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, I know I am guilty of saying I am bored at home with dcs. I hope you don't read it to mean that being an SAHM is beneath me. I am just describing what makes me bored. I don't place a value judgment on the value or worthiness of being at home with dcs. If that is someone else's cup of tea and they can afford it, power to them.

Fair enough, if your DCs don't like hanging out doing adult stuff, it might be rather boring being with them!

I don't know how you would go about giving a status to being a SAHM? What jobs would you want to say were of a lower status than being a SAHM?

I think it is better not to give anything a status unless it is really necessary. For example, being a dentist in a specialist children's hospital has a status because you can't let everyone do it. That doesn't give the dentist the right to look down on people; the status awarded just makes sure the right person is in the job.

But being a SAHM shouldn't have a high status because that would suggest that you had to be of a high calibre to be allowed to do it. I don't think women should be encouraged to compete over being a good parent. You shouldn't have to be a particularly good parent to be a SAHM, you should only have to be good enough (i.e. not abusing or neglecting).

There is too much state intrusion and pressure from society on parents as it is. With all of the recent stuff over intrusion into the lives of homeschoolers, I would hate it if the Government started ofsteding preschoolers who are not in childcare. I do worry that is where we are heading.

I don't know what the issue is about status. However, what I very sure about is that the more disposable income a family has, the more potential fun and interest can be found in that family having a SAHP, provided of course that the parent concerned enjoys it.

Staying at home all day with no money to do anything or go anywhere in a poky house would be awful and not much fun for the children.

I found it was better and cheaper to have our first three who were all under 4 at one point looked after in our house by a daily nanny who worked for us for ten years and ilked that set up than if say I had bought 3 nursery places.

We certainly need much less not much more regulation of just about everything.

I am very glad that I have no interest at all in status.

blueshoes- sooo on your wavelength
(and mistletoe and minx)
think there is rather a lot of protesting by certain SAHMs who are very defensive about their 'status' and what us part time/ full time workers think about them. All a bit ridiculous as surely it is down to each individual to make the best choice for their family. I think it's pretty rubbish that some SAHMs spend so much time attacking the choices of other mums who have already had to make a difficult decision (as choosing to have any time away from your kids always is, regardless of why).
Do you honestly think we care any less or are not as good at mothering???
Rude, ill informed and concerning that those DC being discussed are likely to grow up as narrow minded from such one on one care.

as usual on these threads posters seem to view other posters with a different view point to them as "defensive"

each to their own and all that

Maybe, have to defer to your obvious superiority in matters of disagreement

"I think it's pretty rubbish that some SAHMs spend so much time attacking the choices of other mums who have already had to make a difficult decision"

Who has done this? Where?

I don't attack or judge. I do question why looking after someone else's children for money is a job/profession and therefore is a valid life choice for an educated woman while looking after your own children isn't.

seeker, where do you get the impression that looking after her own children is not a valid life choice for an educated woman?

It's terribly boring and most women don't do it and children don't need it. It is also a sell out of all those women who have gone before you to enable you to sit on boards, lead nations and become surgeons so yes stay home and serve male and child needs if you have to but don't think it's not a political and moral decision and don't assume it doesn't manage other women and your daughters and also don't assume it's best for your children either but in a free country I wouldn't ban it and force all chidlren into communal kibbutzim or whatever.

Nice to see you again, Xenia - but something's happened to your punctuation while you've been away.

I choose to be a SAHP - and it is a political and moral decision for me. Any job I take on I do to the best of my ability. So when I worked outside the home I was very successful and highly paid. My daughter knows that.

I now choose not to do that - I choose to look after my children. I do not service a man's needs - that is not my job. Looking after our children, however, is.

OP - you do what is best for you, and that is all.

For me, I chose a nursery for my DD and was very very pleased with my decision. It was the rigt decision for my DD, and over the 4 years DD went to nursery I never had a moment of regret.

I personally could only use a childminder unless I had a personal recommendation from someone I trusted, and even then you are not gettiing one to one care. Ditto nanny.

And SAH was not an option for me.

But he's a good father and he works. He looks after their needs. He delegates it to someone who presumably earns or earned less than he does for all those hours every day. Working parents do their job as parent to the best of their ability and are good loving parents. They also work. Anyway there's no point in arguing over it. Most of us feel secure in our choices but it's good to hear the views of others.

it is still however a kick in the teeth for all women every time a woman becomes a housewive and no surprisingly employers think - gosh yet again I put all that effort into training her and just like all these other women she wimps out of the workplace to breed. what was the point of that? Next time I'll hire a man or a woman over 50 or an infertile woman I suppose. Might as well pull girls out of school at 15 and teach them to cook and sew and change nappies and give good sex if that's what they're going to spend their lives doing.

