To feel a bit sad for children in nurseries 8-6 every day?

[SlightlySad]

It struck me yesterday as I took DS2 to the aquarium then for a walk along the seafront that he was very lucky to be doing this. He'd had a few hours chilling out in the morning, taken his big brother to school, had a fun trip out, then back home for a nap.

If he had been in nursery since 12 weeks, then he wouldn't be doing half the things that he does - mother and toddlers, soft play, baby classes, singing classes, trips to the park, pre-school sessions... I know that some nurseries do these things, but it's not every day, and these are the better nurseries. Some children must spend most of their week in one room. I think this would drive DS2 mad.

I'm very lucky in not working, but this isn't a SAHM vs WOHM issue. I just think if I had to go out to work, that I would choose a childminder to care for my children rather than sending them to a nursery.

If you chose a nursery, does yours do lots of extra stuff? Do the children leave the nursery building/garden often? Why did you go with a nursery and not a CM?

No, I'm not the OP. I suppose I agree with her...(but I read it so long ago I cannie remember!)

Even if the OP did not mean to start a SAHM Vs WM debate that is exactly what it has become. In the same way as there are good nursery's/CM and bad nursery's/CM's there is also good SAHM's and Bad SAHM's!!!!

My children have all gone to nursey P/T from 15mths old. I wanted to a balence in my life, was that selfish, yes! but the time I spend with my children I enjoy instead of seeing it as a chore.

I have had some wonderful days out with my DC when the sun shines and all is good and I think why don't I stay at home fulltime and do this but the reality is you don't go to the aqarium, beach, theme parks every day (or if you do your child will have no idea how to entertain themselves and you would be broke!)

I think the Op was very smug and If someone read that post who had just returned to work for the first time would make them feel awful.

Just to be devil's advocat hambo, parenting is a life long job, and arguably for most of the time that your children will be living under your roof they don't need the kind of intense care that you need to give a baby. Having a child does not just mean having a baby, or a toddler, it also means having an 11 year old, a teenager, a child at university. The skills required to be a good parent of a teenager, or even an adult (I would imagine) are very different to the skills required to parent a baby or toddler.

of course having a child is life changing - but I don't believe that having a child means that you have to totally lose what makes you you and some of things that make you happy.

I don't have a problem with Oliver James - I've read Affluenza and TFYU and I don't see him as criticising parents who use nursery at all, just saying that nursery for small babies doesn't on average give the best childcare for them. I've used a nursery and still don't feel criticised by him, even though at the same time my opinion of nursery for babies has changed and I now see it as something to avoid. I still think parents who do use nursery are very good parents, making the best decisions they can for their children. Either they have no choice, or aren't working from the same information I've read (not just from Oliver James of course), or they are working from the same information but have come to a different conclusions. I was just as good a parent when my first child went to nursery as a baby - I regret the decision, but don't feel remotely guilty or like a worse parent about it even with hindsight, because it was still the best decision I could make at the time even if it's not the one I'd make now. I think it's a pity SAHMs weigh in on the issue at all really as it turns it into a WOHM/SAHM debate about the parents when really any debate should just be about what actually happens to children, what the alternatives are, what different research seems to be show and so on. Sometimes it's just not about us as parents at all.

yes, that was my point guyF - did you read my full post?

Guy fawkes:

I think it is really important to hang on to your old self after you have a baby; but equally you must make some compromises, or else why bother?

yes BB - sorry I quoted your bit about it being life changing to use to talk to Hambo

if you should lose out on what you want, do you have a 'right' to work then?
What if it cost society more?

oh, ok that's fine then

I suppose that, for me, the slight unease, or guilt I felt when leaving mine, as babies, in a nursery (albeit for 2 days a week) was not that they wouldn't be well-cared for. They were well-fed, changed regularly, played with, stimulated etc.... and I was given ridiculously detailed notes each day about what they'd done, the contents of each nappy etc.. The policy was that they had a 'keyworker' who took main charge of them. BUT, with the best will in the world, staffing changed and people came and went, even on a daily basis. So, having read somewhere that young babies need a permanent (or very regular) adult to bond with, that worried me. I talked myself out of it a) because I had to. I needed to work and this was the best available and b) because I was around for the majority of the time.
Maybe that's where some of this anti-nursery stuff is coming from. But, as so many of us have said, sometimes we have no choice.

