Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

All under threes should be cared for at home?

162 replies

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:10

Two varying opinions in a magazine I have read recently;
First by Oliver James
Right now, being a stay at home mum has a lower status than that of a streetsweeper. The current government has pursued policies that encourage more parents of young children to enter the workplace and put demands of their careers before the needs of the children...... There is little question that children under three should be cared for by one person who knows them well. Toddlers need to feel secure that their needs will be met, and that they will be loved later in life. In my view, what we need is a less consumerist society, where both parents do not feel compelled to work during these amazing years. That means rethinking both our workaholism and our materialism.

Second by Joanna Grigg
It would be foolish not to keep your foot in the door re your career: nearly half of all mums will end up as single parents .....part time workers camn be seen as ineffective...working mums feel alienated and undervalued...the bulk of research shows that nursery doesn't harm children, the real issue being that your child feels loved and you don't have to be a sahm for this.

OP posts:
sprogger · 08/01/2008 11:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TrinityRhinosDhWonHerAnIPOD · 08/01/2008 11:31

she only goes two mornings a week

oh for gods sake
now I'm trying to justify it

Elphaba · 08/01/2008 11:31

I can see both POV and arguments both sides, but I veer towards Oliver James's view.

SSSandy2 · 08/01/2008 11:33

No I don't mean to attack single mothers at all if it sounds like that. I think it is ok to leave a dc at nursery if you have to, if you want to or if the dc benefits from it.

I'm not saying a home has to be wealthy or have a dad in it. Some homes are just not beautiful safe calm havens with a parent who has energy and is happy and that's a fact of life so to say all dc in all homes are better off there and not in a nursery part of the week or day isn't true IMO

If it sounded ratty, or snarky or something towards a particular group I didn't mean it that way.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:35

I agree with him that SAHM's have a very low status in society.

OP posts:
bossykate · 08/01/2008 11:36

really? in my milieu it's rather a status symbol...

Enid · 08/01/2008 11:37

same here bk

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 11:37

I worry when it's a status symbol.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:39

Sandy, I didn't think your remarks sounded offensive to anyone!?

OP posts:
jellybeans · 08/01/2008 11:39

I think it is generally better for the under 3's to be cared for at home by mum or dad or a loving grandparent/aunt. If not, then a really good childminder. I agree with the person that said our world is becoming too materialist. Many people both HAVE to work, but I see so many who spend hardly any time with their kids as they want more money/expensive lifestyles. I feel sad to read of mums who really don't want to go back but HAVE to, I feel they should have more choice to be at home if they want. The childcare industry is always going to be devalued (and susequently low paid and low status) while the work of caring for children is looked upon so poorly by the government. Anything/anyone non productive economically is not valued, hence the eldery and those with disabilities are treated so badly.

Our society is wrong. Too many people work for a pittance while a few people have all the money/power. While we have such technological advances such as household labour saving devices, one would think that we would gain more leisure/family time, while really we are just expected to spend more time in the workforce. We may be made to think that it is stimulating etc but too many times it is simply lining someone elses already fat pocket.

SSSandy2 · 08/01/2008 11:40

Or how about if a dp has a severly disabled or very ill dc to care for and cannot realistically spend much time playing with / interacting with the other dc, is it really the best thing for them all to be at home and not attend a nursery at least some of the time?

I just don't think he takes the wider picture into account.

Mommalove · 08/01/2008 11:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:41

boosykate, yes really! When I announced I was staying at home I was told I need to get a job, I would become really boring etc.

OP posts:
TheGoatofBitterness · 08/01/2008 11:44

trinity relax - there are simply so many ways to ruin your childs life and i suspect 2 mornings at nursery is the least of it. dd has been at nursery since she was 8 months old. i could not have stayed at home for the simple fact there would not have been a home to stay in cos we couldn't afford the mortgage. and of course we could 'downsize' and rent a caravan in the outskirts of shitdome and i could stay at home having loads of quality time inventing new ways to cook lentils but i 'choose' not to.

blows raspberry and runs away.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:47

? new ways to cook lentils???That's a bit rude

OP posts:
dejags · 08/01/2008 11:48

Generalisation. Generalisation. Generalisation.

Each family is unique. It has it's own unique characteristics and requirements.

FWIW, DH and I are questioning our family dynamic at present. If we make some major changes (less consumerist choices) then one of us could stay at home with the children. We are currently weighing up the benefit of this vs the benefit of being able to privately school our children and for them to be able to experience luxuries like trips abroad.

We are leaning towards being there now, while they children are small. Luxuries can wait. Private school can wait until secondary school. Well, that's the rationale at the moment.

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 11:48

Yeah, I like lentils!

SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 11:50

It's not a status symbol among the RL people I know. Generally it's shorthand for 'lazy'.

againagainTigerFeet · 08/01/2008 11:52

Haven't read the whole thread but I have to say that what the debate as it is presented in the OP doesn't take into account is people's personal choices and/or circumstances.

Some people choose to WOTH full or part time because they want to or need to - for a myriad of reasons - financial or personal. For me it was financial, although I would probably still have worked P/T had that been an option at the time. Others may feel that they couldn't cope with SAHM-dom and surely it is better to have a happy working parent than a depressed non-working one? Or it could be that a mother's job/career is such that knowledge has to be kept up to date and a 5 year break would mean starting at the beginning again. Certainly for me, if I had given up work I would not have been able to re-enter my job at the same level, I would have had to start again, probably as a temp on minimum wage or retrain to do something else. Some may feel that this is worth it, others may not. It is a very personal thing isn't it?

Also there are increasing numbers of SAHD's these days (not a good move for my dh it has to be said ) but rarely do I hear of a father bein accused of putting his career before his family when it comes to childcare, maybe for other reasons but not wrt bringing up a child day-to-day iyswim.

Enid · 08/01/2008 11:52

its shorthand for rich husband and a large veg garden here

PrismManchip · 08/01/2008 11:53

Show me a society where it is normal for small children to spend time only with their parents for their first years.
We are neolithic creatures, really. We should be pooling childcare and breastfeeding and living in tribes.
Security is what it's about and a nursery can be a place of security provided the nursery worker is giving continuous care.
Crap nurseries let us all down.

SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 11:53

@ 'rich husband'.

vitomum · 08/01/2008 11:53

i dont think many of the govt's back to work incentives are about enabling parents to 'put the demands of their careers first' as Oliver james says. I thought they were about making work affordable and given another option to dependency on benefits and the poverty trap that many families, particularly single parent ones, find themselves in.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 11:54

I agree dejags. I have been a SAHM sine my dc1 was born. We go without a lot of material things but I know it is only temporarily as when my youngest starts school we will be a two income family again and can afford nicer holdays, school fees etc.
But for the time being, the dc are happy and I have really learnt to appreciate the basic thimgs we take for granted- having a roof over our heads, food to eat, clothes to wear, having time to visit friends and having fun together.
IMO it is such a fleeting few years that it is definitely worth it

OP posts:
Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 11:56

shudder at 'rich husband' - feminism dead and buried

Swipe left for the next trending thread