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.

seeker I do choose full time nursery for both my DC over a nanny (actually in sw6 where I live the nanny option is cheaper!!) and would do again and again fit all the reasons mentioned before.
You insulted Xenia for not listening to other views (and punctuation!) but you infact have done this yourself continually throughout this thread. Blueshoes and myself have both said that we are financially and intellectually able to choose but you insist on seeing your decision as the only rational choice!

Jesus what is the matter with you people, cant air an opinion without being patronised, if you dont get what im trying to say, ask me to explain myself, not give a bitchy response. Ive only just joined this shit, and am quickly realising its incredibly bitchy.

children as a lifestyle choice is shocking imo.

of course it is a choice whether you have children or not. but to equate them to for eg. the area you choose to live in???

once you have children, they should be the priority no?

ANY THOUGHTS ON THE UNICEF REPORT????

Bursting- the times article you link to addresses the problem of children in bad quality childcare, with badly trained staff, where the children's needs aren't met. And even the article, notes:

"The report notes that high-quality formal childcare can bring huge benefits to children, particularly those from disadvantaged homes, expanding their social and cognitive development and providing them with stimulation that they might not get at home"

If I couldn't look after them myself I would choose a nursery. I wouldn't want to leave a non verbal DC with one adult-or not unless I knew her really well and knew her parents and friends and whole background.

Keep your knickers on, bursting. Read the context of my post - it is not long. I am using the term 'lifestyle choice' in relation to whether it is an appropriate item to be given fiscal recognition by a government in power.

Not in the context of buying washing powder.

lunastellina, we can only go by what you actually write. I'm not a clairevoyant who knows that by "woman" you actually mean "men and women". Your highly emotive language, patronising use of words such as "love" (and yes, you started it) makes you look like a tit.

luna darling, if you bother to actually read the posts before yours, you will understand the error of your ways. Try to keep up.

Miskeyed "fit" should be "for"

blueshoes that is how I read it. so there shouldn't be any social policy then? because if the area of the welfare of children isn't legitimate in your eyes I really don't know what would be.

widow - implying i give blow jobs on demand isnt patronising? I have explained the women coment rather than man or women get over it.

Bursting, children in disadvantaged, deprived circumstances and who fall through the net, yes. Children of middleclass homes, no.

blue shoes, sweetheart, can i be bothered to read over 100 messages, when all i wanted to give was an oppinion that i believe that babies are better off with a parent (man or women) at home. jesus.

Well Luna, my blowjob on demand comment was before you explained that in your dictionary "woman" means "man or woman".

And at least I haven't resorted to swearing yet.

UNICEF REPORT

I agree yes - under twelve months is not ideal at all but the issue here is that we are not set up in this country to deal with the issue of parents needing childcare. What is a family meant to do during that period of low or no maternity pay? If we look to Sweden and similar countries for a model then maternity pay is much longer and women are more supported.

The other huge problem in this country is poor quality childcare. I am 100% happy with my nursery but the costs are very high - I pay nearly twice what my friends pay and over twice what I could pay leaving them in my work based nursery. However the retention of staff is fantastic - all still there from when DS started 3 years ago, high standards, flexibility etc etc. I do not think children going to sub standard nursery is a good idea at all. HOWEVER the issue here should be how we as a country increase the standard of our nursery care. The word instituionalised does not help.

I am also lucky enough to have a lot of flexibility which means they dont need to be in all day and can be picked up by four. Again however, how do we support parents who need to leave their children for longer - not every job allows this flexibility. Also in our country, if you take five years out to raise a child, you cannot get back into the workplace.

It also depends on the child. DS is a real nursery child who genuinely thrives there. DD not so much and I try and make allowances for this with her spending less time there

The key word here is parents and not mother.

The reason I am sceptical of comments by Biddulph is because he doesnt appear to have run any research himself - he is basing his ideas on other peoples research. If he had spent a career conducting his own research I would be happier to accept his views.

Poor luna, if you cannot read others' posts, why should anyone bother to type out a sensible reply to you at all? I think the blowjob comment puts it quite succinctly. Run along, now.

right well i can see i will have to be very careful how i word any message i write, because one mistake and i'll be attacked, basically i read the original message by gotogirl, thought to myself, oh i think babies are better off at home with a parent, which is not based on any scientific evidence or case study i have read, just my own experiences and those of friends and family, and i do genuinly believe there are parents out there who put their own material wealth over the needs of their children, and i quickly tapped out a message and posted it, not realising that me failing to use the parent instead of women would cause such offence.

blueshoes - do you honestly sit there and read hundreds of messages before you make a comment?

Luna, yes, easily. These arguments go around and round. Your view is not unique.

A thread goes up to a 1000 posts. Enjoy.

"Blueshoes and myself have both said that we are financially and intellectually able to choose but you insist on seeing your decision as the only rational choice!"

I don't think I do, actually. I don't think I have even said what my choice is.

I have repeatedly said that what parents need is proper choices, not pseudo-choices forced by political and financial expediency. Or by societal expectation.

I wouldn't imagine my view is unique, so quite shocked at the reaction.

Can you elaborate, seeker?

Every choice, not just whether to SAHM or WOHM or anything in between, to go to university, to buy a car, to live in a city or suburb, involves trade-offs. Resources not unlimited on an individual or societal level.

peppa, the point is surely that in order for the gross inadequacies you describe to be addressed, the issue of what is best for the child needs to be acknowledged. I take your point but it's no good either saying: oh things are totally f&cked so I just have to make do with how it is...we need to change it. and the first step is to recognise what is BEST for the child and work towards a society that supports all parents of both genders is making that possible for their children.