Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1007 replies

SlightlySad · 15/11/2008 08:57

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?

OP posts:
SlightlySad · 16/11/2008 18:13

What do F/T WOHM's miss out on?

Hmm, there's a big list. Obviously, they won't all be applicable to everyone.

-keeping your kids home when they're just a bit ill. I've read countless threads about sending kids to school unless they're dying, or just for a few hours to show willing to employers. Even just keeping them home because they're tired in the first year or so of school.

-hearing the afterschool worries, meeting with other kids and parents in the playground, seeing their teacher and their classroom everyday.

-knowing you've got the freedom to take each day as it comes. Letting your activities suit the child that day rather than them having to go along with the schedule.

-having all of the love and cuddles. Not worrying if they love their other carers more.

-going places when they're not busy, instead of always visiting lovely places on the weekend when they're packed and horrid.

-knowing that you've given your child a much more child-centered up bringing - letting them lead the way.

There are many more. I've no doubt that you'll shoot them all down in flames, but I'm proud that I feel that I've given my children the best start they could have.

But, having said all that, I know that some WOHM's have to WOH for whatever reason, or just choose to because they want to. I will say again that there is nothing wrong with this choice providing that your child is in good quality childcare. But to me, being in one nursery for most of your waking life is not really a good choice.

cory - DS1 went to two nurseries. Never left the grounds with either. DS2 has been at pre-school rather than a childcare nursery, so it's not been an issue as the kids are only there for a max of 6 hours per day.

I'm not hambo btw, but am thankful for her for agreeing with what I think and daring to post it too. I'm sure most people who don't have their kids in nursery would agree too, but can't be bothered to delve into this thread.

Quattro - your post of 'you were not able to earn enough to work and pay for childcare. So staying at home was enforced for you.' is incorrect. I would have earnt enough to go to work and pay for childcare, but not IMO enough to mean that I would want to leave my children. I had other options - unregistered childminders, F/T nursery care, a CM or nursery nearer to my work so my DC would commute with me.... None of these were of any interest to me. I would have had to be earning a lot more before the difference between childcare outgoings and incoming salary would have meant that I would have left my children in childcare. Luckily I have a very understanding DH who would have supported whatever decision I made, even if becoming a WOHM would have meant an overall decrease in our overall incomings.

But, this is meant to be a CM vs nursery discussion which seems to have been hijacked into another WOHM vs SAHM debate.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 16/11/2008 18:13

I've recently found out how fickle I am when it comes to this argument. I've been back at work for just two weeks after nearly five years ruining my career progression as a SAHP, and feel myself practically chanting "WOH WOH" from the sidelines. Three weeks ago, the chanyt would have been quite different.

But then I was a SAHP for my own pleasure rather than any "it's better for my children" POV...

findtheriver · 16/11/2008 18:14

Quattro - I am moving towards that conclusion too.
You have to ask the question about why threads like this are started. Boredom? Frustration? Jealousy? Cos it sure as hell isn't out of a geniune concern about how other people's children are being parented!

cory · 16/11/2008 18:14

needmorecoffee on Sun 16-Nov-08 17:47:10
"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?"

just found this googling, interesting stuff, but there is much more; note the midwives' evidence in particular. I don't think we want to go back to those days.

Economic Change and Sex Discrimination in the Early English Cotton Factories

Douglas A. Galbi*

Research Associate

Centre for History and Economics

King's College, Cambridge

just a couple of quotes:

"Working class women in early nineteenth century England did physically demanding work. Women were employed in agri­culture as day laborers and worked at digging, hoeing, trenching, planting, and gathering.[9] Women, sometimes with help from men, did laundry, a strength-intensive job in early nineteenth century England.[10] Some women also worked in the coal mines pulling coal to the surface on sledges.[11] In early nineteenth century England, it would not have been unusual for a woman to have a job that was highly taxing physically."

