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?

I took the "smug" comment from Policywonk's own post, and directed it to the attitude of SOME SAHMs, particularly the OP.

That doesn't mean I think all SAHMs are smug - they are just other women, I couldn't possibly generalise about them all!

i'm a full time mum and do lots of things with my childen. my neighbour has her kids away from her from 8-5. how sad not to watch them grow.i also did some childminding and have sent mine to a childminder for a couple of hours a week.i like childminders as they can take your child to toddler group,shops and do things that you would do.

'I have read all the posts on this thread and cannot get over how nasty the Working Mums are when compared to the SAH mums.'

Hahahahahahahaha

Read the thread!

So toddler groups are now a required part of developmental education?

Oh no, a whole nation must be backward (none exist here in France).

It is a v. English thing btw all this taking kids to aquariums, museums, music classes, toddler groups etc.

Here it is true that the children start school at 3 but until then their parents actually expect them to entertain themselves some of the time!

(disclaimer - I go stir-crazy after a day or so without some kind of "outing" but that usually means a walk to the shops)

"how sad not to watch them grow"

FGS. There are all kinds of assumptions about working parents too

Yes, Haven't, that was crass!

"how sad not to watch them grow"

Yeah. Cos of course working parents don't bring up their children do they? Never see them, never parent them.

Christ.

I just hope all you SAHMs who rely on your husbands to bring home the wages give them such a hard time about their lack of parenting. But then again, you wouldn't would you? Because you just want to have a pop at parents who happen to be female.

Another crass generalisation there.

OK, to put it very clearly:

I hope any SAHMs who hold the type of view expressed by the OP, and who criticise working parents, also extend this criticism to their own partners. Because if you can afford to stay at home, then you are relying on other people to work to enable you to have that choice - whether it's your partner, or the tax payer.

I just find it interesting that whenever I hear a SAHM criticising working parents, they never seem to include their own partner in this. Highly illogical. Just seems to be other women they want to have a pop at. But then jealousy isn't a very attractive trait...

Well, I completely agree with you that far too many women on here let fathers off the hook. This has happened on both sides of the debate.

As to ciriticising working parents - I think, for some of us at least, this isn't what we're doing. We're criticising (or disagreeing with) the belief that professional childcare is just as good, in the main, as more focused care from an emotional intimate (not to say that professional childcare could never fit this description, but that it does so less frequently than stay-at-home parenting does). So, we don't have a problem with work; we have a problem with what we perceive to be a lack of emotional intimacy, intensity and continuity in the care of very small children. It just so happens that the traditional model of woman-home-man-work - as well as the newer model of man-home-woman-work - addresses our concerns. So there's no reason for us to criticise our partners for working out of the home, because our particular concerns about the care of small children are taken care of.

Not all SAHMs criticise working parents! I absolutely did not in my earlier post on this thread. And no I don't criticise my DH for being out at work all hours though I do feel sad for him missing out, as does he feel sad about it. It's not ideal but it's the way things have worked out for now. If other working parents don't feel they're missing out then that's fine of course, it's just the way things are here.

mygreatauntgriselda - I have two children. I have done lots of classes and outings with both of them.

Thanks for the supportive posts hambo and others

Actually findtheriver, I do think that some people who work FT are missing out on seeing their kids grow a bit. However, I do accept that for some people it isn't an option and they have to work for financial or sanity reasons.

To all those that have called me smug - why? What am I smug about? That by staying at home I've completely trashed my career prospects (I am by the way a graduate - was top in my course, who had a great job before I left work when pg with DS1), in the eyes of some WOHM's lost all my independence and decision making skills by resorting to relying on my husband.... I became a SAHM as it wasn't financially viable for me to go back to work once I'd worked out what I'd by paying out in CM fees. Now that I've got two DC, it's not at all viable. I have nothing against WOHM's for whatever reason they are doing so, and wish I could have worked P/T, but I couldn't justify leaving my children for £1ish an hour. Yes, long-term that will have reduced my earning prospects, but I do consider that I've done something worthwhile by staying at home, so I'm prepared to take the hit.

Why would I give my DH a hard time about his lack of parenting? I only said that I think children in care for long hours per week would do better in a home environment.

Completely agree policywonk.

