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 think OP is judging the world through own rose coloured spectacles. You can't think what you do with your kids because you don't send them to nursery makes you the standard everyone needs to live up to to be raising happy children or that other parents are missing out. You are talking about adults who are parents themselves who are providing love and care and giving that child a home for a child. Going out to interesting places is a luxury for most unless it's part of a holiday. Everyone does the best they can under their circumstances. I'm sure some could say they feel sorry for you as you are not giving your child a taste of reality that they are not the centre of everyone's day. My dd actually didn't like nursey one day soon after starting and when I asked why she said there were too many children, so I thought perhaps I should have sent her in to nursery for a few days instead of keeping her at home just because I could. I know several sahm being one myself and some do lots of activities and some do just the library and toddler groups. I know mums and ex work collegues who work and their preschoolers are in nursery, they aren't mising out, they are getting a different experience and as long as the child is happy and healthy and cared for, it's good parenting as far as I'm concerned.

have you people never heard of sleeping with the fishes?

aquariums is dangerous, I tells ya

it is possible to invvest a lot of time in older children while working. As long as your dc know when you both have time together, and know that their parents will listen

Findtheriver - good points re the working partner of a SAHM.

I also am finding I am 'needed more' as dd1 gets older (she's 8). But I can do this whilst working. It's for me to juggle and manage and to share with DH.

Watch it pointy. I have two miners. Plus a carpenter and a couple of servants.

blueshoes, you're right - it is interesting and very complex! I suppose some of my concern comes from the fact that the current prevailing UK context (controlled crying, short-term bfing, children in own bed from very young age, etc etc) can combine with lacklustre professional childcare (not that professional care is always lacklustre...) to result in children who are lacking in what you call 'high-touch' care.

As I've said a few times, my concern (such as it is) is with those nurseries that are just 'good enough', like the one I described below that treated DS2 so badly - its OFSTED reports have always been satisfactory. And the recent OFSTED report found that nurseries in areas of economic deprivation are much more likely to be failing than those in affluent areas - so the parents in those areas don't have the option of just taking their child to the better nursery down the road, because often there isn't a better nursery available.

Tonton, agree that Oliver James is a knob. He just writes popular sensationalist stuff which makes him money. This thrashing of the role of genetics is dubious, he is on thin ice there. BTW he wrote They F* you up even before he had children. He is selective in the studies he quotes, if he quotes any at all.

Anyone who cites OJ as a expert is suspect and deluded. You can do better.

we've nearly all got miners, mill workers, servants, farm labourers etc in our pasts. The industrial revolution was fairly hellish for the vast majority of people.

Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?

(I ramble)

Quattrocento on Sun 16-Nov-08 17:12:36
"My survey on aquarium-going has conclusively proven that it causes lasting emotional and psychological damage. More even than attending nursery 24/7."

This is indeed true and the reason is obvious: it is an out-of-the-home activity, in the hands of strangers, which has no foundation in real lasting attachments to fish of your own family. The only proper solution is to provide your own loving caring home aquarium environment, such as is afforded to the young corydoras.

(shame about that leak on the carpet, but sooner or later I will live that down...)

I thought women traditionally did stay at home in the olden days? My granny did, my mum did, her sisters did. All working class so no wet-nurses etc. The women being able to go to work is a recent (last 20 years) type phenomena.
S'why 1950's housewives were at the gin

fishes are boring.

also can't see how the average person cant afford the zoo or Aquarium. The local zoo requires a mortgage sized entrance fee and your firstborn's soul.

Slightlysad: I guess you children are still quite young though aren't they?

Why are you so obsessed with: "taking your children to lots of extra groups and activities outside of their home"?

Do you think that makes you a better Mum, or realy contributes one jot to their overall outcomes later on in life?

I'm genuinely unclear as to why you keep banging on about all these activities you or attach so much importanc to them.

Likewise, why would it be important for nursery staff to take children out of the nursery, when nurseries are purpose built ideal environments for pre school children anyway? All f/t daycare nurseries have to have a outside space (which I agree is important, so they can run and let off steam/excercise/getfresh air)

Are you involved in a competition or something, to fit the most activities into a week for your LO?

Call me old fashioned but I really don't see the benefits of dragging small kids round to endless activities and often get the impression that some parents (who may either work or be SAHMs) do this to make them selves feel good. i.e. "if I spend loads of money on whizzy activities it must make me a good parent"

I've never quite got that logic.

Good parenting is surely about providing love and security rather than throwing money at spuriou over priced activities to make mothers feel good about themselves

but then perhaps I am just cynical

cory

SlightlySad, your salary could not cover childcare despite your sterling academic history. You did not make a choice to SAHM, that choice was made for you. I feel slightly sad that you do not have the opportunity to enjoy a fulfilling career AND raise happy sparkly children with childcare. I feel you are missing out.

Surely you could use that education to read all the posts answering your OP. Or is your education wasted as well?

You said: "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?".

This reminds me of a childhood question: 'would you rather marry a rich handsome man or a poor ugly one'? If you frame your question in this way, it is a tad leading, don't you think? Are you interested in genuine answers or just in beating your drum?

needmorecoffee on Sun 16-Nov-08 17:35:03
"fishes are boring."

not my fishes

just re-read OP's OP. Blimey, singing classes and what have you. I took my 3 to toddlers once a week and that was it. There wasn't all these classes back then. They played while I cleaned up and came to the shops with me daily to get dinner. And that was it. At 3 they could go to Playgroup - and you paid for it too - couple of mornings a week.
Wondering what a 'baby class' is?

needmorecoffee

also having a little smile here, as everyone gets their working class credentials out

you got special fishes Cory? My goldfish leapt out the tanka nd I found it stuck to the table.
I did take my 3 to an Aquarium once and got the 2 smallest to sit in the double buggy so I could pretend they were under 3. Darn good thing too cos they were bored rigid after 10 minutes.

at all the fishes.

I agree with you mygreatauntgriselda

one thing that always strikes me from these sorts of threads is this

how come posters that work full time insist they miss nothing about their children growing up, even though they might only see the child for a couple of hours a day, and posters who have been at home since having children "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."

so...working full time DOESN'T do any damage whatsoever to the relationship with your child but not working DOES do damage to your earning potential

something doesn't add up

But they are totally different things?

Don't get your point.

needmorecoffee on Sun 16-Nov-08 17:34:23
"I thought women traditionally did stay at home in the olden days? My granny did, my mum did, her sisters did. All working class so no wet-nurses etc. The women being able to go to work is a recent (last 20 years) type phenomena.
S'why 1950's housewives were at the gin"

I think the mistake here is dividing human history into two parts: the present and the past and assuming that all the past was the same. In a childcaring sense, there is a huge difference between say the 1950's and the early Victorian days. In Victorian days most working class mothers could probably not afford to spend their whole day at home getting bored- they were working in factories or even in coal mines in the early V period- and if there was noone to mind the children, they just had to be left unminded. Child mortality was huge.

Even in the less hectic Middle Ages there were an awful lot of accidents because children had to be left unattended while their mothers were working.

The 1950s otoh were a relatively affluent period when an unprecedented amount of families could afford to live on father's income alone.

Agree with all of policywonk's posts on this thread.

you got an references for that? I'm interested as I love history. I had the feeling in victprian times the mums were at home with 14 children and spent all day with mangles and suchlike. Was there a difference between rural dwellers and city dwellers?
My gran had her 3 dauughters in the 30's and stayed at home. During the war she did do factory work because it was required and her mum watched the kids outside of school hours.