to think that people who don't approve of parents who put their children in childcare should not work in a nursery..

[AtheneNoctua]

where parents are putting their kids into their care whilst they work. Are they not enabling the very system of which they so disapprove?

AS far as I know there is no scientific evidence that suggest parrent who work love their children less than parents who don't.

yabu, totally agree with uc
and monkies.

most people that work in a nursery love babies/small children so much so they want to spend all day woking with them.
they do not decide, i'll become a nn so i can enable parents to leave there babies for 1-12 hours a day.
they think oh lovely babies i can get to play with/cuddle etc all day.

and totally agree with 'someone works in Macdonalds they have to automatically agree with obesity'

"My DD was in daycare for 10 hours a day from 9 weeks and 6 days old. She is a bright, intelligent ,funny and gorgoeusly well rounding girl of 9".

Has it ever occured to you that she's great DESPITE being cared for by other people for most of her waking hours as a baby, rather than BECAUSE of it? As we know - children are robust and it could also be that your good parenting ameliorated the possible damaging affect of her being in group care so early and for so long. As I write this I'm thinking of my mum, who had an awful upbringing with a harsh parent, in a poverty stricken single parent household. She's an amazing woman - kind, loving, optimistic, positive. She's really made the most of a very difficult start. Her brother didn't do so well and has suffered from depression all his life. Anyway, the point I'm making is that sometimes the proof of the pudding isn't in the eating.

"Are you simply jealous that we for the most part can have it all ?"

That's so interesting that you think you've 'had it all'. If I'd handed my child over to someone else to be cared for for most of their infancy I think I'd be feeling now that I'd missed out on something fairly important in the scheme of my life: time with the person I love most in the whole world.

Can I re-post a message I put on that other thread.

"I am in support of what other parents chose to do - whether a parent stays at home, goes to work in an office, runs their household or runs a nation, parenting is a tough job no matter what external stuff you do. I think its time we all stop trying to sell our ideas, our lifestyle, our rules, and started to pat one another on the back for a job well done."

Is it so hard to do? Is it so difficult for people to stop trying to dictate their way is better? That they are doing a better job?

If you are a SAHP or you manage to work around your child then I think that is great - some families do not have that ability.

We're all trying to do the best for our children, and I know my job as a parent would be a lot easier if I didn't have to battle through people telling me I'm Wrong or damaging my child because I work. You dont know me, nor my child.

And, OP, no, you are not being unreasonable.

Why is being in group care so early and for so long damaging..............?

ElfOnTheTopShelf, if good quality research evidence comes to light which suggests that babies and very small children cared for in group childcare consistently experience more stress, and possibly suffer emotionally in the longer term, should we not discuss this among ourselves for fear of being seen as unsupportive to other mothers who've chosen, or had to, put their children in full time child care?

Sorry - but I think as a society if we put children's welfare at the centre of things this country would be a nicer place to live - not just for children but for all of us. I feel sad that these discussions seem to always revolve primarily around the emotional, social and economic needs of parents.

demandingboss, no doubt someone will come along and quote you the research. Apparently, if you use long hours group care from a young age, your children will grow up to be psychopaths or anxious depressives. Although my dcs are seemingly happy in ft nursery since they were 1, I have to constantly scan their faces for signs that they are going to crack up because I cannot be trusted to exercise my judgment about whether my children are enjoying their childcare since there is research that indicates I am just storing up problems for them.

Blue shoes you and me both....its so stressful!!

TBB. I do put my childrens welfare at the centre of my life which is why I go out to work to provide a happy , enriched family life for them and to demonstrate how rewarding an education and a satisfying career can be.

On the otherhand I could stay at home and turn into a narrowminded bitter old hag like my MIL who has never done a days work in her life having raised 4 children. She is an unfulfilled poisonous old bat !

Not that I am suggesting all SAHM's are the same far from it but I can see first hand what it has done for her. NO THANKS.

And one of my biggest bug bears to all SAHM who went to university and got degrees....why did you bother ? I have never understood it.

