Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

These statements always make me feel guilty though, like I have done a terrible injustice to my children by not being there for them and going out to work, and that my choices when they were young babies, will affect them throughout life. its hard not feel crap when you read things like that, even when he is not exactly persecuting working mothers, it plants a seed in your mind that your choices are wrong, and your children will suffer for it.

No, that why he says that the government should be considering this rather than focusing so much on getting both parents to work.

but if he said it was better to go to work, then he'd be accused of making sahp feel guilty.

Ah, yes, and let's further propogate the idea that fathers are only good for being sperm donors and bill payers. It's the mother who should stay home, yes, otherwise your child is destined to become a thug.

Agree with colditz. There's no easy answers though and I definitely think the govt should concentrate on putting money at home for non-working parents.

That's not his job.

So many mums get so upset when the time comes for them to return to work and there's good reason for it as Biddulph says. We've been given to believe for so long now that we're being silly and 'hormonal'. These feelings don't crop up for nothing and shouldn't be ignored.

I don't know the answer financially. We're choosing to live on one salary for the time being and dh is an actor which means really it's about half a salary. We drive a wreck of a car, and go camping in England for our holidays, but I would still rather be at home for them while they're so young. I would love my decision to be recognised by the tax man or government but it's not so I feel particularly warm towards Biddulph at this point for stating my case, which has been unfashionable for so long.

but he says ideally the caring should be done by a one to one preferablly a parent. Not sure where he says men are only sperm donors.

and he is only talking about a minority of children who may be affected by being in full time childcare from the age of 6 months to school years.

If, in the future, it is irrevocably proven that nursery for babies is bad for them, are the government best to censor this information so it doesn't upset anyone?

Should they have censored the 6 months weaning guideline, so that people like me (weaned at 15 weeks) didn't feel guilty? Or merely hidden the fact that early weaning can damage babies?

They can't win. If they say it, they are saying it on purpose to make parents feel guilty. If they don'ty say it, it is a cynical ploy to get more unwilling mothers into work.

I think, TBH, it is all part of parenting. It's about hard choices, that is what most of parenting is.

Very true, colditz.

We're all responsible for our own feelings and no-one can make us feel guilty but ourselves.

If someone wrote a book claiming children need at least three foreign holidays a year and are much happier if everything, including their pants and socks, are ironed, would you feel guilty? No.

IME if something makes me feel guilty it's because it hits on a truth which I was already feeling uneasy about.

If you really want to stay at home with the children and believe this is the right thing to do, you may be financially worse off, but you can make it work. You just may have to downsize and go without some things. DP and I only ever calculated what kind of house we could afford, etc.. on his income alone as we both knew that I would not go back to work after DS was born. Different issue of course if you feel you need to work for your own sanity.

Dh and I got round it with second child by dh working nights. Far from ideal but he gets a good wage from it too.

I did early morning shift for a while (5am - 9.30) but it was horrible and I was in a bad mood most of the time.

yep, not ideal by any means but it works for our family. Dh been on nights now for over 2 years.

"We're all responsible for our own feelings and no-one can make us feel guilty but ourselves. "

Sorry Spidermama - but I completely disagree with that statement. I find it is used so often on mumsnet, and it is not true.It takes a verys trong, single minded person to be able to completely disregard all outside comments and totlaly be fixed in your own belief only. I have yet to meet, in real life, someone who is able to do that. It is not in most people's make up to not be affected by other people, be that in person, in the media or elsewhere.

this is pretty much what he says in his existing books (Secrets of Happy Children)
good for him for saying what he believes and standing up to be counted.
it's not going to be a popular view but I would have thought it was not much more than common sense
Oh and I don't know whether to laugh or cry at pesme's astonishingly patronising description of the stay at home parent:

"the whole world can't sit at home grinning at their children constantly..."

yep that's all SAHPs do, grin inanely at their children all day. FGS.... I imagine he wants to (a) sell more copies of his new book and (b) help to influence public policy, rather than specifically to tick you off.

DH stays home during the day w/the kids and works evenings and weekends.

Let's keep in mind that for some people, one salary simply isn't enough to live on.

I sent DS to FT nursery from the age of 7.5 mths until school age and like someone else below said DS is top of his year and apparently is very bright. When he was at nursery his carer took the time out to alert us to his brightness cos she suspected we didn't appreciate it. We didn't cos he was our first child and we didn't know our arse from our elbow. There is an asumption that parents know what is best for their child well we don't always.
I have kept DD home and she won't go to nursery until she is 14 mths and then for three days not cos DS had such an awful time but because I did. I found it very difficult working full time and time managemwnt was terribly difficult not to mention the guilt and the comments and bloody articles like this.

Good nurseries probably do kids the world of good and bad nurseries do a lot of harm. Good parents do children the world of good and bad parents do a lot of harm. I wonder if anyone has done any studies that investigates the effect financial crisis in a family has on the kids cos on eof the parents insist on staying at home cos it is 'best for the kids'. Bankruptcy court is probably not good for the children's development either.
I know of three families where one parent insisted on staying at home even though they could not afford it. In one the working parent's health suffered cos he was working 60-80 hrs a week. One is now bankrupt and the third have split up cos of the pressure

BTW, I know that PT work, PT nursery, PT PIL care and DH being home each evening to spend time with DD and me works best for our family. I cannot give Dd everything nursery can. I can't give DD everything PILs offer. I also con't give DD everything being with DH offers her. So we have a mix which workes really well for us. DD is nearly 4 and such a well rounded, loving little girl. Nursery has not yet harmed her.

For me FT work/childcare and the sacrifices would not have been right. FT me being at home and the sacrifices would not have been right. Netther would having DH is a ob situation where we didn' spend much time togther (a;s he CAN't change his hours) would not have been right either.

So we did what works best for us, as should everyone.

But these articles - which ever side they are on, don't help anyone. A balanced article stating the advantages and disadvantages of ALL options is more useful, rather that sweeping statement s such as the headline. But that doesn't sell papers or books for people does it?

expat, hulababy, yes but the point is Steve Biddulph is aiming to influence public policy to encourage changes to the prevailing economic and social culture
you may think he is wrong or arrogant to do that, but he does seem to have a legitimate aim
he nows full well that the current economic climate leaves people with little choice but -reading his article and his books his aim is not to make those people feel guilty but to give those people more options imho

I don't think it's wrong or pointless. I think it's a waste of time in a capitalist society, however.

Looks like I am a slammer!!!

I agree about the intelligence thing too. He's not saying his findings are based on intelligence nor is he saying it's relevant.