to be questioning my entire life plan because I read Stephen Biddulph's Raising Babies?

[mrsbean78]

I'm posting this on AIBU because I want to canvass a diverse range of opinions - and because I haven't decided what I think myself.

I have a four month old boy and am in the process of finalising childcare/my return to work arrangements (due to heavy demand in our area).

I've been bothered about my choice (a daycare nursery) since day one, and am going to look into other options before committing and would prefer a childminder.

However, today at the library I spotted the 'Raising Babies' book and as the little man was napping, skim read quite a bit of it.

Wishing I hadn't. So much of it made sense.. it's common sense that a parent will stimulate and respond to a baby more than even the very best childcare worker on a ratio of 1:3, or even 1:1. Amaxing how I never thought of this before!

Just wondering if anyone here read it and threw it in the bin in disgust (and why) OR read it and promptly rearranged their lives naccordingly (and why) OR "other" (and why)?

OP - I think if a book has affected your thinking on a subject then you need to reflect on this.

As has been said people make the choices they consider are right for them - and sometimes there is no choice. I always feel for those mums/dads who would rather be at home with their baby but have financial commitments that prevent this.

However there are some studies about1:1 and siblings (off topic?) - off the top of my head Oliver James talks about the pyschological impact of being an only child as well as the impact of siblings, position in family etc

Such as older child being the more responsible ( or at least feeling the pressure to do well and be the sensible one) to the middle child syndrome and the 'baby' of the family - expected to be looked after by all the other siblings, get away with more, the naughty one etc.

If you look at it from the point of view that the relationship parents have with each sibling is different it is almost as though you have different parents! Plus the potential for being treated differently such as one child put into nursery, one with a cm and one with a parent has implications for when that child is an adult.

I work part-time and boys (DTs) have been in nursery since 18 months (now 2 yrs).

It works well for us. I get time away from them. They get time away from me and to explore the world without me.

It is a particularly good nursery and I am confident in the care they receive. The only downside is that they nap for much less time in the nursery than they do at home. And I believe that being rested is very important to a childs wellbeing.

So, I think for less that 18 months a nanny share / child minder would be best so they can nap as long as they want.

BTW - on the languge front. DT1 has amazing language skills, has a huge vocabularly, knows all his clolours and mimics everything and nursery say he is very advanced for his age [show-off]. DT2 on the hand is probably more like the rest of his peers. So I don't believe that being at home/nusery makes any difference to language development. There is just something inate within a child.

I read Steve B's book "Raising Boys" as I have 2 sons. Lots of good stuff in their about male role models, etc, but as others have said, you cant take one book in isolation. And Steve B is a guy who happens to be against nursery, and going to school at 4. Lots of people feel the same so they read the books and feel vindicated. It's really hard if your mind's not made up and this is the first thing you read...of course it will make you feel like youre maybe doing the wrong thing.

Children are little people and I have found that they generally thrive on the same considerations you would give to an adult. If as an adult you spent all your time at work, never any home/play/holiday time, you would be stressed and a bit dull. What we all need is variety in our lives, a bit of time to do the things we enjoy, to work, to be with family, to relax, play sport, etc. Kids are no different. If you have a nice nursery, good reputation, caring staff, then your child will thrive there. As long as he is also getting time with both parents, time with others outside the family, etc. They adapt everso quickly to being in different environments all the time, and very soon learn the expected behaviours for each place (eg nursery will teach waiting for your turn, grandparents may teach being considerate to older more infirm people, and so on)

I sent both my sons to a private sessional nursery (ie from 9-12 or 9-4) from the age of two, a few times a week, and my MIL was horrified I was "sending them away". They both loved it, learned so many things from their peers, and the nursery was brilliant at reinforcing things they were doing at home, eg potty training. They became independent and self assured at a very young age and I now have the lovliest, kindest and reasonable sons of 6 and 8. They mess about, of course, and still throw tantrums when tired, but I can always rely on them to behave in public and to treat others with care and respect. What more could I ask for?

Sorry for long post!! Just my opinion of course...good luck with whatever you choose to do. There will always be some who agree and some who dont

I like his books! I think he makes alot of sense. My gut feeling was to quit f/t work and SAH or work p/t around DH job. His book confirmed my feelings. I think alot of people just shoot him down and say 'he wants women barefoot tied to the cooker' and other drivel. He actually never says that at all.

Not read all replies but I rearranged my life after reading Affluenza by Oliver James - that book changed my life!

