's for him I'm doing it he'll be there every afternoon.

How can I be justified in doing it when others aren't? Financial or not some people just have too. I'm personally looking forward to getting my identity back.

Sophable, my experience is not typical, Xenia's isn't typical, other WOHMs posting on here isn't typical, so what IS typical? Where are all these mums who have their children in FT nursery from 6 weeks old till they are 5? IME everyone takes some time out of work at some stage, at least for a second child. I don't know which typical you're referring to.

It would be interesting to know what influence your own upbringing had on you - whether you accepted or rejected the parental choices that your own parents made.

My mother was a SAHM, and probably nothing has been a stronger influence on me than that experience, in terms of making decisions about whether to WOTH or not.

"basically, the authors think part-time work (whatever that is) until DCs are school-age." That's not very precise then, if it's "whatever that is". Is 35 hours a week when others do 40 part-time enough? Is 6 weeks off during the school holidays (if you're a teacher) part-time enough?

i have purposely not used the phrase emotional damage (i don't think!).

franca, our internalised sense of the world, of how relationships work and our sense of having a secure base is formed in the first 36 months of life. what happens up to then dictates how we respond to later loss and trauma. so imo it is the crucial time.

infants don't need much. good enough is a pretty low bar. one of the things they need a a person that is there, responsive, loving and consistently there for them. doesn't matter who.

I thimk this idea that if it is established that it is the 'best' for children then we should provide it as parents, goes back to the OP's idea of scrifice.

Why cannot it be admitted that many mothers love thier children but some sacrifices are too far, and they will seattle for good enough parenting.

For some mothers thier job is a scarifice they are not preaped to/cannot feel they can make. They don't abondon thier children, they make good enough, if not ideal arrangements and live with that.

There is an assumption that we should all want to provide the absolute best and make any personal scarifive to get that.

In reality mothers have thier own needs/issues to deal with and will make compromisese that they can live with. This in true in amny araes not just work.

When did motherhood become this aspiration to perefction? and binvolve eating youeslf up if you didn't meet your childs emotional needs entirely and consistently.

Read 'The Mommy Myth', it is being bouht into Big Time, I see it all over MN.

Mothers are just people. Good, bad, selfless, selfish, and a mixture of each at different points in thier life.

Stop beatinh youeslves ,and each other, up.

soapbox - at the risk of repeating Sophable, an issue can't be ignored simply because there are other situations equally worthy of attention.

PW ( earlier) that is very interesting. Was there more on the effect of P/T? And also interesting that daughter's age of first preg is higher for F/t mothers.

I really dunno Cristina, you'd have to ask the study authors (or shell out &10.95 for a copy, possibly).

my mother worked when I was a baby, i was at home with my dad. then my grandmother took over. then my mum was at home for a bit. i make no claims for my mental health!

i dont think there are any right or wrong answers to all these questions, its just peoples opinions that make it so.

so gosh, any other experience past 36 is worthless then? I'll ask my therapist tomorrow

like i said stillwaters the bar for good enough is pretty low.

Must start proof reading. Sorry.

link again

Not a lot of detail. They want us to BUY their report, the buggers.

no. it isn't worthless! you know i didn't say that you meanie!

soapbox - agree it would be a fascinating poll - though suspect it would yet again descend into schism ...

(I've posted elsewhere about what an anxious one-owner-dog type child I was (with my SAHM mother) & how much more relaxed & (you might think, ironically) secure my own children are about people looking after them, having had a mix of me/dh/long-term nanny/nursery.)

but what does 'there... consistently' mean sophable? available all the time? every day? in the same bed? shared between two consistent, 'there' people? or 3? fully 'there' for 2/3 of the time?

I still would like to see a review of research on this - do you know of one?

Good post Stillwaters

The problem with all of this, is that none of us get the 'control' child.

We can all individually look at our children, in light of our many-fold parental choices, and think we are doing a fine job. What of course, none of us know, is how much (or less) happier, balanced etc, they would have been had we made different choices.

So on that basis, I am going with Anchovy's approach

xenia, ok, this is definatly my last post.

i have a question for you, why do you class nannies as nannies, you say nannies can have a good bond with the baby and be a important part of the babys life, therefore implying that a nanny is quite a valued job in your opinion.

copied from your last post, "nanny it is bonding from week1 or 2 with those 3 loving adults who remain consistently in its life. Babies adore routines and patterns. Therefore the sooner hte pattern of mummy nad daddy going to work at 8am and then a day with their nanny"

your words on your post make it sound as if you do value the work of the nanny, so why do you only seem to think its a worthwhile job if your paying someone else to raise your children?

if say at home parents are househusbands or housewifes
do you class your nanny as a housewife?

you are clearly bonkers.

soph: " and when did obstacles to ideals stop us asking questions and making decisions based on what we understand as best for our children?"

As educated and thinking people, we consider the research that is out there, think about how to optimise outcomes for our dcs and then look at our circumstances to see what can achieved.

I understand the one-on-one consistent care stance of the attachment theorists. And I try to practice attachment parenting. But the test is 'what is best for our children' as you said. In other words, our children are the ultimate barometer of whether something is working or not. So whilst the ft nursery I used for dcs from 1 could not by any stretch be considered one-on-one care below 3 years gold standard you advocate (I am sure there must have been turnover of staff and change of rooms), it was my considered opinion as their mother that my dcs were actually enjoying themselves and getting a lot out of it that I could not or could not be bothered to do with them at home.

So theory and research is one thing, but real life in a particular instance is far more relevant and interesting.

I don't find it surprising at all that children of ft working parents who spend only 1 hour with their offspring Mon-Fri can and do thrive in specific instances, particularly if they come from homes with high educational achievement and interested parents, which is a far more important variable than hours in childcare below 3.