Am I being unreasonable to think that good care with one carer at home is better than good care at a nursery?

[gotogirl]

I haven't namechanged, because I am not ashamed of asking this. It is a genuine question.

Following the thread from the mum who wanted appreciation of her parenting skills for having a good-sleeper / well-behaved 3 year old - i know it is contrary to MN netiquette to start a thread re a thread, but this is a related topic, not the same one.

Anyway, that mum suggested if it is all down to luck, she may as well pop her DD into nursery and feed her fruit shoots....cos being lucky, this "adverse" things would not affect the outcome. So, she clearly put "nursery" in the adverse category.

A few people picked her up on this and said nursery is not evil etc.

[Bear with me, this is long, I know]

My question:

does anybody genuinely feel that nursery is as good as or better than being cared for by single carer in home environment?

My thoughts: that the OP from other post is eriously misguided in thinking nursery = adverse environment. But, but....

I struggle to think that nursery is going to be better than one-to-one care at home unless home carer is ill / depressed / incapable etc.

Let's get to the point:

Am I being unreasonable to think that good care with one carer at home is better than good care at a nursery?

BTW, my kids are not cared for one-to-one at hom; I work and this is not possible. but i found what I fgeel is next best thing. I myself do not think it is superior care to what they would get if I were able to become SAHM. But economic reality dictates work for me.

Fair enough, Bonsoir. That is your view. I will beware of non-autonomous adults in my midst.

Another MN thread where two sides get more and more entrenched and insulting. Falling into cliches of the SAHM who is bored and depressed and incapable of stimulating her poor offspring against the WOHM who has money to burn on flippant purchases and expensive holidays and has damaged children who wouldn't know her in a crowd.

FFS

Different people have different challenges in their lives and maybe you should think about that. The SAHM who feel the WOHM are patronising them and the WOHM who that the SAHM are patronising them. Same pattern.

My circumstances are - I have a high status job that quite frankly means sod all to me. My DH is chronically ill and at 41 will probably never work again. A few years ago he spent months on end in hospital and I had to increase my working hours to keep a roof over my children's head. I would love to be able to sell this house and live somewhere smaller to free up time with my DH and DCs but in case you haven't noticed there is a bit of a recession at the moment and the housing market is pretty dead in these parts. The house was perfectly affordable with DH working and me doing 15 hours a week generally in evenings and weekends so the DCs were always with one or other of us. I thought we had it sussed. But the amazing thing is that the DCs are ok and we all know that our family comes first - they are a bit older now and I'm pregnant again. DH will be at home when I go back after maternity leave and I hope he stays well enough to look after our miracle baby. But no matter how much we struggled there are no issues re attachment in this household.

Good job I'm not sensitive enough to the SAHM preaching to feel I have failed but some people on MN might be. I am sure there are people on the SAHM end of the spectrum who could also be made to feel like failures by WOHM. Surely winning the argument and defending your positions is not as important as being a bit more sensitive???

I am of the opinion that nursery is more appropriate when they can at least move themselves. Though about 18 months is the youngest I personally think. Although good childminders are very hard to find, especially where I live. If there wasn't a good CM nearby I would have probably chosen a nursery. Though DS went to CM until a few weeks ago as she decided she didn't want to look after him anymore as she is heavily pregnant.

I chose a nursery as the one near by is excellent and is a lovely environment. DS is 20 months and loves seeing other kids and has settled in very well for a day and a half. My mum looks after him 2 mornings a week (and I get to see him during that time) and I am lucky to work flexibly so my DH looks after him at the weekends whilst I do some more work. Its all a bit of a juggling act but means that he gets to experience a variety of environments.

My toddler needs more attention than the 6 month old. He goes to nursery 2 mornings a week, thats when I get to chill out. If Im feeding the baby he does a wee on the floor or throws a football at the xmas tree, it would be a hell of a lot easier for me to send him to nursery everyday but I honestly dont believe that he would benefit from going that often, and before I get attacked by parents who do send theirs FT, this is my opinion and my personal choice for my kids, and I do understand that Im very lucky not have to go to work and I know that others do. Hope I havn't managed to offend anyone.