Do you actually ever listen to anyone else's point of view, Xenia?

I never understand why someone makes their choice and then insists it is the best one! It is best for her! I chose to be a SAHM but it doesn't mean that I have done it all my working life. I don't think that any job is more rewarding than being at home with my babies/toddlers and I wouldn't have missed it for the world. I don't expect everyone to feel the same.

Agree pieces and think some people like to use MN to tell others how great they consider themselves to be rather than offering support

I can't see the point of telling someone they should be at home, if they are not the type to suit it, or then tell them they are damaging their DCs! Some parents who 'devote' themselves to their DCs are quite damaging! There isn't the way to parent-and even if there was -it wouldn't suit all DCs!

Oops just realised should have written pisces damn auto spell

conversely others shouldn't squawk why have children mantra...to those who chose work and childcare

bottom line,do what suits you
we arent all same.

Ha ha Xenia, you're either being deliberately provocative or you've gone down the extreme/anti/warped feminist route of a parent's role in the home is without value at all.
I know my secret thoughts of "why have children if you don't look after them" is impractical, provocative and not really my true feeling on whether a child is best with one carer at home or nursery, but I know it is how I felt as a child and so I expressed it on here as such. The majority of my friends who are dear loving mothers don't care for their children full time, but I don't think any less of them. I sometimes feel as seeker suggests that choosing to be at home is in fact viewed as of a lower status to this, but I know my friends don't judge me as such. Saying being a sahm is boring does make me feel judged to be boring though.
I was lucky as my Mum looked after me and my siblings full time and it is from this that I learnt how to be a good parent and household manager. My siblings male and female are majority main breadwinners (I was until dd2) and all take the main domestic duties, especially my brothers. I wish to pass these skills to my children and I just don't think they teach parentcraft or home economics at school and certainly not nursery.
Disclaimer - I am not saying those of you who work out of the home don't teach these things to your children, but it is the reason that I think the OP is not being unreasonable.

Pisces and scottishmummy - both sides of perfectly valid choices put across nicely IMO.

Harecare - it is interesting that you thought as a child, 'why have children if you aren't going to stay at home and look after them' if your mother actually stayed at home with you and your siblings. I thought such a strong view was based on personal experience...or are you basing it on what you saw your friends parents doing???
Your mum was at home and you see how critical that was for you, so you are doing the same. My parents worked outside of the home and I see the benefits that gave me; so hope to pass the same lessons onto DS. Albeit with a little more work/ life balance. For me this isn't about status but simply taking what I believe were the strengths in my parents parenting decisions and continuing them in my life.

And for those who think Xenia is being extreme, let me present another view. I studied at Oxbridge alongside some very bright people; but at this stage, lets focus on the women. Quite a few of these women came from very wealthy families where the mother was a SAHM, who married young and had their children in their twenties (so I would say relatively young to the average age of first time mothers today).
These women studied very hard, got themselves good degrees, went into the city etc, found themselves nice husbands, married and had children. Fine, no problem with that - their choices.
But I went to a college reunion a few years ago where one of my friends professors is now the college dean. And you know what he said one of his pet gripes was? That perfectly intelligent women whose life ambitions were no more than settling down to get married and have children were taking places at the university, and taking places away from highly ambitious, hungry individuals who would do more with that education. I am not saying he is right or wrong in his view. I dont really know what I think about it. And maybe it comes back to the whole thing of how a SAHM is viewed in society. But I can see his point.

ime you are right and my personal experience is that it is far better to have children looked after in their own home by a nanny than any other childcare but of course, it's the most expensive option

nursery failed my baby totally (she was around 15 weeks when she started). In my experience, and I've still seen nothing that changes my mind about this, nurseries are no place for babies.

I think they work much better for toddlers but even then, there's nothing a nanny at home couldn't do that a nursery can (i.e. the nanny can take them to good playgroups) and you are guaranteed loads more outdoor activities when they are not in a nursery.

That's not to criticise people who use nurseries. In the end, you've got to be content with the decision you make and you make them knowing your own child and also by whatever funds you have available to you.

But using a nanny saved us money in the end as our work was disrupted a lot less and the children were far happier.

and I should say, for us it was full time nursery, not the odd day here and there as we both work full time and don't have any family help. As fizzpops says, this is different to part time or one day here and there.