Would anyone be interested in calmly discussing this Times articles with me please?

[Sycamoretree]

Article from Times 2 today.

here

Have read with interest as DH is currently SAHD due to redunancy over a year ago, so my youngest, (DS) has only been cared for at home with a parent. He is 20 months old.

My DD is at pre-school and starts reception in Sept. She had a nanny for the first couple of years until DH got made redundant.

DH is trying hard to get back into full time work and nursery was/is something we are considering. We certainly could no longer afford a nanny for one on one childcare.

I'm particularly interested in anyone who can confidently refute this quote from Steve Biddulph:

"quality nursery care for young children doesn't exist. It is a fantasy of the glossy magazines."

On the one hand I am furious that such an article gets printed as so many of us are between a rock and hard place when it comes to just surviving, and nurseries are often the only solution.

On the other hand, if any of this is actually true, then as a society, we need to start having this debate/conversation - surely?

thank you ormIrian for taking the time to reply to me.

i wonder why we still have prostitution?

Because we still have poverty, drug addiction and the usual evils.

"there is nothing wrong in admitting you love being at home with your children, nothing wrong in getting satisfaction out of seeing nice clean washing blowing in the wind"

Of course there isn't! If people think feminism consists of banning you from admitting such things, they're very confused and no wonder they're suspicious of it.

Feminism is about equality, not circumscribing what women are allowed to do. It's great to love these things but it's not great if that's the only option open to you because you are female. For many women in the world still, they are controlled and restricted and punished for stepping outside that role - and I would argue, in more subtle ways, that's also true in more equal societies like ours. Articles like this berate and punish women for "choosing to work". Women are still often frowned upon and seen as ballbreakers if they keep their name on marriage, or ask for fair treatment at work, for example.

And kathy women haven't been released into the workplace - that's my point. A lot of women have always worked, and many have had to for financial reasons.

"that's my problem with all this...in womens fight for equality they have lost some of their identity.....there is nothing wrong in admitting you love being at home with your children, nothing wrong in getting satisfaction out of seeing nice clean washing blowing in the wind....."

But women could always do that and still can. My mum who is an extremely intelligent woman loved staying at home with her children and isn't afraid to say so.

However feminism has given women like me an identity.

I'm not obliged to stay at home if I don't want to, the owrk force gains an extrmeely competant (female) finance director where previously they miht have had to accept a just about competant male one.

It have given my DS a loving family (albeit not a traditional nuclear one) when previously it wouldn't have been possible and he would to this day still be in an orphanage.

Feminism has given women choice, DP, you just don't appear to appreciate that because your choice would always have been available to you.

I disagree women have always worked on the farm, taking washing in, being a seemstress, all work that was close to home and allowed them to have the baby at their feet or close by.
This going out to work, in bigger cities started during the industrial revolution and that still worked because extended family, grandma's etc were able to stay home.
It's all break down because the L factor is missing from childcare, the carers do not love the children, I could say the same with the care of elderly, it's a best 2nd best and at worse open to abuse and I think it needs to be address and more red tape and ofstead is not the answer.

Kewcumber;

i was sent to the local catholic girls school...it was crap (and rough) the teachers were useless....my parents were just glad i came home alive everyday....i left at 16, most girls did......i didn't have the choices you had...i wasn't well educated.

i guess i could have done something creative...got in there before cath kidston did...but i had 3 dc by the time i was 23.

i have nothing but total admiration for all the women on here who have these great jobs...it's too late for me, but i have 2 daughters...it's all out there waiting for them. ..

KathyBrown good points

If you would like to read a very interesting book on feminism and the progression of women in the professional workplace, I highly recommend Singled Out about the post WW1 generation of women who were widowed or never married.

yes I agree with that Kath (about the care of the elderly and nursery care). Some of it is brilliant but so much of it isn't and I wish we could come up with a system to ensure that both the elderly and the young all got good care. Some of those elderly care home stories are just horrific and now that my nan is in one, I can see how care can fail so easily.

I'm not sure it's Ofsted's job either but I don't think the way Ofsted works now (with respect to nurseries) actually does any good at all.

And the way whistleblowers are treated (like the recent care home story and the nurse who lost her job) doesn't help either.

Daftpunk - why is it too late for you?

Muffle -
"Women, released from their traditional roles as helpmates and home-makers, have now left home in their millions to join men in the workplace..."

Probably true for a lot of women.

"Many have found themselves dreadfully torn between the competing demands of work and childcare..."

True for me at least.

Now that, after several decades of equal opportunities, some of the shine has gone off the world of work, a majority of women surveyed on the subject say they?d prefer the childcare option. But work, as often as not, still wins the day."

True for some women that I talk to.

