To think toddler group shouldn't be handing out such anti nursery literature?

[Ebb]

I have recently started going to a toddler group, run in a church, which is, in general, lovely but today we were all handing print outs of 'Raising Babies' by Steve Biddulph entitled 'Should under 3's go to nursery?'

It basically suggests that babies under 1 shouldn't go to nursery at all. "Organize for your baby to be with a parent or Grandparent all the time except for occassional breaks - days off or evenings out - when you have a trusted and familiar babysitter."

When your child is one "up to one short day per week eg. 9-3 with a trusted and familiar carer. Ideally 1:1 but in a 1:3 ratio at most."

Further quotes include "Some children are not ready (for nursery) until three or more and group care can be upsetting and harmful for these children." and "*Remember - nurseries have become big business. Many nurseries never engage emotionally with their children."

I am lucky in the fact I take my Dc to work with me but a lot of parents don't have a choice and nurseries are the feasible option. Surely a toddler group shouldn't be putting more pressure and guilt on parents by handing out such cr@p?!

Yup, Swedish childcare helps educate Swedish children to become Swedish adults. But the British aren't Swedes .

We are a bit Swedish, or at least Norse.

Spurting no less. The corollary is the 'spunk from his loins'. Nothing like getting back to basics, all motherhood and applepie.

If you intend to hand your small baby or under 2 year old over to a nursery then why have them in the first place? If you don't have a family member or can't find a professional childminder to look after your baby 2 or 3 days a week then why not wait til you can before reproducing? I won't even begin to comment about people who place their babies in full time care.

Nurserys do indeed cause emotional and behaviour problems, that's a fact. The longer the care, the more obvious the problems. I've see it with my friend's kids and I hate it when they visit.

*If handing out this information at a playgroup is an effective way of imparting this information to the masses then so be it. If you don't care to heed the warning then fine, place it in the recycling.

We are ruining our children by palming them off onto strangers. If you want a cheeky, aggressive, insolent child then put them in a nursery.*

For the record, my mother looks after my son 3 days a week. I am lucky, but had she not been available or I could not locate a decent childminder I would have waited to have him, or taken the decision not to work, or share the care with my husband.

The British have a fabulous attachment to individual liberty that is completely at odds with conformist societies.

That's the point. The world/society has changed, but not the basics.

Why is everyone with numbers in their name a dull troll?

Whether or not the guy is right, the church toddler group shouldn't hand out this kind of literature. I used to be involved with the running of a toddler group and we had NO agenda!! other than making sure the biscuits were up to scatch.

The research assumes that every mother is a fabulously enthusiastic mother who is 'mothering' all the time. Well, I'm busted, I'm only an adequate mother, hands up, cuff me. I'm not the only one I bet. Where does that leave the research I wonder? It would skew it I'm sure.

"I used to be involved with the running of a toddler group and we had NO agenda!!"

That's impossible. Everyone and everything has an agenda (though of course they may not be conscious of it).

Conformism is anathema to creativity and flexibility. I am not British myself but for heavens sake, don't lose the qualities that make Britain exciting, vibrant and forward looking.

I'm also a big fan of Penelope Leach. "Your Baby and Child" saw me through many anxious times as a new parent.

"there have been some quite robust rebuttals of his POV on this thread but, as you said, you've haven't bothered to read it so you wouldn't know. "

As far as I can see these 'robust' rebuttals have taken the form of personal abuse of SB, and people who agree with SB, a non-specific and general rubbishing of any research relating to this subject, lots of self-justification, and a general cry along the lines of 'we should all do what the heck we like - they're our kids aren't they'!

What's noticeable is the lack of any real discussion about child development - about the specific developmental and emotional needs of babies and very tiny children, how these differ from the needs of older toddlers, and how these relate to different models of care and nurturing.

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INCONVENIENT.

Hullygully - unnecessary. If it's me you're referring to then I've obviously hit a raw nerve.

Hullygully: "Theories of child-rearing have swung about wildly over the years as we all know ..."

That is the whole point. Isn't it possible that attachment parenting might just be another faddy childcare theory?

Are mothers always nurturing and loving to their children? If you really want to go back to basics, it is survival of the fittest.

You sound remarkably like the other one with numbers who started a troll thread on nurseries this morning. If you're not, you have a doppleganger and should beware.

"The research assumes that every mother is a fabulously enthusiastic mother who is 'mothering' all the time"

Really?

Which particular study or studies are you referring to?

I have never seen research which assumes this. The research which I have seen is retrospective and draws on populations of ordinary mothers.