"Theories that explain sex discrimination based on the significance of marriage, child-bearing and child-rearing to women's work patterns are on particularly weak ground with respect to the early English factory workforce. For many working class women in early nineteenth century England, poverty or the threat of falling into poverty meant that work in the labor market was a crucially important opportunity. Many female factory workers started working at a very young age -- about 40% began working in cotton mills at age ten or younger.[33] Many continued to work after marriage, and some continued to work through pregnancies and while raising young children. Marriage, child-bearing, and child-rearing had a much less significant effect on women's factory work in early nineteenth century England than the existing literature suggests.[34]"

"Nonetheless, she cited an 1844 survey indicating that, in nine Lancashire cotton mills, 27.5% of women of "marriage­able age" were married.[36]

More comprehensive evidence that Pinchbeck neglected suggest a significantly higher figure. In a sample of 412 cotton mills employing 116,281 workers in 1844, 40% of the females 21 years of age or older were married.[37] Evidence from a cotton factory employing 1220 workers near Ashton-under-Lyne in 1844 shows that 43.5% of the female workers over 21 were married.[38] In a factory survey in 1848 of opera­tives in factories throughout Lancashire, 50.2% of the female cotton workers ages 20 and older were married.[39]

Several decades later Hewitt (1958) presented some additional evidence but in a different way. She focused on the fraction of female operatives who were married. Using a sample of household surveys from the Census of 1851, Hewitt (1958, p. 15) found that in the main cotton districts of Lanca­shire about 26.9% of the female labor force was married. She also stated that 57.4% of the female operatives were over 20 years of age. Given that most women married later than twenty years of age, Hewitt's figures imply that about 47% of the female operatives over 20 years of age were married.[40]

In thinking about the extent to which marriage caused women to leave the mills, this latter figure is the more relevant statis­tic. Looking at the share of married women among all females employed ignores the structure of de­mand for females of different ages. That many girls were employed says little about how marriage af­fected a woman's likelihood of holding a factory job.

In fact, age-specific marriage incidence rates among women workers in cotton factories were only slightly lower than marriage incidence rates for women in the population as a whole. Table 2 shows marriage incidence rates by age for female cotton workers in Lancashire and for all females in England and Wales.[41] The marriage incidence rate for female factory workers ages 25-29 was 67% as compared to 58% for the population as a whole. At other ages the marriage incidence rate for female factory workers was only about ten percentage points lower than for the female population of England and Wales.[42] This evidence suggests that marriage and family did not strongly constrain factory women's work patterns in mid-nineteenth century England.

One might think that pregnancy significantly hindered women's work capacity. While preg­nancy must have been a handicap, working class women in early nineteenth century England did not lose many work days due to pregnancy. A Manchester midwife, when asked whether factory women worked up to the time of their confinement, declared:

Many of them up to the very day; some up to the very hour, as I may say. Some have gone to work before breakfast, and I have had them in bed at two o'clock the same day. A girl has gone to work after her breakfast, and I have delivered her, and all over, by twelve o'clock the same forenoon.[43]

According to the midwife, many of the factory women returned to work a fortnight after confinement, and "three weeks they think a great bit." Another Manchester midwife stated that some factory women went back to work after nine or ten days, while some stayed at home "even three weeks or a month." [44] Such behavior was not limited to factory workers. A female coal miner told an investigator that she worked in the pits while pregnant. She gave birth to her baby in the pit and carried the new-born up the pit-shaft in her skirt.[45]

The growth of a family did have different implications for male and female factory workers. Table 3 shows the number of children in the families of the married workers included in a factory survey. The data suggest that, as the number of children increased, a married woman was more likely to withdraw from the factory than was a married man. This isn't surprising. Since women's wages in the mills were on average about half men's wages, wives had a greater incentive to shift to work in the home than hus­bands did.

While some women withdrew from the factories as they had children, others stayed. Table 3 indicates that 71% of married women working in the factories had children, and 41% had 2 or more children. Some married women hired others to help with cleaning the house, washing, cooking, and sewing.[46] A sample of Lancashire households from the Census of 1851 indicated that about 21% of the married women cotton operatives had children under one year of age.[47] Working women with infants could hire nurses young girls or old women to look after their infants.[48] Wet nurses were not used. Instead, working mothers breast-fed infants at breakfast, noon, and in the evenings, and weaned them as quickly as possible.[49]"

Lockets · 16/11/2008 18:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

cory · 16/11/2008 18:16

On a rural Victorian small-holding, the wife might technically be at home most of the time- but this does not mean that she has time to be looking after her children all the time. She is going to be working hard physically pretty well all the time.