I understood what you meant bluebutterfly.
I agree that having children is lifechanging, but it doesn't mean that you can't reflect and think about what makes your life fulfilling before having children.
I was just interested that it often seems to be the case that for women it is having a baby that kickstarts them into this way of thinking, whereas men seem to be better at evaluating what they want without needing to have a child first.
I suppose, in a nutshell, I was wondering why BlueButterfly didnt set up her own business, or start doing more interesting projects pre children? Just seems sad that people sometimes feel trapped in a job they don't enjoy.

Hambo - but why must the compromise be your work? As I said - weekend activities for a parent are almost certainly a lot different to weekend activities as a childless couple/person. Those spur of the moment decision to do x,y,z (out of work hours) probably won't happen anymore - so compromises will still have been made.

Is there actually evidence children need continuity? I've been arguing this with the SS cos dd's respite workers change every farking week. Its driving me nuts cos I have to stay in their and settle her when this is meant to be my respite break.
SS wont listen. Any backup I can wave at them would be great!

I am so not going to weigh in with further opinions, because everyone's circumstances/choices/priorities are different.

But I don't see what Oliver James' trust fund has to do with anything at all. He has written a book, in which he presents the results of studies - done by other people - which suggest that some aspects of nursery care are perhaps not ideal for children under two. If there are other studies suggesting otherwise, fine, bring them on. But it's not about his personality or opinions, it's a backed up argument that he has in the book.

speakeronascanner: I might be a SAHM or whatever but I am not against working parents. I agree with Madameplatypus that being a parent needs lots of different skills and what a baby needs is not what an older child needs.

so hambo - it is fine to work if you have to to pay the bills

but not fine to work if you *WANT to and enjoy working as all of my employers do

of of mymb's have got good careers and enjoy the every day life of work/talking to adults and using their brain

BUT

they also enjoy being mummy in am,evening, weekends, holidays

just beacuse you have a child, doesnt mean you cant be a person outside of mummmy

All this crap about 'whats the point' in having dc if you cant look after them ft or 'why bother' is you not prepared to change, is bullshit, does anybodys life turn out to be as they planned? my certainly didnt. You make the best of situations, you ajust to your lifestyle, if it doesnt work out as planned you adjust somemore, having children isnt life changing, it is life enhancing, you dont change as a person you enhance and add to what you already are.

MNC - yes, that's the gist of his argument, that it is the changes in staff in nursery that are problematic for children.

this book is more references and actual studies behind Affluenza, so is probably what you need.

Vonsudenfed - I agree with you... interestingly, Oliver James actually mentioned his background in the book because he knew that it was easier for him to decide the way to bring up his family when compared to people who did not have so much money. I suppose that knowing he has so many choices is annoying for those of us who want to do our best but have much more limited choices.

Add i dont need to read fecking books based on other peoples opinions to make me a better parent

You are right - I did alot of soul-searching before children too, and I got 2 degrees, worked in 4 different jobs and never really came to any conclusions about what I wanted. I was only 28 when ds was born though and it forced me to be more realistic. But then I have always been a bit of dreamer and probably needed a reality check - and a small baby certainly is that!

Now I volunteer for a cause that matters to me, I teach a course (VERY part-time) in a subject that I am knowledgeable about it, I look after ds, I help out at his school and I find time to do a bit of writing (unpublished, just more of a cathartic thing that I love). I am more fulfilled because I can fill up my time this way. And I feel lucky for it, iyswim...

and

hambo - what you consider to be 'best' is different to what others would consider to be 'best'.

'only' 28?