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.

You view isn't unique luna - but it is your view and it is best for you-there isn't anything that is the way or best for everyone.

Seeing as you like to quote seeker "The thing is, I don't think there is ANYBODY who, if money was no object, would choose full time nursery over a nanny."

pisces in fact there IS a consensus on what is best for the child.

I would choose full time nursery over a nanny-which just shows we are all different!

Facebookaddict - I would. Provided it's a nursery which is as great as the one my daughter is going to anyway.

It isn't best for the DC burstingtotalkaboutit if the mother can't stand being at home! I am afraid that I wouldn't have one to one care for mine if I was unable to be a SAHM because I am not willing to leave a baby with just one person when the baby is unable to talk about it. I was a SAHM but I adored it and so therefore I was bound to be best, if I was depressed and resentful I wouldn't have been best.
In an ideal world people would have choice but sadly many women are forced to use child care-I don't think it helpful to tell them that they should be at home if they want to but can't. Not everyone is working to go on skiing holidays and have a smart car!
Some DCs love having one to one care-some thrive in a nursery. They are individuals-there is not 'the' way.

Pisces - I agree, my own experiences as a mother are completely different to my mums. She had to work, she wasnt at home for me, she had no choice, Im lucky that I dont have to work I am at home for my kids. I still had a happy childhood, though did love it when mum had a day off work and was at home when I came home from school. Its what I would for my kids, its just an opinion, Im very miffed to be treated like a complete idiot by certain others just for airing it.

"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 don't quite understand this. Can you elaborate?
Surely plenty of women decide to SAH because of society expectation. At least in my neck of the wood I haven't seen much pressure in the other direction.

I never said that every mother who works does so for selfish reasons, just that some do.

Bursting - do you think that having a parent at home with them all the time who is genuinly unhappy about being at home is more beneficial than the parent working full time and the child being in a good daycare setting?

"Having children is first and foremost a lifestyle choice, just as others choose to be childless"

Errr, the economy and infrastructure of the UK would disintegrate very quickly if we stopped having children. If human civilisation is to continue, women need to have children! That's why some countries with very low birthrates are offering fiscal incentives for women to have larger families - because the economy needs them to reproduce at a certain level for the economy to function properly.

It's also not a 'lifestyle choice' in the sense that having relationships and falling in love are not a 'lifestyle choice' - they fulfil a basic human instinct.

In answer to the OP - I think one to one care from a loving care-giver is developmentally more appropriate for tiny babies and very young children (under 3's?) than institutional group care. That said - you do have to take into account the quality of the relationship between the carer and the child, and the quality of nursery provision.

There is pressure in my area to work-lots of women don't want to leave their babies, but they need to pay the mortgage and buy food!
(Before you say they could have a smaller house-I should point out that one salary doesn't pay the morgage of a small terraced house!)

Ah - sorry facebookaddict, the bit about me thinking my choice was the only valid one threw me. I was genuinely very surprised to discover that people would choose nursery over nanny - it seems counter intuitive to me. But I have learned something.

I would choose a nanny first, but I am unlikely to find one that I consider good enough!!

luna- it was the way you aired it, not the actual view. By the way, I work because I enjoy it and because I gain a lot of self esteem from it, not just to pay the bills.

I guess you can call it selfish, but why should a parent (i.e one of the two, gender irrelevant), have to give up their life totally to their children? This will only trigger resentment and unhappiness in the long run.

bursting yes thats what I meant.

As a society we need to support parents to be parents. That means good quality choices - parents to be supported to be at home or to go to work with the best interests of the individual child in the individual situation at heart.

Personally I enjoy work. However it is not the main reason I work - that is financial and as the main wage earner I have to. We would be better off if DH stayed at home but he would not be happy and neither would the children because of that. Why this seems acceptable but it is not acceptable for a woman to feel this way I am not sure (I am not saying this is your opinion just one I have encountered).

The other problem is job type. In my job, if I took 5 years out I simply would not return. I take a risk by taking only six months off and during my maternity leave actually have to apply for grants, think about writing papers etc etc (I am an academic). There is a very long thread on the employment issues thread about this). This time I hope to take a year off again but am already worried about the impact on my career and know that I will have to be writing in the evenings or whenever the DC are asleep. There are lots of professional jobs like this - and this is what needs to be dealt with as well. I would imagine if you worked in a less pressurised job (in this respect I dont mean less worthy) then there would be less need to rush back for this reason.

So yes we need a plan as a society to improve the situation and give real options.

WidowWadman - but SAHPs don't "give up their lives totally" to be with the children. Not unless they are stark raving bonkers!

You might give up your earning power. But most functioning human beings are rather a lot more than economic agents...

widow I was quoting seeker. Not my opinion!

standanddeliver, on the issue of the lifestyle choice of having children, there are ways of creating more future taxpayers that do not involve incentivising the population to have children. Immigration for one, is a good and environmentally friendly way of doing this.

Yes, it is a basic instinct to have children. But I don't see how this means that a government paying people to have children. It is basic instinct to envy your neighbour. Should the government reward theft?

All governments in developed countries support parents financially. None of them think it is a "lifestyle choice".

Bonsoir - for me work is not only an economic function, but also source of my identity. I wouldn't feel complete without work, in the same way as I wouldn't feel complete without my family.

I started feeling genuinly unhappy towards the end of maternity leave and craved my return to work. For me SAHP-ing would have meant giving up my life. And I don't think I'm the only one who feels like that.

I know others who always wanted to be SAHPs, and they're happy, so that's great for them.