If any of you have given up your work in the best interests of your children, please don't stop just because they are (conveniently) at school. They need you even more as school-age children and teenagers.

In fact, if I were investing in the development of my children (I would not though, bad WOHM), I would move mountains to ensure I am there for them after they start school, rather than when they were ickle babies and toddlers who did not care whether I attended their christmas play or had homework to do, or had playground issues with their friends.

Actually mollybob - I never see SAHMs getting attacked for wanting to stay at home with their children on these threads. That's always the irony. If that's what works for you and your family, then that's great. I do get heartily pissed off being told I should have aborted my much wanted child because I can't raise him in the way that someone else decrees is the only way.

Just re-read and I think I have contradicted myself totally. I would put a baby in a nursery rather than put them in a not good CM. Good childcare makes a humongous difference. But if I had a choice 18 months is the age I would put my child into nursery.

some of the SAHMs on this thread do feel attacked surely - they certainly come out all guns blazing

what annoys me is how black and white people are - you are all millimetres away from your planned lives turning completely on its head.

Oh my, elf.

I had to see who made the abortion comment. It was you.

Says it all. Really. You've lost it.

I don't know why the SAHMs feel attacked, truly. I haven't read any posts that have said that it was a bad thing for you and your children to do that. Seriously - please point me to the posts that are attacking SAHMs for staying at home with their children.

Hope your baby grows a big brain, elf. Well done, on the bf-ing front too.

Leonie - its not that black and white. When we were younger mortgages were only based on one income and therefore families could afford to live on one income. Now mortgages are relatively much higher. Also women have careers which they value and want to maintain. If men are allowed to do that and are not expected to stay at home why should women be given all the guilt.

I am lucky to have found a part time job but that is not always possible. Not all employers offer flexible working.

I don't think my son would be happier with me all day every day. He loves my mum / DH and she does things with him I don't and he loves nursery.

But the point I was making elf is that by saying WOHM are failing, just like saying bottle fed mums have failed is potentially bloody hurtful to those of us who would like to be SAHMs but can't or who wanted to breast feed and who struggled. It isn't as black and white as either side would like to believe.

The trouble is, people read the sub-text rather than the text. "I find staying at home boring and relish the stimulation that work give me" translates as "Anyone who finds staying at home stimulating must be thick and devoid of imagination or ambition".
"I am happy to say at home with my children" translates as "Anyone who doesn't want to do this is a heartless person motivated by money and who doesn't care about their children's development"

I do think that WOHM mothers get more direct attacks on forums like this. SAHMs get more subtle digs and underminings. Probably balances out in the end.

Seeker, "I am happy to stay at home" is pretty tame.

I have managed to get inured to "why have children" or "you are damaging your institutionalised children with revolving strangers" and the usual digs about choosing gucci handbags and luxury hols over my dcs.

I need to add "attachment disorder" to my list. Tralala.

1:1 care isn't necessarily the default for human beings. If you look at traditional societies, babies and mothers are part of a community, who all help to look after them. If you go back in the history of this country, mother & baby at home alone all day was unusual. Working class women have always worked - with some exceptions at specific times and specific places. The Western 1950s nuclear family of SAHM, Dad at work 9-5 and two kids was an abberation, historically and geographically.

Elf, one-to-one care does NOT happen at home except for the first child. Will you support childcare for older children so that the latest baby will have the holy grail of one-to-one care that their developing brains crave?

The trouble with studies is that they rarely look at the whole picture. It might be better for children to be looked after at home by stimulating and interesting parents, but unlikely to be good for them to be at home with neglectful/dull/drugaddicted parents.

Wealth has a huge impact on children, hence the drive to lift children out of poverty. It is rare to find chaps who are financially able to provide for a family, with housing costs being as they are.

Another factor is that childcare costs drive many women out of the workplace. So even if women want to work, in order to be able to afford 2/3 places they would have to be relatively high earners unless they are able to have relatives etc care for children.

So I'm not sure many women do have much choice when it comes to staying at home or going out to work. And if they do have the choice to stay at home, except for women on benefits, it's largely because someone else is willing and able to make the financial provision for them to do so.