Child guru says nurseries harm small children

[flashingnose]

oh dear

welshmum, that was beautifully put. You sound like my kind of Christian (and maybe dino's too, don't give up there dinosaur).
The various C of E churches I have worshipped in since a child are full of people who manage to live a non- lunatic-fringe life in the modern world. They just don't get much of a hearing.

ok so what do all these people who think its wrong to put children into childcare suggest we do? im a single parent with no family to help out have my own salon so i went back to work by the time dd was 6 months old and had no choice to put her into full time nursery she is 2 now. i would like to know how im meant to be a sahm devoting all my time to her and keep a roof over our heads?

Nulnul, its not possible for everyone, and I'm grateful I can stay at home cos I know one day maybe I wouldn't be able to.

Sorry, haven't read whole thread, but did read the article in the Sunday Times.

India Knight wrote a similar article to this one recently. Really pissed me off.

So, we should stay at home with our children, ideally. And in this ideal world, all those teachers, SLTs, physios, OTs, doctors who choose to be good girls and stay home, will no longer be available to provide a service to other people's children.

I think India Knight was rather missing that point, but I agree that Stephen Biddulph is coming from the right direction, just depends on the quality of the daycare, which is often (in my extensive experience as an observer), woefully poor.

Perhaps the descent into religion explains how studies like this come about. We assume that people like Biddulph are purely motivated by science and research when he could easily be motivated by religion, sexism, personal experience and a host of other dubious influences.

My mother didn't work and money was often used to keep her in her place. During arguments my Dad would withold money, sometimes for months, and this would teach her who was boss. She spent years married to him and hated every day of it. She is very depressed at the moment cos se realises her life is nearing an end and she was unhappy for most of it. They were Christians (Catholic) in case you are interested. The kids really suffered in this environment but hey she was at home.

Biddulph nevers stops saying that he is influenced by his personal experience
as is every poster here, of course
nothing dubious about that imho
as for sexism, well he is talking about children and parents, not mothers

I am new to this thread, but have read it with interest. I am British, but currently live in Norway where they have gone some way to addressing the eternal debate of nursery v. home care. The way they do it is they give mothers a better choice. Firstly, if you are not working, you get a government payment of around 3000 pounds when you give birth (for each child) - this is to assist with costs associated with having a baby. If you have been working for at least 6 months, you are entitled to one year's maternity leave on 80% salary (ie you get 80% of your salary each month). Or, you can choose to take 10 months at 100% salary, but then your husband has to take one month (fully paid) when you return to work. In addition, you can choose to take an additional year's maternity leave, but this is unpaid. If you opt to be a stay-at-home mum you receive a monthly payment of around 300 pounds per child, assuming you are the sole caretaker. If you place your child in childcare for, say 2 hours a day, your payment is pro-rata'ed, and once your child is in full-time daycare, the payment falls away completely. It seems to me that this is a far better option, and provides more options for mums.

maf, that sounds very generous. But what is the tax rate in Norway?

I know that it is stupid, illogical, futile and an utter waste of time to get drawn into this debate, but I just can't bear(!) it.

Beartime writes:

"God's design for the woman is to be in the home - to be submissive to her own husband, to be caring for her own children, and to be tending the needs of her own home. Mothers who want to be successful parents cannot forsake those tasks and expect the Lord's blessing in their parenting. Being a mother is not a part-time task. It cannot be treated as a sideline. The mum, even more than the dad, must be devoted to parenting full-time. the home is her domain."

Excellent - so can I also assume that it is God's design for DH, who is wheelchair bound with an incurable, progressive neurological disease, to continue the unequal struggle to work outside the home and provide for the family whilst I, fit, competent and very highly paid lawyer, stay at home and raise our children. If there is a God, I would frankly want to credit it with a little more intelligence and ingenuity than that.

I am my DH's "helpmeet". It's a term I've actually always rather liked because it sounds rather vigorous and 'manly' in a shoulder to shoulder against the world kind of way. And that's exactly how I see my role - my career provides financial security for our family and a relief for DH from the almost impossible pressure to provide. There are lots of aspects in my life about which I have religious and moral qualms, but working outside the home is sure as Hell not one of them.

It is lovely sounding isn't it BF. The tax rate is high for some 55% i think for high earners. Also bonds etc are highly taxed. But then there is a lot of oil wealth in Norway. A lot.