Guilt is something that is inherent as soon as you have a child, there is always something to feel guilty about, surely we don't need people to make us feel worse than we already do. Some people feel strongly that they need to be at home with the LOs, fanastic, some people need to work either for financial reasons and/or for independence, stimulation etc. I work, i'm lucky that I works 4 days a week in a job that will allow me to pick my dd by 4/430, I also get 13 weeks off a year. I work because 1: I enjoy it. 2: if I left, i would find it very diffcult to pick it up again. 3: the main reason, my mother did not work, she was a stay at home mum, and it was the worse thing she could have done, and in away not having a 'social' network/interest outside the home contributed to a breakdown.

My mother not working has affected me and my siblings in a negative way and it was nothing to do with money.

When I am working, the time spent with my DD is quality time.

I have worked in nursery, and the children had good fun, and they were cared for. The staff were dedicated to the children they worked with.

It may not suit anyone, but who are we too critcise those who decide to work or stay at home. Surely we all love our children and will do what we can so that everyone in the family is happy.

"Apparently, if you use long hours group care from a young age, your children will grow up to be psychopaths or anxious depressives"

Because of course that's EXACTLY what the research is saying isn't it?

"which is why I go out to work to provide a happy , enriched family life for them and to demonstrate how rewarding an education and a satisfying career can be"

Yes - because those of us who didn't work for the two or three years when our children were very tiny (out of an average lifespan of - oh, around 80 years) are obviously vocationally and educationally impoverished aren't we ?

"And one of my biggest bug bears to all SAHM who went to university and got degrees....why did you bother ?"

Can't answer for other people but I can answer for myself:

I went to university primarily because I loved learning and considered it a huge privilege to have been able to spend 5 years of my life doing a BA, an MA and a PGCE.

And of course it equipped me to get a job I enjoyed (which I did f/t for a decade before I gave birth to dd1 and then p/t for 3 years afterwards)

And of course it's enriched my life every day since in so many ways, most of which have bugger all to do with earning lots of money and work-related ego trips.

It's enriched and benefited my dcs' lives too because they benefit from having a mother who's enthusiastic about learning and with the skills (and the time natch) to support their education.

And because I love studying and I want to develop my career I've used my time as a SAHM to continue studying - I finished a DIPHE last year and am starting a new one in September. And I work p/t now (around my children) in a very interesting, rewarding job which draws on all my professional skills.

Plus I've used my skills and my education to benefit my community, as being a SAHM I've been able to do voluntary work.

And of course I'm not going to be a SAHM forever - just for a few short years when my children are tiny.

Does that help?

I'm just wondering what you think I might have missed out on? Other than pension benefits, and enough money to go on mad spending sprees in Selfridges on a regular basis rather than in Oxfam?

But that's a whole new thread, Demandingboss! I could not have stayed at home when mine were babies. I would have gone completely up the wall.

I do not like babies. They are dull and uninteresting. I am glad that some people like them more than I do and are happy to have a career looking after them. I do, however like children (some - mine and some others!) and was a much better mother when mine became a bit more interactive rather than shouting and shitting all day.

But as AN says, I think it is hypocritical to condemn a parent's choice of childcare while it is that choice that pays your wages. If nurseries didn't exist, where would you work? McDonalds?

TBB - i have read lots of your posts on other threads and it totally scares me how i agree with every single one.

The only difference being you put things much better than me!!!

I do not believe that children looked after by anyone by their natural parents are inherently damaged in some way. This has always been the way of things since the beginning of "life" as we think of it and that quality time with kids is a very recent invention.

In ancient times the women were gatherers and looked after the kids en masse (as we now see in these "send a stressed mum to Africa to see if she changes her values" kind of programmes. Proably in more recent times mums were relying on older children, grandparents and family members to watch kids as they HAD to work to support the family. In fact the kids were sent out to work at a ridiculously young age too.

In researching my family tree I know that 100 year.s ago the wife was often employed at home and the husband had a very menial job. How much quality time did the (often very large) family get from their parents then. Not much at all! We are "generally" so comfortable these days that we worry about this stuff when before it was just a matter of food and a roof over your head.. (and I appreciate some people are still worrying about those things.....)

