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.

ssd, why is it wrong to say you are bored at home? I said the same thing because it is .... true of me. Not of anyone else who prefers to be home with their dcs than at work.

I see your point about childcare workers also being bored. But as I explained, it is different at nursery because childcare workers are NOT parent substitutes in my mind or more importantly, my dcs' minds. My dcs don't seem to clamour for their attention in the way they do for mine. They have their friends, toys and activities to keep them occupied.

So carers can safely be bored without too much trauma to my dcs.

Every job has its boring bits and its stimulating bits. I always tell my dcs that they have to put in upfront effort in the boring bits (ie homework, practice etc) before they get good enough to enjoy it.

It is normal to be bored from time to time. If the balance tips too much into boredom for too long, as widow says, it is time for a change.

As a child I thought "why have children if you're not going to look after them" now I am an educated adult I secretly think the same, but seeing lovely friends of mine who love their children dearly, send them off to nursery stops me from saying it aloud. I think if these friends stayed at home and came to my house or got out and about in their community when they were bored we'd all have a nicer time! They might have less disposable income, but I think most people consume too much anyway.
Work less - but do have a parent earn your income and play more!

I make it sound as if the relationship between my dcs and the carers at nursery is clinical. Actually, it is not.

There is mutual affection. Not the intense lover-like need that my ds has for me, but a jolly and laid back affection that is nice to observe. In fact, when I am putting ds to bed at night, he will touch my nightie and say 'my teacher says I must touch you here' - I think ds might have been trying to touch her boob and she told him he could only touch her clothing lower down!

harecare - for me a child is a little human who I love to see growing up and discover this world. I enjoy the child's company as she's little, and I look forward to meeting the teenager and adult she is going to become.

I chose the form of childcare, and I take note of how she's doing there. She's spending 50 hours per week there, which leaves 118 hours per week with us. How dare you say that we're not looking after our child?

harecare, you are a bit naive to think that all it takes not to be bored at home with dcs is to be with friends or be out and about in the community. I did all that during my maternity leave and at the end of it was still champing at the bit to get back to work.

Some people just don't like the mummy scene or baby/toddler/pre-schooler stage. And find work far more intellectually stimulating. And no doubt there will be people who find the opposite to be true.

It is not that simple.

Don't understand your last sentence BTW.

But every job has its boring bits! i used to have a very high flying, high profile job - but i was still bored sometimes. Why do people seem to be surprised that some bits of being a SAHP are boring?

Seeker, for me, it is not just some bits of SAHM-dom. It is pretty much 90% dull and repetitive and going through the motions of groundhog day. That is NOT a good balance.

Whereas, if I get my stimulation at work (boring bits included but not so much), I come home and appreciate my dcs more.

I am naive, but so are children. If your 10 year old self would be happy with the idea of full time nursery then that is fine for you, but I know I'd have kicked my adult self in the shins if I thought I wasn't going to stay at home with my children.
I am very lucky as I have a good imagination and a low boredom threshold so I am good at entertaining myself and running the house and through this my children are entertained and learn a lot about homelife as a result.
Widowwadman=sorry you see my post as a personal attack, you're ensuring your child is being looked after, which is slightly different to doing the looking after, the discussion is about which is best, you to do it, or you to ensure the nursery does it well - only you can know which is best.
blueshoes = I just think if people worked fewer hours they'd see their children more, but unless you are a single parent this shouldn't be at the expense of the state. When my maternity leave comes to an end I have calculated how much paid work I shall have to do and I shan't do any more than that.

I really don't believe that there is one correct answer to this. It depends on so many variables.

I'm not a huge fan of nursery for under-three's, so in that respect I'd agree. But, my three year old loves full time nursery after years of one-on-one time with me, and I think that we balance that well with family time at the weekend.

harecare - you seem to ignore the point I made, that when the child is not at nursery, she is still looked after by us. I find this whole "why did you get children in the first place" thing a bit stupid, because in a family situation with one full time working and one SAHP, the working parent never gets asked it.