But people make up their own minds as to what they think is best. FGS there is enough worry about when you are bringing up children without others judging you.

"I only said that I think children in care for long hours per week would do better in a home environment"

smug smug smug how on earth can you NOT think that is smug and hurtful to someone who's child is in nursery full time !
You made your choices let the rest of us make ours!

'So, we don't have a problem with work; we have a problem with what we perceive to be a lack of emotional intimacy, intensity and continuity in the care of very small children'

I think you are worrying far too much about other people's children frankly! If the children and parents are content, then why is it anyone else's business?

"If you can afford to stay at home, then you are relying on other people to work to enable you to have that choice - whether it's your partner, or the tax payer."

By staying at home I don't (unfortunately) receive any money from the tax payer. I also don't feel endebted to my DH for enabling me to stay at home, because by doing so, I am enabling him to do his job to the best of his ability. Taking time off for illness of children etc is virtually unheard of in his profession, so by being a SAHM I am actually supporting him, not being a burden. He gets to have his lovely children without the hassle which would come if I chose to work.

slightlysad - would you like to tell me exactly what I am missing out on then?!!

ftr - well, I don't 'worry' about it very much, tbh. It's just a belief that informs my own choices, and it's impossible for me to defend myself against anti-SAHM sentiment (such as that displayed in the post of yours to which I was replying) without making it explicit. I have plenty of friends who use childcare to varying degrees, and I don't worry about their children at all.

Smug means highly self-satisfied. I'm not at all. It is just my opinion that it is sad for children to spend 50 hours per week in a nursery if they seldom leave the nursery premises. Do you not agree with this? If this was your situation, and you could leave them with a similarly priced fantastically resourced CM who you somehow knew would not mistreat them in any way and who could work around your required hours and take your children to lots of extra groups and activities outside of their home would you not do so?

I have said time and time again, if you are in a position to have choice, then make your choice. I am not anti SAHM. I am anti anyone who makes ignorant assumtions about other people's choices.
Sadly these type of threads are invariably started by SAHM attacking WOHM/childcare.

slightlysad - I am still awaiting a response.You said:

'Actually findtheriver, I do think that some people who work FT are missing out on seeing their kids grow a bit. '

So, are you going to tell me what I'm missing out on?

acdoodle - I don't think that statement by the OP was smug. If you don't agree with the statement then you may believe it to be wrong or ill informed etc...why smug?

Slightly sad - what I am reading from your posts is that you are trying to validate your own position. Which is one where you were not able to earn enough to work and pay for childcare. So staying at home was enforced for you.

I'm sure from reading your posts that it is a fate you are embracing willingly, but it just would never do for me, for a variety of reasons.

Many women, such as yourself have no real choice. Even if they return to work later, the damage done to earning potential is significant. It is truly amazing how many years of seniority get lost in the stay-at-home years. It also leads to a depressing political fact that economic power mostly resides in the hands of men.

'4. I didn't want my babies/children spending thier days with a "mother substitute". I like that idea of several carers looking after them, because even though they have key workers and do become attached to staff members it's not the same as them being with just one adult carer all day.' I can understand that and I did feel rather jealous (not attractive but honest!) of my Mohter when she took the ds's 1 and 2 aged 9 weeks back in the days when maternity was far more basic. However, with ds3 i found myself far more reassured that he had an adult he was with with whom he had a very strong bond indeed. I just think that was excellent for him, especially when he went on to show sn- a nursery would have struggled with certain aspects (assessments etc).

However the whole point is- and I say this every time- there have to be many types of provision- family, couples working opposite shifts , CM's, nurseries etc etc as well as SAHM because there are at least as many types of family and parent. One size does not suit all, many times over when it comes to child rearing.

Now, my persoal 'want' is for trained nannies to be claimable under tax credit rules: this would allow me and a great many of my carer ilk to get abck into work, as a nanny could cope with my ds1 (and the others also) and his needs in a way a nureery simply would not. Not being able to do that prevents me from working, a completely insurmountable barrier where I, as a recent graduate with lots of employment skills, sit on my arse wishing I could do something and can't. Long term that will hit the tax p[ayer (and dh is, btw) many times over in terms of our inability to save, by a house, pay a pension etc etc etc.