?they [ nannies] are always going to be employees who can leave a child without regrets)?
Not my experience. I think all of us bond with children, old people, friends we spend time with whether we are a blood relation or not. Most nannies who have looked after a baby for 3 or 5 years leave with lots of regrets. Every one I have ever known has kept in touch with the children after, sometimes for 10 years after sometimes more. Some fathers stick around for shorter periods than some nannies, sadly. We cannot guarantee everyone in our children?s lives will always be there but we can do our best to ensure they will be. Ensuring they have some diversity of close relationships protects them in a sense from dependence on only one adult for all love.
?I'm not Xenia so can't speak for her but I'm intrigued By Posie's view that she stopped "nourishing them with affection after two weeks".? NO one asks fathers who they can love a child and return to work at 2 weeks. It all comes back to getting at women as madamex said above. Woman as martyr and victim who whatever she does is wrong.
?To fund middle class lifestyle? ? as I said in a description above of my 23 year yes I have been able to buy for her and her siblings quite a nice middle class lifestyle and I?m not ashamed of that at all. It?s a laudable aim. It hasn?t been riven from us all by dire agony and maternal separation anxiety and crying babies over 23 years. It?s been a usually two career working family at least until we divorced anyway as most full time working couples manage it. If the child does not need to be with its mother 24/7 (the if we seem to be discussing on the thread) from age 0 ? 3 then if the care it has is good which is what most parents achieve, then the pros in terms of benefits to children of working outweigh the cons. There seems to be some myth amongst stay at home mothers that working mothers abandon a child and then don?t love it or see it but if you have a baby and work you?ve got hours of lovely bonding and breastfeeding in the hours you?re not at work, most of us rush to be home quicly after work and have weekends and holidays with the baby. It?s not like ?giving it up? and going abroad for 6 months without it.
A good few women on here have mothers who hated being at home. Mine had taught for 13 years and loved it and should have gone back to work and really really resented that in my view, although she is responsible for herself and should have gone back had she wanted to.
I wonder what the differences are at say age 5, 10 and 15 of children of two full time working parents and those who don't work. Obviously over 23 years I have seen loads of examples of both but I suspect you can better distinguish children between those in loving families and those in families which are dysfunctional. If there's a father who rules with an iron rod or alcoholism at home or a mother at home who hates it and is on ADs or a working parent who is distracted by her lover all the time or abroad too much or had a damaged childhood such that she cannot give a good childhood to her own child - that is going to have more of an impact than whether the parents work or not.
I suspect my children are more sociable, relate to others (know how to deal with staff although I doubt anyone on here would see that as a plus point in life!), have navigated the London underground at night alone sooner than most children of non working parents, perhaps know how to sort out problems themselves better because their parents are not their nursemaids, may be realise women work and aren't servants of men so won't be sexist in their own adult relationships, are more likely to be astonished if they see a man slumped on his fat bottom at home having his every need seen to by some woman who is financially reliant on him, more knowledgeable about the world of work. Perhaps other differences too.