Regarding kicking your adult self in the shin - I'd have done that if the adult self would have decided to throw away all her hard work to get a good job in order to stay at home, when today it is possible to hold down a fullfilling job and have an enjoyable family life.

Again, some people want to stay at home, because they enjoy it. That's great. But there's no need to validate your choice, by declaring other people's life models as wrong.

harecare, I don't have your good imagination clearly because this idea of a 10-year old self and adult-self sounds a bit split personality. I am me and I know myself. I also know my dcs.

If my dcs did not settle in nursery, it is not as if I would ignore that. That would be the cue to explore other options in childcare and working arrangements, even less hours. But if it works, then our family is very lucky indeed.

By all means arrange your life to satisfy your desire not to kick yourself in your shins, whilst I arrange my life to suit my and my family's needs.

I somehow managed to miss your 'why have children' comment because it is so common in certain types of thinking and utterly uninspired that it is water off a duck's back. But do ask your breadwinning dh why he wants to have children and should give up the opportunity not to kick himself in the shins whilst you get to do what you like.

As for your comment about single parents not relying on the state, not sure where that came from but I am sure that is fodder for a whole different thread.

Harecare - if every parent thought the way you did- 'why have children if you are not going to look after them' - you do realise that the economy would grind to a halt.

Even looking at my parents generation - they didnt stay at home to look after kids. The majority of my parents peers actually worked with extended family taking care of the children. So why did my parents have us if all they were going to do is work? And by god, they worked. 12 hour days, 7 days a week. And it has done me no harm whatsoever - I am incredibly close to my mother. What is has done is install a good work ethic in me - that started at school and has stayed with me throughout my career.

You obviously believe that you are doing the best by staying at home with your children - good for you and the others that believe that. I am so glad that works for you and your family.

But I believe that I am doing the best for my DS and my family by working outside of the home 3 days a week. If I thought that DS was unhappy or our family was suffering as a result of that choice, would I reevaluate, absolutely!

But just as much as you think it is important to stay at home. I think there is a very valuable lesson in showing children the value of a good education by having a good career outside of the home. I am not saying that those who choose to stay at home are not also showing the value of a good education, but that is what I truly believe.

Everyone believes what they believe. And everyone does what they think is best. But please drop the 'why have children if you are not going to look after them'.

I honestly couldnt give a monkeys what other people think or do. But that line makes me want to violent things. I believe it is the equivalent of saying something along the lines of 'please dont use up university/ college places studying to be doctors/ lawyers/ teachers etc etc if you are going to throw it all away to stay at home with your kids'. Give those places to people who are going to actually give the skills back to the taxpayers (who have funded the education) they have been trained to give.

Quite insulting don't you think?

"why have children if you're not going to look after them"

Maybe you don't like small children but do like adult children? Maybe you want an heir? Maybe you consider it a civic duty? Maybe you thought you would want to look after them then found you didn't? Maybe you didn't plan to have children?

There are many reasons why one would have children but not want to look after them. Having children just beacuse YOU want to look after them is ultimatly a a selfish act.

The idea of a non-working mother who looks after the children is a pretty recent invention. For most of human history, rich people had servants to look after their children, and poor people worked and found childcare where they could.

BTW - I certainly didn't have a child for any reason other than I wanted one

guilty of not reading all of thread but get the general jist. My dd goes to nursery 3 days a week and has done since she was 7 months old she's now 3. She loves it and the balance suits us perfectly. There's no way, mentally i could do full weeks of childcare on my own going to god awful mum and toddlers, brain numbing activity session etc. etc. Onn our days together me and dd have a lovely time (well sometimes ) because we appreciate our time together it's not a chore and we plan nice things to do. As she gets social life and stimulation at nursery I don't feel the need to persecute myself at a group activity i know I'll hate.

We do painting/baking/girly days/or just hanging out. By wednesday after monday and tuesday together we're both ready for nursery! She goes to an excellent place which fulfills many of her needs in ways I'd sruggle with, other posters have already listed the reasons for their dcs so I'm not going to repeat them.