I was about to go back to work after dd2 and the book made me realise my motives for doing so were money, status and because it was what was expected. It made me realise what I really wanted was to focus on my children and luckily financially we could afford for me to not work and been very happy with decision to be SAHM - everyone in my family has benefited though do realise it was career suicide and very much doubt I'll get back to where I was career wise when I do wan tto return to work.

biddulph certainly uses pejorative terms "slammers" and most definitley advocates domestic-maternal goddess wee wifey

this subservient rubbish sets us back generations.women know your place. have a wee foray into employment/education but give it all up dont work otherwise your child will be badly attached and poisoned by cortisol.oh and heaven forbid woman might want something other than maternal role

I went back to work because I love my career and needed the stimulation and variety myself of having different kinds of days. (Financial reasons as well but we could have coped without.) And I think that's something Biddulph doesn't have a lot of time for, what women need and want.

The fact is many women have always worked, since hunter-gather times, and small children have always been cared for in a variety of extended family or creche-type situations. And I am pretty damn sure that the grandparent or older sibling option does not automatically make for the best care, just because they are relatives. Don't forget that they can be abusive or neglectful too. I do wonder if some of Biddulph's agenda - though he may not realise it - is about limiting women.

very interesting post Wilf
I have always been intrigued by the fact that Mr. B never refers to himself as "Dr.", which is the standard title and qualification for the psychologists I work with.

Although I'm sure, libel-fans, than there could be many, many reasons why he chooses not to use the title.

I'm a SAHM, and I'm shit at it. My first child who went to fulltime creche at 12 months is far more advanced, well rounded and sociable than his younger brother who has the misfortune to spend all his time with me. God help DS3 is all I say.

Biddulph is a bit of a twat, and an underqualified, biased twat at that.

Is it not a possibility that some children thrive in childcare, and some at home with a parent?

Is the same not also true for the parents?

Everyone is different; that includes the children.

I have used 7 nurseries in total, for three children and been 90% happy with two of them.

I have read Biddulph's books and can't say I disagree with them entirely however I too was not really cut out for full time motherhood and dressing in sacks in order to fund that lifestyle.
It comes down to your preference, the child/ren do not know any different so you must have courage in your convictions and be confident around the child that you are making the right choices for your family.

I wouldn't choose a childminder/nanny over a nursery personally for a number of reasons, but find a good nursery and change/leave if you decide it's not what your child needs.

It is such a personal thing and dependent on so many factors, that no-one has the right to criticise others' choices.

I took a year off to look after DS1. We looked into nurseries, but I didn't feel comfortable with any of them, even the super-expensive, all-singing, all-dancing ones. But that's not to say they weren't a perfect fit for other people.

We decided to take advantage of the fact that a). I work from home and b). we have a spare room and got a live-in Mother's Help. I still give DS all his meals and put him down for all his naps, have an hour with him to relive her at lunch time, and do his bath and bedtime routine, so it's really only for a relatively small part of the day that he's with someone else. And she's so good with him that it works well. I feel as if his life has barely been disrupted at all by my return to work (he is 14 months).

I'm sure SB would disapprove even of that, but given that we don't have any grandparents in the country, I see it as more good adult influence in his life. It must be fairly stifling for anyone - never mind very young children - to be reliant on only 1 or 2 people day in, day out.

Our set up works so well for us and we're all happy. That's the main thing.

It is a minefield, and I think there must be very few parents who don't wonder whether their choices have been the right ones.

Personally I wanted to be at home with DS. Before I had him I thought I would return to work, but when faced with the reality it was entirely different.

I think nurseries can be pretty awful though, and without exception the toddlers I know who have attended them from 12 months or before are the ones who push, snatch and generally have problems in a social setting. The ones who have either been at home with a parent or who go to a childminder or have a nanny are very much more relaxed little beings.

Why do I, a SAHM, feel guilty reading this thread? As if I'm letting the side down? As if I should be out there, working, going against my gut feeling?

(V. Poss that I'm being touchy and over-sensitive, but I do think that women can't win- you go to work and they say you're shit for not being at home; You SAH and they say you're setting back the course of feminism by fifty years.)

Why do we do this? Why can't everyone respect each other's decision? I would never judge anyone with a young child for going out to work, but I've had some pretty horrible comments from other mums about my wanting to be at home with my babies.

