Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 12:22

walnut, ah, I don't care what she thinks, but I do get ticked off by constantly being told

I'm not a feminist. It's just not the way I self-identify (besides, 'feminist' isn't such a good catch-all term anyway, there are so many different shades of it)

TheGoatofBitterness · 08/01/2008 12:22

who isn't a feminist? [spoiling for a fight emoticon]

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 12:22

That's what I mean, Ruff (may I call you Ruff?) - it's so often said and I just wither up a little more each time...

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 12:25

Sue - just growl at her. She'll think you're mad and leave you alone!

Self-identify, huh? Well that's a new one on me! Actually, I don't think anyone likes to be labelled, and I agree feminism is a particularly tricky label, but at it's essence conveys something about women uniting that I believe is vital for progression.

Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 12:25

[its I mean. For any pedants lurking.]

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 12:25

Goat- I agree with your post re MN debates- Look, now she knows I live in a HA flat she's calling me ruff!

OP posts:
Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 12:26

Eek - it was affectionately! More, ruffle than rough-arse!

sprogger · 08/01/2008 12:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 12:30

Yea, I believe you walnut
IMO the freedoms and choices we enjoy today are down to the feminist movement- if you appreciate these things you have to be one(when people saythey are I feel they are saying they are proud and gratefull to the sisterhood

OP posts:
SueBaroo · 08/01/2008 12:31

I wouldn't see it like that, Walnut. I suppose I don't see anything especially helpful about women uniting, as opposed to people uniting. It's far too polarizing from my perspective.

But I don't mind that there are feminists. I'm just someone who doesn't readily adopt a moniker if I'm not happy to have it, lol.

mrsruffallo · 08/01/2008 12:32

grateful, sorry pedants

OP posts:
Walnutshell · 08/01/2008 12:41

People uniting is a lovely image. However, people are rarely motivated to unite unless they are affected by a particular issue in common. But I understand your point.

Highlander · 08/01/2008 13:57

I agree, and studies wopuld support my view (although admitidly 'damage' is only seen when external care exceeds 20 hours).

Financial considerations aside, I think the mistake we make as women is to only seek equality and intellectual stimulation in the workplace.

I have a PhD, but I'm not seeking work until DS2 is 3. It's taken me a long time to realise that I am worthy and equal in DH's eyes, even though I don't get paid.

Iklboo · 08/01/2008 14:00

If I didn't work we'd be bankrupt, on benefits, homeless whatever. We don;t have loads of stuff, little credit, no holidays abroad. Car is DH's business.
DS is minded by a close friend of the family 4 days a week (who he adores) and my mum the other day.
He is a very happy, secure little boy who is (so I'm told) advanced in speech & development for his age (not boasting, just what HV & other people have said)

cariboo · 08/01/2008 14:06

Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, right?

Rantmum · 08/01/2008 14:07

I am with TheGoat - at the risk of sitting on the fence - I actually see truth in both sentiments. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. And it is possible to scour the media and find hundreds of articles espousing what mothers should do: for their children, for their careers, for society, for their families.

What you don't find is quite the same number of articles telling Men what they SHOULD do.

Motherhood is political.

And it sucks.

cariboo · 08/01/2008 14:08

my dh wouldn't last 5 mins as a SAHD. Never met anyone as impatient as he. How do they get away with it, these men?

Reallytired · 08/01/2008 18:27

There is no right or wrong answer. For some children the best option is to go to nusery at 6 weeks old and have their parents work full time.

Parents have needs as well as children. For a family to be happy everyone's needs have to met.

There is no evidence that children with working parents do worst at school that children who live in unemployed families.

Poverty has a negative effect on children.

Heathcliffscathy · 08/01/2008 18:38

oh god you can rant and rave all you like and misquote oliver james as much as you want to: the broad consensus is that children under three need one on one consistent caring giving. OBVIOUS CHOICE FOR THIS IS A PARENT. mother or father. next obvious choice a trusted relative. grandmother/father, aunt/uncle etc.

a really really good (i.e. consistent caring) childminder is also a good choice.

nursery and daycare for under threes are not as good. there is a lot of research for this.

doesn't mean it's evil, but means that if at all possible the parent/relative/childminder/nanny is better option for under 3s.

have hissy fits as much as you want but that is what the research AND COMMON SENSE suggests.

no one is blaming mothers that use daycare, they are trying to steer them towards one on one care and to get parents of both genders to understand that one of them staying at home is a valuable asset to their under 3 year old, if at all possible.

oliver james is asking that government policy recognise this research rather than pursuing a dogged 'get mums out to work' agenda.

what on earth is the problem with that????

Heathcliffscathy · 08/01/2008 18:39

care giving that should read

Quattrocento · 08/01/2008 18:49

Oliver James - had I stayed at home I would undoubtedly have been sectioned. Would not have been good for my tots.

Joanna Grigg - yes okay p/t is fine. Trouble is finding a p/t job though. Have you got one for me?

Heathcliffscathy · 08/01/2008 18:50

and youknow what quattrocento as your therapist he would undoubtedly have agreed that it was best for you, and therefore for your baby to go back to work. that takes away not ONE IOTA from his argument.

Quattrocento · 08/01/2008 18:55

See I think it does. I don't think insanity is a desirable trait in a mother. Pretty disturbing for a toddler, I would have thought.

Heathcliffscathy · 08/01/2008 18:58

did you read my post.

i wrote that of course you are right, insanity is not good for a toddler at all. a mother staying at home to be with her child at the cost of her happiness and well being is not good for the child.

that leaves the father, relatives nannies and childminders as other options.

and it doesn't take away from his argument at all.

Quattrocento · 08/01/2008 19:07

Yes I read your post. I am not disagreeing with the point that you make btw, just saying that it would not have worked for me to stay at home. It would unfortunately have worked even less for my DH. I don't know why these wohm/sahm debates get so heated - there's no need - it's just what works best for different families.

Swipe left for the next trending thread