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

[Astrophe]

here, in the Sydney Morning Herald

'depressed, bored, resentful mothers ....'

Speak for yourself, Madamez. I've never felt more fulfilled in my life.

www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/06.13/RadcliffeStudyF.html

them idiots at harvard. what do they know?

I'm sure Madamez WAS speaking for herself. And for me. And for any of the other working mums who would be all of those things if they were forced - through guilt or necessity - to inflict one-on-one care on their young children!

derrrrr,.

wtF has the harvard study got to do with what we are talking about?

this is about parents PARENTS NOT MOTHERS PARENTS making choices about whether they or some other individual or an institution cares for their children.

MP why does one on one care equal stay at home mother????

who is being totally unnecessarily assumptive now?

life.familyeducation.com/working-parents/child-care/36235.html

this lot clearly rubbish as well

desi you're talking about cortisol the stress hormone

I think SB is a great campaigner to have, but is very extreme, and suggesting that there is an 'ideal' childcare solution for all - by citing other countries' systems - is wrong. There IS no ideal. One-on-one care might be great for some families, just as attachment parenting is great for some parent-child combinations, but it isn't ideal for all.

Most of us make the decision about childcare based on (1) finances and (2) our personalities. We are constrained by both and both are EXTREMELY important.

Desi: I was not implying that all SAHM are depressed and resentful. Many love it and are good at it. But saying that all women should stay home just because they have vaginas, and if they get depressed and resentful it's because they are lazy, selfish, bad women and bad mothers whose children will suffer if they dare to think they have any kind of fucntion outside servicing the family, is simply wrong.

derr,
the harvard study is about both parents working and saying that the children and families are doing just fine.

SB only reports studies that say the opposite. thats why i posted the link. to reinforce my point that SB only shares the bad news on childcare

MP sorry but bullshit, there is a better and a worse way. infants and small children do better with one on one care. THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A STAY AT HOME MOTHER.

There are other choices apart from day care, by which I assume you mean nurseries, and staying at home with their mother. Children don't have to stay at home with a 'depressed' mother or go to nursery.

He suggests that children should have one-to-one care which could mean childminder, nanny, father or any other relative, if the mother can't or doesn't want to provide the care.

WSS - actually I have found the reverse to be true, that children who have WOHM are more vicious and disruptive. You get a group of DS1's friends together for a party or something and it is invariably the ones who have been in nursery who misbehave and fight - they stand out a mile. So who is right then? You or me, WSS - whose experience is more valid? Can I suggest that a sample of one isn't much use to anybody. I would rather rely on the research evidence which does at least have a nodding acquaintance with objectivity.

Clearly he thinks that mothers should stay at home so that fathers can get on with important things like writing books about mothers staying at home

if you really want i'll find the new york times story about working mums and stay at home ones spending the same amount of time with their kids, the WOHMs just watch less tv. (ok, even i find that hard to buy)

infants and small children do better with one on one care.

My point is that we are constrained in whether we make that decision for them. Mothers (which for 99% of couples is what it will be) may NOT do better with this arrangement. We can't make every decision based on what is OPTIMAL for infants. That's the error of the natural birth movement. And people without tellies.

Madamez I don't think people are saying that it has to be the mother. Someone who is committed to the care of the child as a constant special person for the early years of life is possibly more descriptive.

I do think that someone who is paid to look after a child is not in a postion to bond too closely with the child and so has to maintain an emotional distance that a parent or relative doesn't.

But it isn't about the amount of 'quality' time a parent and child spend together.

It's about the possibility that a highly-charged nursery environment, for five long days a week, may not be conducive for children under three.

Ultimately, we all believe what we have to believe, in order to keep our sanity.

niece neither of us are right of course. our experience is only our own.
BUT, the fact remains that SB only only only reports the bad news.

sophable,
why when SB quotes a study, we should all sit up and take notice, but when its harvard, or anyone else, it suddenly becomes that 'there is a better and a worse way'?

(by the way, i think MP and becster are saying all the right things, and a lot less inflammatory than me.)

One on one care?

Shit, have I got to eBay one of the boys?

oh sophable that one-on-one care under three is bollocks! what if you have twins? what if the gap between children is less than three years. it is such nonsense.

hey, why bash the no-telly folk??!!

How funny that people use particular studies to back up their point but the ones that don't have an oputcome they like are propaganda.
Seriously, ladies, I don't think that most people on here are saying we all have to the same. I guess everyone just wants respect for the life they choose

I don't think it has to be one to one care. I do think that it has to be one or two consistent carers who have the children in their care as a priority and are a focal point for those children.

i TOTALLY agree that it is wrong that the onus falls exclusively on the mother....wrong wrong wrong.

psychoanalysis is based on the premise that the mother child dyad is the most important and that is a flawed premise as the underlying reality it is based on is the traditional nuclear family in which the father is totally absent from teh parenting process of infants

that reality is changing, it needs to change.

assuming that infant wellbeing and the mental health and well being of the mother are mutually exclusive is nuts.

mothers need feel good. if that means working outside the home great. children need to be cared for by a consistent loving caregiver in an individualised situation. that means by the mother and the father should they be able and wiling to. and by a decently paid and trained caregiver such as a childminder or a relative should that not be the case.

we are talking about 36 months here. and we are not talking about sacrificing unwilling women on the altar of stay at home motherhood, but rather changing government policy to recognise what the research and bloody common sense lets face it suggests: that when children are really tiny they need a one on one environment.

a mother of twins is providing one on one care to those twins. she is there consistently for both of them. don't be thick bk.