MrsBean

Sorry I've just skimmed posts so may have missed this, but can't you go back part-time? 1 or 2 days just to keep your hand in?
I had career break of about 8 years - it was wonderful. I liked the Mums and tots scene -coffee and chat right up my street. I think my children benefitted from being at home - they're well-adjusted and happy and I know I did my best for them.
HOWEVER...felt really lost when little one started school and had to work really hard to get back in to my profession (things had moved on and left me behind) - voluntary work, difficult temporary posts - took me about 2.5 years to be fully re-integrated!! Now happily working part-time and no regrets.
Good luck with your decision.

When ds was 3 months and my NCT group were discussing childcare choices and going back to work they all took for granted that nursery would be GOOD for their babies. They would say things like "I want my child to have the stimulation of nursery, I want him to be sociable, and I know he'll be safe in nursery because there are checks etc.". I know plenty of little boys who are no more sociable, no more independent for having gone to nursery at an early age. In some cases they are less resilient to the knocks of childhood, and more adult orientated, craving adult attention. The fact was, none of us knew WHAT our babies needed or wanted, but this theory (nursery good, home boring)of what was good for babies, fitted in with what THEY as grownups needed to hear, which was to go back to work (in most cases part-time). It was almost as if they constructed this fantasy about how good it was developmentally for their babies to go to nursery. It used to annoy me that they couldn't be honest and just say, I need to work, for the happiness of the family as a whole, and this fits best.

Only read the OP as was not in the mood to skim through all the hysterical anti-Biddulph posts.
I planned to return to work asap after DTs were born, but my instincts ('trust your instincts you are the Mother and only you know what's best for your babies'.... etc. etc - MN mantra) told me - no way. It didn't feel right to leave my children to be cared for by strangers. So I didn't. Hadn't heard about Biddulph then. After reading his books, must say - pure common sense and agree with his principles 100%.
However, I was in the position to stay home with my children, I understand that people who do not have that choice might feel very very upset about his theories.

One other interesting result that came out of Professor Penelope Leach's study was that children do less well when cared for by grandparents than either a nanny or a childminder (although marginally better than when cared for at nursery). She doesn't speculate as to why this should be.

From memory, and in descending order, it goes:

1. Parent (although I caveat re whether the parent wants to SAH, as I mentioned above. Also don't think it matters which parent as long as s/he is loving, engaged and fulfilled).

1. Nanny

1. Childminder

1. Grandparents or other relative

1. Nursery.

However, what struck me was how little variation Leach found between the various childcare settings.

It is totally up to you what you do, if you WANT to go to work then go if you decide you dont then look into staying home. The main thing is though, once you have made a choice avoid books, articles, forum posts etc about it because they will almost always make you feel bad!

Biddulph is an arse, as per Wilf's posts above

Whether or not to return to work and childcare are an entirely personal decision. There is no right and no wrong. It is also entirely normal to question what you are doing. If you meet children in a junior school playground you cannot tell which ones had SAHMs, partworking mums or WOHMs. What you can tell is which ones (most, of course) are loved and stimulated.

So sod Biddulph (ewww now thats an unsavoury thought), continue with your plans and see if it works out for you.

Both my DS's went to a nursery form 6 months for 3 days a week and I feel I made the right choice.
I am lucky that it was a very good nursery with very caring staff ( mine both had the same keyworkers)

My reservation about a childminder was that, they work alone and if they are not that good then there is no one else around to notice.
Also a childminder is generally at home ( doing chores) and a parent ( looking after their own children)

I flet that nursery staff were paid to be at the nursery and their job was purely to look after the children there.

I don't think 3 is some magic age - but from working in nurseries the closer children are to 3 the better they cope. A lot of babies struggle a bit, 2-3 year olds it kind of depends on their personalities and how robust they are, but the 3-5 year olds generally love nursery and suddenly get loads more out of soicalising with other children. For under 2s care from an adult is much more important to them than being around other babies.

Bessie - that's a bit of a defensive statement - lots of posters to this thread have made no negative comments towards SAHMs at all, and instead have taken comments about not being there for their kids day-in, day-out on the chin.

I do agree though, we should all just do what is right for our own, and let other people get on with making their own decisions, free of judgment.

I think it's horses for courses. If you find looking after your baby/toddler boring and you'd rather be doing something the chances are he/she would be better off being looked after by someone else who thinks he/she is fun. Better for you better for him/her. If you want to sah and you can afford it then go for it. The problem really arises where you have no choice - you have to work and you are not happy with your childcare arrangements. Whatever you decide I don't think you can expect to find the answer to what is best for you and your child in a book - the fact is baby's don't come with an instruction manual even if we would like them to.

babies