Is SAHM better than childcare? Does no one worry?

[Zon]

In my home country the key discussion topic when mums talk about childcare is the impact of it. What will it do to your child (emotionally, developmentally etc.) if you are a working parent and your child sees you much less? Many parent find that at least one of the parents should be there for more than half of the week. Somehow it doesn't seem such an issue here. Is this true or have I just missed it? Do you worry about the impact of childcare on your baby/child?

mildly I thinkif you've used child care while you work part time, you've irreversably harmed all your DC anyway. I'd give up now.

Don't worry though they'll be so emotionally bereft as result of absent mum that they won't know they're empty emotional husks. Certainly I'm sure my weans first words were money not mummy

I don't see anything feminist about judgi g the worth of a woman according to her salary.

Some days I'm a housewife, other days a student, other days (and nights) I work for the emergency services. I'm many things.

I hate the attitude of dismissively calling people 'housewives' Giving respect according to pay packet. I work with people who work part time or who have had a career break caring for disabled children or parents with dementia, they are intelligent decent people. They don't earn much.

I think it's all tough. Especially in this economic climate. Many friends cannot find a job or cannot afford the childcare if they do.

It's pointless to lower the debate to name calling and pissing contests. We should be calling for more subsidised childcare.

Yes the bat cave quip was a bit dross

natural an adult who sees a small child once a week can get to know him/ her rather well, and respond quite promptly to his needs.
I am volunteering, therefore I follow the lead of the nursery staff, who know their job quite well. And who I can assure you care ver, very much for the children.
Therefore, in a good nursery, there are not just "bright toys", but a vast number of relationships that I am sure go to enrich the life of an average child.

So, your friends who have gone back to work have valid reasons to "comfort" themselves....

I work 20 hours a week, which I have always liked as I feel it gives me a good mix, and I think its also a good mix for the DCs. However DS (nearly 3) disagrees. Apparently he wants to stay at nursery for ever and ever, and visit me sometimes. He wants to stay at nursery all day like his friends, rather than coming home with me after lunch.

"They usually aren't intelligent to understand why that is not so and their posts tend to reveal their abilities in the way they write and the like. Plenty cnanot afford to work as they could never have gained the qualifications to earn more nor have they the abilities to found a business."

I find this post reprehensible.
Xenia has a habit of donning her cape at the mere whiff of a chance to put down ordinary folk. Her appeals to IQ and evolutionary psychology to back up her choices make me shudder.

naturalbaby - I work with children and I am lucky that i am with my own DD 24/7 at same time as she works with me, so Ihave no axe to grind as we are not apart. However I think nursery offers loads to young children and its nothing like what you describe. You are with these children all day every day that they are in and you know everything there is to know about them. Its far from being strangers.

'nice setting, other kids, exciting activites'

Also this is why I do think its better for children they become more sociable, have constant activities no boring mummy doing chores etc. I sometimes find it hard work, but there is no way I could offer the same amount if I was at home, and never manage to on my days off. I dont think any mum on their own can tbh as there is no way you could offer all the activities of an outstanding nursery on your own at home.

I do wonder about how the attachment, stranger danger thing kicks in at around 9 months and yet that's the time most babies go into childcare. A friend of mine told me she put her babies with a CM at 3 months as it was before they developed that full attachment to her and so were less distressed at the change.

Also, I wonder about exclusively BF babies have developed that reliance on a single person then suddenly they are in a nursery.

I am not trying to stoke a fire here, these are just things I wonder about that no one mentions.

By the way, I am probably in an unusual subsection of being a former professional on good wages who has given it up to be a SAHM despite really bloody missing the intellectual challenge of work. I do miss work, I am an intellectual type of woman and there are times when my kids drive me nuts but I personally would feel that I had let them down if I put them in childcare. I think I am unusual in this as most SAHMs like their choice as do most WOHMs. Sometimes I think I am a masochist...

No,kids don't get stranger danger.that's parents
Your chucking a hotchpotch of theories in pot

i don't disagree that nursery offers loads to children. my 3yr old is getting a huge amount out of his nursery, far more than i could ever give him at home. but he's 3yrs, not 3months.

an adult who sees a child once a week can have a great relationship with that child and know them very well - i've been in that postion myself, i know exactly what you are talking about and have felt exactly the same. i'm not debating the quality of childcare but at the end of the day the parent knows the child best, the child is happier in their own home.

i'm not picking a fight with mums who use nurseries, as i've said before, i'm sticking to the OP referring to the middle ground mums who dont need or want to go back to work full time and put their baby in nursery.

stranger danger=separation anxiety. it's not a hotchpotch theory, it's part of baby development.