Issymum - your DH is lucky to have you. You sound so strong, positive and capable (although I'm sure it doesn't always feel like it)

Never mind what beartime or ayone else thinks. You are taking care of your family.

lots of respect issymum. and it is certainly not Some great divine will that your DH be in that position.

Blueshoes - yes tax rate is high here - around 50% for high earners. But, at least you feel like you're getting something back. Without this support, we as a family would never make it on one income, and we especially couldn't do it on one income in the UK. Although I loved my career in London, I really wanted to spend a few years with my children while they were little, and resented the fact that for financial reasons it didn't look like I was able to. At least here, with the govt. support, I have a choice.

i guesss you speak norwegian maf [note to self- learn a language that might actually get you a better quality of life!]

i guesss you speak norwegian maf [note to self- learn a language that might actually get you a better quality of life!]

maf, 50% seems like a reasonable deal for taxpayers. Top rate is UK is of course 40% and Norway is just 10% more. I was worried it was something like 80% for Scandanavian countries, in which case there is very little incentive for the general population to work. If the UK govt can do it with only a 10% increase, that is food for thought. But somehow ...

Merryberry, your point about Norway's oil wealth is a valid one.

Issymum, I have read some of beartime's posts and they leave me cold. It could work in theory if you assume the existence (no single mums need apply) of an able bodied man with an enlightened attitude (so he does not abuse his dominant status) with the ability to earn enough bread to feed his family on a single income, without undue sacrifice, emotionally and financially for the woman to give up her job/career. How narrow is that??? Makes me just want to write off any doctrine that is based on unrealistic stereotypes. Sorry beartime, still not convinced.

Has beartime posted on many other threads? I haven't come across her before, but then I've only been here since December.

hi ruty, no sadly (and embarrassingly!) I don't speak much norwegian. Well, I can get by day-to-day basis, but not enough to work professionally. There are companies (such as my husband's) that have english as their operating language. Although his company did pay for norwegian lessons for him.

maf!

I know, I know....!!

maf where abouts are you in norway? i'm half norwegian. my mum and dad live in norway from may-sept and then come back to england for the winter. i go over to norway to visit them when ever i can.

I think the danger of these types of articles is not thaat they offend people, I'm all for freedom of speech, but that by their very nature the author must make generalisations. these generalisation will then be seized on by the press etc to 'prove' a definate case which applies to all parents.

My own view is that a good nursery is far better than a clinically depressed parent, that one to one care for under 2's is better than FULLTIME 1:3 ratios, that ALL children no over 4 months benefit from at least a couple of sessions of social interaction ie nursery/playgroup etc, that a good nanny/carer can be far more experinced and capable with children than a first time not very maternal parent and that BOTH parents have an equally important role to play in their childs upbringing.

complicated! Yes, and thats the point. Once you take all the above into consideration plus the individual needs of a family then you can see why soundbite statements are so dangerous.

we worked out the best compromise for us, I wasn't prepared to do f/t 8-6 nursery with only a 1:3 ratio for my ds at 7 months, tbh I don't particulary want him to have to be 'in care' for that long at any point.
But I am not suited to being a SAHM, so I work pt/ plus freelance work which adds up to about 25 hours a week with some evenings etc. DS has a great nanny for 30 hours/4 days a week (to cvoer travelling time etc). I work my hours to be home for his teatime/bath each night and have one full day with him each week.Dh would love to do the same hours but his work turned down his application for p/t working under the parental rights thing- we have the option of fighting it. which would probably mean no job at the end of it or working round it.

oh and I disagree with his point about family, my parents are okay but after stopping wiht them for a weekend recently lo came home with a bruise from where he'd slipped in the bath - Gdad forget that he was 10 months old and would try to stand up, he hadn't eaten well cos they filled him up with juice and he had the shits cos of the pure fruit juice they had mistakenly thoguht was good for him!
At least my nanny has a RECENT childcare qualification and if that happened with her its alot easier to fire/deal with her.

I am definitely not in favour of higher taxes here in the UK. I think if Mr. Brown decided to take another 10% of my earnings I'd give trying to pay of my debt, file for bakruptcy, and move back to the US. And I think a lot of other people who already are struggling to survive would chuck in the job and stay at home with their kids.

I think the answer is reducing the exorbitant cost of living in the UK.

We all have different circumstances however the nursery i recently visited reminded me of a ZOO.
So ds at 16months wont be going there

Message withdrawn