Lockets · 16/11/2008 18:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Judy1234 · 16/11/2008 18:18

I have had 24 years as a working mother of (now) five children. I don't feel I missed out. I don't feel the chilren missed out. I missed out on hours and hours of clearing up dirt and lego and singing wheels on a bus countless tiems and I got to do all those things in limited amounts which I really enjoyed because they were in limited amounts (in other words I got the brilliant deal most fathers in the UK manage to achieve - family life and satisfying working life).

There are compromises always. I preferred breastfeeding the twins direct (the nanny brought them to me) in working hours rather than expressing breastmilk for teh older children which I didn't enjoy during the working day but on balance it was better to keep up the work.

I deliberately choose at the moment to "miss out" on picking up the boys from school at the end of the road because it is boring for me so they walk home alone but again I don't feel that's missing out.

Like most people I balance work, hobbies and children on a daily basis but I never felt I missed out because I didn't have 5 years of unadulterated 24/7 being with them when I was little. In fact with small constantly feeding high need babies I actually felt I gained by being able to be away from them during the working day.

Nor do I feel less bonded with them now they are 24/22/20/10/10 than had I been with them 242/& and slept with them skin on skin (although when they wouldn't sleep we certainly did some co-sleeping notwithstanding that I was back at work quickly after they were born).

Stay at home parents seem to think working parents don't parent and don't see their children but in fact by the time you factor in holidays, maternity leave, time in the night (unforunately if you have non sleepers like mine) before and after work and Saturday and Sunday that's quite a good bit of time to spend with a child.

needmorecoffee · 16/11/2008 18:19

'carrying the newborn up the pit-shaft in her skirts'
What did they do with the babies and toddlers then? Poorly paid work wouldn't have allowed for nannies etc surely?

Quattrocento · 16/11/2008 18:20

Slightly Sad - I read your post earlier "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." to mean that working was not a realistic choice for you.

The whole issue becomes not so much an issue of choice but of a lack of choice for many women

findtheriver · 16/11/2008 18:21

slightlysad - you've obviously given your list a lot of thought and there are some lovely things on it.... but I have to tell you that my children haven't missed out on any of those things. Working parents do get holidays you know - we are able to do all the lovely things we want to with our children. Including picking them up from school now and again. Doing something every day doesnt necessarily make it better! Quality not quantity!!

I don't understand your point about SAHMs giving their kids a more 'child centred' upbringing. I really can't think what you mean by that.

'-having all of the love and cuddles. Not worrying if they love their other carers more. ' - Oh for gods sake. You really have no idea have you! Children of parents who work always love their mummy and daddy best. It's great when they have good relationships with other people too - but maybe you see that as a threat??

So - nope, I'm not missing out on anything and neither are my kids.

There - bet you're disappointed now!!

Anna8888 · 16/11/2008 18:24

In the last fortnight my daughter has started going to bed much earlier than she ever has done - this is because her full day at school has finally caught up with her (she started all day school in September) and she feels tired by about 8pm.

So I now only see her between 4.15 pm and 8 pm on Mondays, Tuesday, Thursday and Fridays. And between 4.15 and 5.30 she is busy playing with her friends anyway, so I don't see her properly.

I hate it. I am very sad. My partner and I are finding it very hard to adjust to child free evenings on Mondays and Thursdays. It is a wildly different life to the life when she was around practically all day and all evening.

So - from someone who is just beginning to experience only seeing her child for a few hours a day - I cannot agree that there is no difference in being a parent all day or for a few hours.

Lockets · 16/11/2008 18:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NorthernLurker · 16/11/2008 18:26

Slightlysad - your patronising presumption knows no bounds does it?

For your information - when my children are ill I stay at home with them or dh does. I see their school and friends every day. I don't worry about them loving their carers more than me because I am not insecure in my role as their mother. They know I would lie down in front of a truck for them. Time at nursery or after school club hasn't changed that. As for activities - all your posts seem to revolve round the idea that if you take your children to exciting and interesting places then all will be well. It takes more than that.