Worried? No. Relieved I didn't have to have tedious conversations about baby stuff at stupid sing-a-long baby groups? Yes.

tbh I think the best balance is part time working for the children, and that is usually reflected in the children I work with. All though I know not everyone can strike this balance.

OP I think this is a topic that doesn't get discussed much in RL because it is so emotive and can easily end in an argument.

What I do hear discussed more regularly is the quality of nurseries (not all equal)

"stupid sing-along baby groups" - what a sneery patronising comment, lets hope your children have a lovely CM who doesn't think nursery rhymes are too stupid for her.

Sorry, that probably sounded very flippant. Point is I'd have worried more about going insane if I had stayed at home. It just wasn't for me. But no, I didn't worry. As one of the posters said, children are very resilient and I think if they have loving parents they will be happy whether they are in childcare or not.

No stranger danger isnt separation anxiety. Stranger danger is the perception of external risk,as conceptulised by adults.resulting in awareness and safety campaigns. Children don't progressively or developmentally go through stranger danger as a developmental stage

Arguably,it's a bit of a westernised heightened state of awareness

kumq - that's my argument for taking 2 weeks off to have a baby and going back full time. Small children adore routine and structure. It comforts them. Happy parents or people who care for them who are always there at the same times, same bed times etc.

If from virtually day 1 mummy and daddy are there 6 pm to 7.30am and all those night feeds etc and then your nanny or granny is there between 7.30 and 6 and that is how it always has been you do better. Thus one could argue you best serve your children by returning to work and taking only 2 weeks off.

Also that removes sexism at home as tehre is no chance you get sidelined into being "the person who can best deal with the baby" (ie I am a lazy lumop f a man who likes to pretend he cannot change a nappy or hold a crying baby for 3 hours solid). Those sexist patterns don't build up if you both take off the same leave. Therefore women benefit and given that wealth of family is a massive indicator of child outcomes the child has the double benefit all round.

oh, god. even though i had no intention of being drawn into the same tired debate...

The housewives might think they have given their child the best start in life but they are wrong. They usually aren't intelligent to understand why that is not so and their posts tend to reveal their abilities in the way they write and the like. Plenty cnanot afford to work as they could never have gained the qualifications to earn more nor have they the abilities to found a business.

oh, SIGH. This is just offensive, period.
1.) I can think of as many completely idiotic women in the job market as out of it, frankly.
2.) Why the assumption that your chosen way of life is the best? There are many intelligent women who choose a different path, and are happy and contributing citizens of the world.
3.) Some housewives have undoubtably given their children the 'best start' in life. Some haven't. You're well out of line to think you can make a sweeping generalisation about this, and actually, it suggests that you are not nearly as clever as you believe yourself to be.

My disclosure statement: I have a BA and an MA and am currently finishing my PhD. I'm eduated and intelligent, but I do not subscribe to the view that that obligates me to pursue a career outside the home - it means I have a choice.
I'd like my child to go to nursery because I think it would be nice for her to be exposed to some other carers, to participate in the social environment and activities of a nursery. I'd also like to be able to pursue my own professional, intellectual, or personal interests during the time she spends at nursery. I don't know what the future holds, since I am at a point where I will be looking for jobs, post-viva. So family economics might mean that I work full-time, part-time, or not at all. Ditto for my DH. If we could afford it, I'd like her to go to nursery part-time, no matter what our economic situation. I have ZERO interest in being a corporate hotshot or founding a business. I don't believe either that once you have a child, it comes first to the exclusion of all else.

actually, onelittlefish and helpyourself replied so well to xenia - far upthread- I needn't have even added anything!

what kumquat described was separation anxiety, even if she called it stranger danger - i'm assuming that's what was meant. separation anxiety is normal.

of course added wealth would benefit the whole family but as i said above, is the workaholic mother really better than the mother who can't afford 4 extra curricular activities a week? the sahm's kids may not be the next chess champion because she couldn't afford to send the kids to chess club but are they really that much worse off because their mother chose to stay at home to look after them?

i'm still not convinced by the 'benefits' of going back to work vs the effects of my younger children who would have to be looked after by someone else.

Well given you think stranger danger is developmental phase I dont expect you to support working mums

My chid attends an independent school so most events are in the late afternoon/evening however I made it clear to my head that i would be attending my daughters concerts and school events and he is a very good head that has a loyal staff because allows us time to go to them. I would not have gone back to work at the detriment of my child. My planning is done at school and so is my marking, organisation is key to a work life balance in any industry.

bully for you.