But I didn't take away from the article that it was women that should "go back". Just that the situation was now different to years ago when fewer women worked out of the home and that something needs to be done to address the situation.

Kathybrown I think you make a good point.

Well, DS's nursery staff love him and he loves them.

And furthermore, parents don't always love their children - or act like they love them, or treat them with respect. Grandparents don't always. It is a myth that leaving your DC with grandparents or even keeping them at home is automatically better than a nursery and involves more love and attention. In the past, as recently as the early-mid C20, children were often treated barbarically - beaten, bullied, forced to work, abandoned - and no one protected them at all. Many were treated far worse than would ever be allowed in a modern nursery. I think people forget that. It maddens me when journalists (or anyone) just conjure up this idea of the good old days, before evil women decided they wanted to go out to work.

The thing is that the average age of having a first child is rising, and so is the age of grandparents. I don't think my 67 yrs old mother (who adores my dc and helps us a lot) would have the stamina to look after a toddler every day.

Ageing grandparents is another issue.

Anna, yes, I know it's cultural. Nurseries here in Italy don't cater for babies under 6 months, and it's very difficult to find nursery for 6 mo to 12 mo. Which might be good to english ears , but a huge problems for women who want/need to go back to work and don't want to go down the nanny route.

The emotional attachment that we now have is due to having few children though and through relationships with the father. I imagine if you'd never planned a baby in 1890 and got raped (even within marriage) and suddenly had a child, you weren't all that bothered about it, especially as you now know that next you're raped you'll get another one.
If you seriously think nursery staff "love" your child you've got an different definition to love than I have.
I have had nannies who cared for my children on a one to one basis for three years who when it's suited them have dropped my kids like a stone, they might be fond of the children but they do not love them.

I don't think we can assume that mothers in the past who had more children (and saw more of their children die in infancy) loved them any less than modern mothers. Love is a chemical, biological thing. Which is, of course, why paid strangers don't often love children like family does.

My mother has talked at her surprise at the strength of the loving feelings she had when all four of her grandchildren were born - just as strong, she says, as when her two daughters were born. She has never had that emotion for any other child (even the children of close nieces).

Haven't read every single post but has anyone said why this article is only about boys? It seems to be arguing that boys are special little mites who need individual loving care and attention until they are 3 if they are to be happy.

What about little girls? Do they not need the same attention or love then? Is it OK for them to be put on a dog lead or whatever when they are teeny, but this just isn't good enough for precious boys?

If anything is sexist in that article it is that.

KathyB - I agree, and think that the article does in some part attempt to acknowledge this when it calls for a more collaborative and less judgemental social life around the care of children. (Although its so abridged is quite hard to decide exactly what it's point is!).

We seem to have created a society that is fundamentally at odds with the needs of children and families. A great deal of energy, not to mention guilt is being expended by mothers in an effort to make the best of what I basically see as a bad lot. Given that most people do raise children (and that the continuation of the species depends on it) can we not find ways for mothers and fathers to better balance paid work/professional life, child-rearing, domestic work and leisure time? I'd like to see more effort in this being addressed at a society level, rather than just seen as the responsibility of individual women. It may not help us today, but can we not find a better way for the next generation? The feminist movement produced some amazing results for women, and I am extremely thankful - but after having children, I feel it is job half-done.

But you don't need the staff to "love' your children. Your children are loved by you, your dh or partner and any other close relative. They can cope spending a few hrs a day with people who don't love them, but should care for them with affection and interest.
To be honest my ds has had more care/affection and understanding from the staff at nursery than what I expect he'll get at school, and I mean he's got at least another 11 yrs of that!

I do seriously think his keyworker loves him, and he adores her.

I've been an au pair myself and I really loved the 4yo boy I looked after - of course I had to leave and I was very upset, but I wasn't his mum and it would have been weird to say "I'm never leaving, because I love your child". I'm not saying the love is exactly the same as a parent's - but it is possible for good, loving childcare to exist and for childcare workers to love their charges.

Is it OK for them to be put on a dog lead or whatever when they are teeny . I agree Bella

Kathybrown - really don't think you can say that people in olden days with lots of children didn't love them as much as you love yours.

franca personally I do think that children under say 1 - especially in the 3 month to 9 month bracket - benefit from close 1-1 care and love. Especially when they are in full time childcare.

Dd received the most loving card from her keyworker when we moved out of the UK. It still brings tears to my eyes when I read it.

juule....because i'm 35 without a single qualification.

tbh, i'm happy being a sahm...i don't think i've missed out on anything....i would have loved running a business from my kitchen table...with my dc running around....but i'll survive....

daftpunk - why don't you do some GCSEs or something?

To which post do you refer to Bella? On average I agree that under 1 should have 1 to 1.