The trouble with demanding 'empirical' evidence on this question is that it cannot happen. Outside a dictatorship, we cannot insist on (say) 15000 babies matched with another 15000 babies, and assign one group to full time day care from infancy onwards, and one group to no day care, and then compare the results 40 years later. Indeed, even that would not give scientifically satisfactory results because where human behaviour (and not laboratory rats behaviour) is concerned, the variables cannot be smoothed out.

This does not mean we can't be scientific about an approach to deciding on what sort of care is needed by babies and children. We know a lot more than we used to about normal development, emotional needs and the effects when they are not met.

Generally speaking, babies' and toddlers' needs, for example, cannot be met fully if they have a succession/profusion of carers; if they are competing for attention with several other equally young children; if the care is punitive; if there are few opportunities to play spontaneously; if the care is rigid and inflexible; if the baby does not feel loved....and so on.

Mostly, care like this is difficult to provide in a nursery. Probably not impossible, but certainly difficult. It is, mostly, easier to get it from parents. Care that's less than wonderful a few hours a week can be 'repaired' because the rest of the time, everything is ok. But full time? That, not surprisingly, is going to have different effects.

No. Bosoms. Women+bosoms = women+babies being close = desirable ideal. Note, ideal. Obviously if the woman is a psycho/drug addict etc, a substitute is preferable.

And bottle feeding is NOT as good either. Can't stand having to pretend it is either. Another lie for convenience. Tell the truth and be free. Dance in the flowers etc.

"That is the whole point. Isn't it possible that attachment parenting might just be another faddy childcare theory?"

Possibly.

But the vast majority of babies have been breastfed by their mothers for several years and cared for within a domestic environment since the dawn of time. That's because until relatively recently in evolutionary terms most babies were breastfed by their own mothers, or by a mother substitute (wetnurse/sister/grandmother).

Handing your baby over to be cared for within a group of similar age babies by someone unrelated to you is something that's only been possible and common practice since artificial feeding became a social norm.

fabsmum, I have no problem with your last post:

"What's noticeable is the lack of any real discussion about child development - about the specific developmental and emotional needs of babies and very tiny children, how these differ from the needs of older toddlers, and how these relate to different models of care and nurturing.

... so long as you add "and the temperament of the child, the family environment, finances and set-up, the needs of the parents" to reflect how decisions are taken in reality and that one factor does not live in isolation but impinges on others.

"Handing your baby over to be cared for within a group of similar age babies by someone unrelated to you is something that's only been possible and common practice since artificial feeding became a social norm."

No - in pre-revolutionary France urban babies were widely and routinely sent to the countryside to be wetnursed for several months/years.

Jane Austen was, I seem to remember, sent to live with a wet nurse, as were her siblings. It was common at the time in England for upper class children to live with wetnurses until they reached the age of reason (7).

It is not arrogant to say that in this century, we know more about what babies and toddlers need than we used to. I don't care for the label 'attachment parenting' but the attachment theory of how human beings flourish or don't flourish, according to the way they are cared for in infancy, is not a fad at all.

Attachment is a scientifically-respectable understanding that regards a child's need for attention, responsiveness and love as something we should take seriously. It does not demand perfect or even enthusiastic mothering - one of the major thinkers in attachment was Winnicott who devised the phrase 'good enough mothering'. It does not demand a mother, though in practice mothers are the ones around in the first weeks and months.

Good practice in nursery and day care takes from attachment theory, and attachment theory informs all official inspection criteria - it's essentially a child-centric template for care. Even the best nurseries, even the ones who pass their Ofsted inspections, would find it very difficult to be even 'good enough' for a baby or young toddler there for hours and hours every day of every week.

hullygully - I didn't read the 'troll's' post, sorry but I believe you.

I wouldn't normally even take the time to make a comment on Mumsnet but this thread caught my eye. I feel strongly about this issue and have witnessed the results with my own eyes. It aint a pretty sight.

No I'm not dull in the slightest, just proud of my year - and the fact I waited a long time to have a kid, enjoying my youth, clubbing, gigs, life.... instead of rushing into having kids and sticking them into care.

And I'm proud to say my boy is fabulous. Well behaved, full of fun, advanced talking skills, and well adjusted. 100% Nursery free.

Not sure where we are going now that bottle v breast has been dragged in but here goes ...

There is biology and there are cultural/environmental factors. They always go together and interact. Biology does not exist in isolation and there is no nurturing mothering ideal in history other than that that exists in your mind.

More primitive societies that breast feed and bring up children in domestic environments might also swaddle them onto baby boards and leave them pegged up for most of the day to encourage docility. Others might deliberatively avoid eye contact and bring up their sons harshly to breed a warrior tribe.

Mothering practices have always been a construct of the society that the baby is born into and will assume its place.