Sunday Times article about working women by India Knight.........

[ssd]

Did you read it and if you did what did you think?

FWIW I agree with her, will probably be stoned now.

Not read all of the posts, but I do get annoyed with the notion that we are some how damaging our children in the future by not being with them all the time!I happily leave my 18 mo at nursery and he loves being there ( Runs in in the morning, no tears, big hug and bye bye to me)

My DH and brother were at boarding school in the week from 11 -18, both will tell you how much they loved it, both are IMO well rounded normal people and both are still very close to there families. Not something I would do before you all shout at me, but I think it does show that children do not need to be with Mum all the time to be well cared for and develop

Stinkweasel, agreed that fairymum's post is a bit harsh. However, I think SSD asked for it. I can only assume Fairymum went a bit far to make a point. I think she reacted here. And SSD was the instigator.

blimey fairymum that went a bit far I think. quite unnecessary imho.
uwila I think "ssd started it" is not really a justification that works in anyone over the age of five. this is not the school playground.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I knew I'd get pelters from a few mnetters, but stick by what I said.

I have worked in childcare for over 10 years and I've seen the other side of it. Yes most children do get a great deal from a nursery and it improves their social skills tremendously. As does a good nanny or childminder. But the original article from India Knight was talking about the kids in nursery or wrap around school care for 10 hours a day, that have had all the benefit from their daycare by the afternoon but still have to wait another 2 or 3 hours before mum or dad picks them up.

Hear Hear Norm.

(BTW Rosie Millard even had a letter printed in the Guardian mag this weekend.)

Someone earlier on in the thread (sorry, can't remember who), or perhaps it was even India Knight herself in her article, said "Why bother having children?" (if you are not going to give up work.) My retort to that would be "Why bother educating women?" (if all they are going to do is give up work when they have children.)

Surely what we need is a bit more give and take on both sides - to be able to work part-time or shorter hours without being made to feel as though you personally will be responsible for the downfall of the economy if you do; and to be able to leave your child at school for an hour longer if you need to without being made to feel he/she will need therapy as a result.

I'm with lots of posters on this subject - if either of my boys had shown a disinclination to go to day nursery then I would not have sent them. Fact is, they loved it - both of them - and it gave DS1 an enormous advantage in terms of socialisation when he started school. DS2 is a happy little chap who is content in anyone's company. He still knows who his mum and dad are, though: he doesn't confuse us with his carers at nursery, much as he loves them too!

We (DH and I) are lucky in that we have been able to achieve a workable balance, but only because we are both self-employed and so been able to engineer it that way. We couldn't have done it if we were employed by someone else, unless they were unusually accommodating - which not that many employers are!

The biggest factor in a child's happiness is surely the stability and happiness of his or her mother and father - so it's not selfish to work towards fulfilling your own needs as well as those of your child. I know that personally I would go up the wall if I couldn't work, have adult time and pursue a career I have worked for over 20 years to build. That's my choice, my DH's choice and it works for us as a family. And in the end, that's all that matters. Not whether India Knight thinks my child's bright, lovely, cosy and supportive day nursery is a 'kennel'.

ssd - I disagree with you about the fiver year thing. DS is at school and he needs me just as much as 1 yo DD.

Also Lovecloud seems to have disappeared but I really don't get her issue about feeding your child. DD goes to day nursery from 8 until 5.30 3 days a week. She has breakfast, lunch and tea there. She also eats with us at 6 pm. On the other four days she eats all 3 meals with at least me, but often also DH and DS. In May she will move up rooms and will not have breakfast provided. She will still go to nursery from 8 until 5.30, but I will have to give her a weetabix before she goes. Will this make me a better mother then?

Yes stinky, but you are lucky enough to work in a profession where career breaks are easy to take, where you don't have to worry about 'wraparound care' because you finish work at the same time as your child, and where you don't have the dilemma of how to care for your child and work for 6 weeks in the summer. Try saying "See you in five years" if you're in management, in a small company with only 10 employees, for example, or in a male-dominated industry such as engineering. They'd soon tell you where to get off.

Bozza I agree children need you as much at 5 as at 1, but before 5 they can be with you most of the time, after 5 they are at school a big part of their day.

"except that at least the original latchkey generation were in their own cosy homes, not in spirit-sapping school-type institutions"

So does India think we should be issueing our primary school age children with keys instead of putting them in after-school care?

And the remark I made about "why bother educating women" was just to illustrate how stupid it was, just like saying "why bother having children" is equally stupid. I thought that was self-explanatory.

Yes but only limited jobs fit around school hours. I am hoping to change my hours once both children are in school but I can't do it atm because of DD.

really blueshoes? Do you really need 2 hours a day to do housework, shopping and admin?

5 days a week, 10 hours a day is A LOT if you don't actually have to do it?

wordsmith I know you are only making a point but I do think your statement that it is not "worth" educating women in case they "give up work" when they have children is really quite offensive.
I suspect you will say this is hyperbole for effect but really - are you saying that looking after children is only an occupation for the uneducated? that it is not "work"? that an education is wasted if a person (man or woman) takes out some time to spend time at home with their family, and yes no doubt loses their footing on the career ladder in doing so?
if they take a low status job afetrwards, so what? is that a waste? what about the years before childbearing?
I did not get an education simply so that I could achieve the loftiest possible position onthe career ladder and earn as much money as possible and achieve what the world values as material achievement. I did it to give myself choices. and my choices are every bit as valuable and worthwhile as anyone's.
(as it happens my education also came in bloody handy when I was working my NUTS off for all the years before I had children, buying a house and scrimping and saving money to put myself in a realistic position to stay at home if I waanted to for as long as I could.)
sorry to go on but I think the undervaluing of the art and business of looking after children is insidious and frankly harmful, imho. I do not value a person's worth by how much money they earn or what they do for a living.

yeah x posts with me too
see I shouldn't go on so much...

I've tried to "do it all" and I've nearly made myself very ill doing it too. But I know it was my circumstances ie no partner, living away from family and no social network, that has led to be becoming a stay at home mummy (on benefits).

I have given up a career in the NHS at a vulnerable stage in my professional development and I don't see that I will be able to get back in due to the large number of graduates each year and the restructuring of the NHS. I'm going to have a job rather than my career in the future and it's much more difficult thought to deal with than leaving my boy in nursery.

Stinkweasel you still haven't got my remark about education. I repeat:

"the remark I made about "why bother educating women" was just to illustrate how stupid it was, just like saying "why bother having children" is equally stupid. I thought that was self-explanatory."

And if you will need wraparound care when you return to work why are you criticising those using it now? "Things change and keeping up with changes" is the last thing women trying to return to a job in industry after a 5 year career break will have to contend with. Getting a job in the first place with employers who, on the whole, woud rather not employ you because you're 'unreliable' by virtue of your child-encumbered state is far more pressing.