Notreallycutoutforthis · 16/11/2008 18:27

AIBU to suggest that we all of us - whichever we did - SAH, Nursery, nannies, CMs etc, would think that that was the best way to go for our children? We've all made the choices which worked for us, except for those unfortunates who've had the decision made for them by reason of intransigent employers or lack of money for childcare. Second guessing ours or other people's choices doesn't seem to do much but attempt to make others feel guilty, or pile pressure on people currently trying to decide which way to go in the future...

SlightlySad · 16/11/2008 18:27

blueshoes - 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.

You've misinterpreted what I wrote in the same way that Quattro did. Going back to my old job would have meant that I wasn't earning enough for me to want to leave my children. As we are financially fine without me working, I had a choice to make. I chose to stay at home. I had another option of finding a better paid job, but actually, I wanted to stay at home. Perhaps not 24/7, something P/T would have been fab, but where we were living at the time (backend of nowhere due to DH's job) a well paid P/T job was but a dream as I and many friends discovered.

I'm signing off here now for the night. Baths to do, uniforms to sort for tomorrow.

OP posts:
findtheriver · 16/11/2008 18:28

But Anna - it sounds as though your daughter is very happy and adjusting quite normally to thr routine she now has. Which will continue to change over the years anyway.

You say you hate it, and you are finding it hard to adjust. That's a shame - though no doubt you'll soon find that you relish the time and other activities will fill the gap - that's the way of the world.

But that's very different from the child not being happy isn't it?

findtheriver · 16/11/2008 18:29

I think you better had slightlysad, as you are digging that hole deeper and deeper!!

Quattrocento · 16/11/2008 18:29

Reading that list of things I've allegedly missed out on through working, the point which struck me as being most worth commenting on is the one about worrying about whether or not your children love someone else more. They never do. Children aren't like that. It's nice that they have lots of different people to build relationships with and get to know and like. That's a positive for non-parental childcare, not a negative.

mumnosbest · 16/11/2008 18:30

I feel slightly sad for slightly sad (the OP). I didn't get any sense of smugness or criticism from her post, only a genuine sharing of her opinion and a question. It saddens me that most of the aibu posts are responded to in such a negative way. Isn't MN a place to say what you think and ask questions?

I've been a SAHM and working mum and don't feel either of my DC's have missed out. DS went to nursery and has a large circle of friends and is very independent. DD stays at home is a little mor clingy but has a much wider range of experiences. I can't say that either would definately have turned out differently under different circumstances. The only person that missed out imo was me, as although I loved my job, I enjoy spending more time with both my DCs now I'm a SAHM. Having said that I probably appreciated time with my DS more when I was working too.

All just my opinions and experiences, no criticism here

TheFallenMadonna · 16/11/2008 18:30

It was a joke Lockets. I'm not really chanting. I was exaggerating for effect.

I'm really just agreeing with the people who say that you rationalise things according to your circumstances. I think we all do.

Anna8888 · 16/11/2008 18:33

findtheriver - she is fine, though very clearly she has changed in that on the days when she doesn't have school she doesn't want to leave the house much (she loves playing on her own rather than with lots of other children on those days) - so our whole life has changed and we have to find another way of organising ourselves.

Plus I think she has a horrendously long day for a just four year old - we leave the house at 8.30 am and are rarely home before 6 pm... I would rather it were a bit shorter.

findtheriver · 16/11/2008 18:34

Quattro - that was the comment that struck me most too, and made me realise (if I didn't already) that slightlysad is more than slightly out of touch. I have never in my entire existence come across any parent, working or otherwise, who feels that their children love anyone else more than they love their parents.

She obviously hasn't a clue.

PtolemysMummy · 16/11/2008 18:35

People on this thread are making the assumption that if you are a SAHM you are not working. I am a SAHM I don't have childcare but I bring in a higher tax rate income.

SlightlySad · 16/11/2008 18:36

FTR - couldn't resist posting here. We all know that children will almost always love their parents the most, but a lot of people post about this worry when their PFB is starting nursery. That's why I said 'worry' rather than anything else.

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread