Steve Biddulph discusses the results of a childcare "experiment" from Canada.

[Astrophe]

here, in the Sydney Morning Herald

oh come on hunker, you must have an opinion

No no, the ratios are totally different in Canada than in the UK. And they really really do follow those ratios - I have seen 15 small (many under-2s) kids out in the park with three carers!

I didn't see the message, sorry, was it recent? Will look later, all chaos today (OU assignment due tomorrow, whoops!).

Sophable, exactly that re bf/ff as well, often.

Possibly one of the reasons that Scandinavian children, despite spending lots of time in daycare from a young age, have fewer problems, is that in Scandinavia everyone just accepts that women are people not a subset of human beings that exist only for the benefit of others. So women can work without endless verbal batterings from people who think that a woman is a domestic appliance who is failing in her duty if she expresses an independent thought.

amen to that hunker

agree totally sophable.

oh GOD madamez, no one is saying (least of all biddulph who's whole big point thing is that children need fathers badly) that the carer needs to be the mother. argh.

i forgot the 'oooo, you're all sexist bastards' argument too.

THIS IS ABOUT CHILDREN NEEDING CONSISTENT ONE ON ONE CARE UNDER THE AGE OF THREE.

doesn't matter if it's fucking great uncle cedric (as long as he's a decent person) they need consistent attachment figures.

Yes soph, good point. As someone said earlier, it's a shoot the messenger situation.
mamz-I don't think that anyone would disagree with you but I don't see the relevance

I do have an opinion, Harpsi.

I think there are some excellent nurseries out there (Bubble's for instance - clearly, she has the children's best interests at heart).

There are some diabolical ones as well, where low-paid, high turnover teenage staff smoke while pushing the buggies of their charges down the high street (seen it with my own eyes).

So to make sweeping statements about childcare will always get the parents from the former sort of nursery going, "But MY nursery's excellent, how dare you say this sort of thing?!" and parents from the latter nursery either don't care enough or feel too guilty to post - if they're on MN at all

I live near enough willing and able family, so I am very lucky with my childcare. But, ironically, if we didn't live where we do, I'd probably be able to afford to stay at home. But, on balance, I prefer the children having their GPs near them - and if I was to take DS2, in particular, away from MIL, they'd BOTH sob for a year. He prefers her to me

I don't think I'd want "fucking great uncle cedric" looking after the boys if that's a nickname.

what a co-incidence
my Uncle Cedric is fucking great too

I think I get all hostile to SB because of comments like 'Love, after all, can't be bought' at the end of his op-ed piece. My hackles rise at the idea that my son goes to nursery instead of being loved, or that I have attempted to buy an approximation of love for him rather than give him the real thing. He goes to nursery as well as being loved. I wouldn't send him there if he was at one of these teenage-chain-smoker places I've heard about on MN. But I think he benefits a lot from being at nursery. And that he also benefits from the time he spends with me, and DH, and with sophable's fucking great uncle cedric, registered CM .

My problem with this research is that is it normally quoted by people who wants women to stay at home and against any family friendly policy in the work place the government tries to introduce. Some people (and I have seen this on MN) are just opposed to any policy on flexible working, extended mat leave because they see it as "the government forcing woman out to work".

well if there really is a ratio of 1:5 of carers to children in canadian nurseries am not suprised at all there have been negative outcomes

poor quality childcare -whether it's from a nursery or a parent- will adversely affect children. That seems pretty bloody obvious to me.

Money grabbing and creating a frenzy of fear - is that just SB or does that apply to anybody who disagrees with you.

Such a great big frenzy of fear he is stirring up that in his book Raising Boys he dedicates 2/3 of a page in the whole book to saying that under 3's are better off with one to one care. He doesn't even say it has to be mothers. I can see why that is very worrying.

He didn't do the research being discussed here he just summarised it for a newspaper.

Read the research, consider the options for your own life, disgard that which you disagree with/consider irrelevant and make your choices. If you are happy (or anybody else for that matter) is happy with their choices then why should they be fearful? Let alone frenzied with it?

But this isn't as simple as saying ONE ON ONE CARE - otherwise it would apply equally to any family with more than one pre-school child!

Yes I am shocked that 1/5 is the ratio. The nursery I use has 1/2 minimum for under 12 months and 1/3 for all other pre-schoolers. I think a high ratio is crucial - but there are CLEARLY so many issues here, and I do this SB is guilty of reductionism.

And obviously I'm sure he has time for that because of his Very Useful WIFE.

you're right niece, it doesn't matter as long you've made choices you are happy with.
I really don't rate SB for a number of reasons. He chooses not to discuss the fact that working mothers are less depressed than SAHM's (cue cries of I'm not depressed!)
but chooses to highlight what is negative about working parents.

FWIW, the link was not to crime juule - the link was the way in which some people will relate a story, without giving the whole picture and in so doing, excite negative emotions in people unneccesarily.

and no astrophe, i don't agree that it would be wonderful to be paid to look after your children for 4 years, not because i don't think my children are not wonderful, but because i know full well that being away from them sometimes makes me a better mum for any ?number of reasons.

the kids of the SAHM's that i know are vicious little buggers, always beating up on mine.

I'm not saying SB is a money grabbing bastard. clearly work with vietnam vets is very good and all and he probably doesn't earn a whole heap from them. the way he does earn his money though is to consistently demonize a perfectly normal practice (going out to work and choosing childcare )by good people (parents) trying to do the right thing(provide for themselves and their families). thats what makes him a bully
IMO.

i think thats pretty clear so i really will bugger off now.

Well must admit I'm always a bit suspicious of therapists who do a lot in the media. Probably because all my working career has been in the media and a lot of my family are psychiatrists or therapists and there's a big difference between the ones I met for lunch at J Sheekeys with their agent and the ones I know in or through my family coming home muttering that someone shat in their office again today. That's purely anecdotal, and I'm just confessing my prejudices rather than justifying them. Any ing at whether I'm being logical or not is probably justified... I do react against sleb therapists, whether I agree with them or not. And in SB's case it also happens that I don't agree with him. And am still smarting at his 'can't buy my DS love' jibe. No frenzy here though. Haven't been frenzied about anything since about 1997...

Why is it bad that he has a wife? [sorry have I missed something?)

worktostay- where is the evidence that working mothers are less depressed than sahm's? I have had some very depressing jobs

Right, having trawled through this interesting thread, there are a couple of points I'd like to make.

The first is that studies have been undertaken in very young children exposed to long hours at nursery (8 until 6, as an example), and the stress hormone (the name I forget) was found to be higher than in children who spent the majority of their early years at home.

Secondly, I wouldn't be so sure that the younger generation will opt for full-time nursery care. My MIL is a lecturer, and the pupils that she teaches (early 20s) are really quite insistent that they don't want it for their children. She has noticed a sea-change in opinion over the last ten years.

Whatever the answer, it must be government led.

'the kids of the SAHM's I know are vicious little buggers always beating up on mine' ah well that beats real research any day.

Where is the evidence that children at home with a depressed, bored, resentful mother are so much better off than children in part time good quality day care with a mother who appreciates them all the more for having some time apart from them?

Again, I wouldn't disagree with you but where is the evidence that sahm's are more depressed than working mothers?

Wouldn't it be great if there was a lifestyle which guaranteed that you won't get depression and that your kids will be happy... Where's the evidence that I'm doing the right thing for my DS? There isn't any evidence beyond my own judgement, and never will be, no matter how many studies are done. Oh bollocks. So I'll stick to loving him and doing what feels right to me, and trying not to be judgemental of what anyone else is doing. But I might be a teeensy weeensy bit judgemental of anyone who questions my love for DS. Just a tad. Judging is kinda fun after all...