Have x4 days next week as nursery is closed and am quite anxious about it as I do get v bored doing kid stuff. Am on mat leave at mo too, ds is 12 weeks and the other day at baby music singing row row the boat I thought if I have to do this every weeks for another 5 years my brain will start to dribble out of my ears and for this reason I'm returning part time when he's 1 and putting him in the same nursery.

Financially we're a lot better off than when we had dd and dh hads said i could give up work but it's not something I'd ever do. My pride prevents me from doing so and for my own mental health I need the stimulation of a non mummy, adult working environment. Also like the extra cash to buy clothes/make-up/weekemeds away etc. I've worked hard to get to where I am in my career so am not goig to give it up to spend my life enslaved by full time childcare.

Selfish? Maybe but that's just how it is for us and our family.

Just popping in to disagree with the points made that dcs cannot just 'be' at nursery - I think my dd potters about there going from toy to toy or the books or the dressing up etc in a much happier way than she does at home where she potters to the pc (no!) or the washing machine (no!) or the christmas tree etc - I think this idea that they are constantly being made to do things they dont want to at nursery ridiculous.

I speak as someone who is a sahm for 3 days of the week and used to run a playgroup and got really involved with preschool activities btw am not someone who finds looking after babies and dcs mindnumbing...

I don't understand why posters feel the need to "dumb down" life to meet children's needs, whether that be at nursery or at home. My DD always followed my lead as to what to do when she was little and was very happy to do so - IMVHO small children are delighted to help a parent hang out the washing, clean, tidy, shop etc as any other activity, and all those daily tasks teach children myriad useful skills.

I think we have been fed the line that looking after children is low status work for so long that it has become part of our mental furniture. To some extent this is an unintended consequence of the feminist movement - the idea that fulfilment can only come from paid, outside the home employment.

I think that if you are within the confines of the same child-safe, child-oriented environment day-in-day-out, that isn't particularly skilled or interesting work.

If, however, you carry on with your generally stimulating adult life using your full range of skills that you have developed to navigate the world, albeit with children in your wake, I wouldn't qualify that as either dull or low-status.

I don't know when a large section of society began to think that children needed this Club Med/Disney/Toys'R'Us existence. I think it's really bad for children!

But who thinks that Seeker? There are many women on MN who feel that they wouldn't be fulfilled as a SAHM; that doesn't mean that being a SAHM isn't fulfilling for some women.

I wouldn't find being a zoo keeper or a circus performer fulfilling, but I am sure that some people would.

People just want different things in life; hopefully feminism has given people more choice. I really don't think there is a great danger of anyone stopping women from being at home if that is what they choose to do.

I agree with Bonsoir about the silliness of a lot of child specific environments. One of the best things about children has got to be introducing them to many of things that exist in the world that you yourself enjoy.

agree seeker, also I believe this view is borne out of the feminist movement

I have read a lot of patronising posts on MN from mums who work and believe staying at home is beneath them

without reading all the posts on the thread, what suits one child/family doesn't suit another. I've known children who have been at nursery full time, who are lovely kids. I've also known children who have had a SAHM, who've been absolute spoilt brats. No-one's situation is quite the same as another's, and I won't presume to judge until I know more about an individual situation.

Seeker - I certainly dont think that staying at home to look after children is low status work. And I havent read any post (on this thread) that has suggested that (apols if i have missed it). I think that different things suit different people, therefore every person finds fulfillment in different ways.

Bonsoir - on the days I am at home, I certainly dont 'dumb down' my day to day activities. Maybe your children are happy to participate in all you need to do around the house/ whilst out and about - lucky you! But I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, my DS (at 2.3) is not. He will clean/ garden/ help cook etc etc for a certain amount of time. But once he is bored, then mummy needs to stop too! Especially indoors at shops - he hates them!

Agree mistletoe. My dcs are like yours.