TBB makes some from good points?
MrsSchadenfreude - if you don't like babies, why did you have them? Was it so other people can bring them up for you? Yes babies are hard work, if you don't want to do the work or spend time with them, than why have them?

BTW i work in a nusery part time so I can spend time with my child and earn money.. If i did not do this, than yes, perhaps I would work in mcdonanlds at evenings and weekends - anything to avoid farming him out to childcare from 6 months for 50 hours a week.

Don't assume that people in childcare or those who work at McDonalds are doing it because they can't do anything else. I worked as a journalist and edited magazines before having my child..he comes before my career now. If this means working for a pittance in a nusery so that I can be with him than so be it.

"In ancient times the women were gatherers and looked after the kids en masse"

Sorry - we're talking about babies and very small children aren't we? (ie children between 0 and 3?)

I think you'll find that in 'ancient times' and in many developing countries today babies were/are bf by their mothers for at least the first couple of years of their lives (which obviously necessitated being with them). In the past the only time this wouldn't have happened was if a mother was rich enough to afford a wet nurse. And I've lived in developing countries and seen to a certain extent how women work in these places - the women who work in the market place and often in small trades keep their babies with them. Why do you think the tradition of 'baby wearing' developed? Yes it's true that older children who are not still b/f do stay with older siblings and grandparents while mothers go out to work, but this is far less likely to be the case with babies and very tiny children.

Yes - industrialisation separated mothers from their babies for long periods and babies were cared for by others at this time. They probably led a miserable existence.

And what's all this guff about 'quality time'? What do you think SAHM's do all day? Watch cbeebies and play clapping games with their babies? We get on with the business of studying/keeping our homes/shopping/cooking/caring for other relatives - we just keep our babies with us while we do it. You can chew gum and walk at the same time you know. Or I can anyway!

TBB I agree with alot of your posts. I think quantity time is very underestimated and is as important as 'quality' time if not more so.

Sorry Tittybangbang - I seem to have incurred your wrath! I take on board your statement that bf kids stay with their mothers. But historically children have been brought up by the community not just their parents. And i do not believe that my comment about "quality time" is guff. It IS a recent invention. If you had money you had a nanny and saw the kids when it suited, If you didn't you had to cope with a household with no domestic appliances and not much income and probably a large family.

We spend all our time worrying about our DCs - too much / not enough / should I / shouldn't I... I appreciate there were plenty of kids who lived a miserable existance (as we would judge it) I was NOT comenting at all about SAH mothers.

round of applause to TBB for sensible, informative and cool posts. Have read down this thread with interest, thinking, i will post about this/that/there and TBB has said everything i wanted to!

madrose: "I have worked in nursery, and the children had good fun, and they were cared for. The staff were dedicated to the children they worked with."

madrose, I have finally found you .

I was beginning to think mn is populated by disgruntled ex-nursery workers with nothing good to say about the nursery and swear black and blue they would never use as a 'dump' for their own children (leaving aside the issue of cost, of course) but happy to slag off selfish and materialistic working parents, effectively biting the hand that feeds them. Where are the gentle, kind, lovely and, well, just sensible carers like those at dcs' nursery, who genuinely like children, give (imperfect) parents the benefit of the doubt, and make the nursery a fun and interesting place for the children? They are worth their weight in gold, every one of them.

"But historically children have been brought up by the community not just their parents."

No, sorry Portofino - didn't mean to snarl at you!

I agree with your comment above - but we are talking about CHILDREN, not BABIES.

I really, truely am not 'anti nursery'. I'd be a nutter to be anti-nursery given that my ds (5) has been doing 5 afternoons at one for the past 2 years and my second ds (3) is to start at one in a fortnight, to do 9.30 to 3.30 every day!

My primary concern (and the focus of the research which flags up concerns) is babies and children much under three doing very long hours in nursery (ie 40 hours a week and more).

"They are worth their weight in gold, every one of them"

Yes - agree. And it's a bloody appalling scandal that the majority of cc workers like madrose earn so little.

toomuchmonthatendofthemoney - friendly nod!

"I feel sad that these discussions seem to always revolve primarily around the emotional, social and economic needs of parents "

Let's not forget the emotional social and economic needs of the children too. If I was unable to go out to work because the parenting-Taliban decided that I musn't (being a mummy and therefore really only permitted one role performed in one way) my children would have their economic needs seriously compromised, and along with it their social and emotional ones. The reason discussions always revolve around this subject (if they do, and I don't beleive they do as it happens) is because of the need to keep our children housed, fed and clothed is fairly fundamental. Contrary to
the lore that some SAHMs seem to hold truee, many many mothers do not go out to work to fund a wildly extravagant lifestyle. But for those women obviously this was their fault for not finding a nice alpha male to take all the nasty money worries away .

God I hate this sort of smuggery. Most of us get by the best we can.

TBB - hijack comment here.

On the whole I disagree with many many of your points, and if we did want to get down and dirty, we could probably slug empirical research back and forwards to each other for months and we would not reach agreement nor change each other's fundamental views.

However can I just say that it is kind of refreshing to see your posts on this and the other thread - I get so sick of sensationalist and rabid mud-slinging on these threads that it is like a bolt of lightening when I see someone posting and think "that is someone I could sit down with, share a bottle of wine, and have a bloody good debate with" TBH I tend to leave most of these types of threads thanking the lord that I don't have to rub shoulders with people like that in real life (not because of their views, but but because of crassness and lack of empathy with which they express them). Makes a change to think oh bugger: will take a bit more time to demolish this one. Not saying I agree with anything you say, mind....

Hijack over: Pitchforks to the ready: resume the battle:

And by the way: On this thead topic itself: I have always assumed that the people who work in nurseries because it is truly their vocation DO probably disapprove of us as parents. and whilts I would not hesitate to remove my DD from the care of someone who expressed such views to my face (purely because it would display a horrific lack of professionalism and judgement), I kind of hope that these are the people looking after my kids - far better that than carers who can't be arsed to care. I think it boils down to the fact that I want my kids to be respected and don't really care if I'm not. Just so long as you they don't rub it in my face.

A bit like my feelings in Investment Banking TBH. Just because I take my 12 pices of silver doesn't mean I heart the industry I am in. But it does mean I don't diss it (and indeed quite often defend it) when I talk about it - except after consuming said bottle of wine of course

anyway, off to the Lapland thread for some light entertainment

yep, i'm afraid yabu.

I would expect the person looking after my child to like children, not me particularly, and my life style choices.

squiffy: "I think it boils down to the fact that I want my kids to be respected and don't really care if I'm not. Just so long as you they don't rub it in my face."

Totally agree. It would be disingenuous for me to insist that the nursery workers should embrace the parents in order to work there. I know some parents (myself on occasion) do give them a hard time. And certainly as an professional myself I can see my company and clients for what they are, warts and all. I don't always think my clients are reasonable but I accord them a grudging respect because I know they have their pressures too and recognise their job is not to please me.

At the end of the day, you stay in the job because the draw (money and excitement in my case, children hopefully in the case of the nursery workers because lord knows they aren't paid much) is greater than the sum total of gripes.

If their feelings against individual parents go beyond occasional unhappiness into actual disapproval of their parenting choices and life style, at some point, these feelings may seep into their care of the children of these parents.

I had a ex-CM poster on another thread telling me about the parents being pandering idiots resulted in their children being demanding and attention-seeking and in her opinion naughty with behavioural issues.

The McDonalds analogy is flawed because not everyone who eats at McDonalds is obese, or even fat. However, I suppose I would be a bit put off if I went to McDonalds and gave my order, and was then given a lecture on the evils of meat and processed foods while I was waiting to be served. Now THAT person would be unsuitable for the job just as the OP of the other thread (given how she spreads her views across a parenting website) is not a suitable worker for a nursery.

It is interesting that mums who choose to stay home are so very interested in judging those of us who choose not to. I can't really understand what they are trying to achieve.

People have babies for lots of reasons. It doesn't have to be a lifelong ambition to change nappies oe perform any other of the many laborious and thankless tasks the come with looking after little babies.