Vent - My Mother (and her generation?)

missbiggles1

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Maybe as well by someone who does it for love of the child, not by someone for whom it is a job.

You can love somebody very much but still do a less good job of looking after them than someone who is trained, experienced and caring.

There are some terrible parents around who love their children very much.

mumps

Person_one wrote: »

Its not 24/7, unless you're talking about boarding schools!

A friend of mine works at a breakfast/after school club, she had a 4 year old who was first in every morning at 7.30 and last out every night at 6 pm. I can't imagine his parents had alot of time with him before or after school. My friend said the poor little soul was dead on his feet by 6 pm. Of course they did have weekends.

thorsoak

During WWII, single women were enlisted to do war work and mothers of young children were also encouraged to work, with nurseries and creches being provided by the government. Women who had, prewar stayed in the homes, were now working, and enjoying work. At the end of the war, when men were being demobbed and coming back into civvy street, looking to take up their pre-war employment, and women had to give up their war work - and guess what : in the late 40s/early 50s John Bowlby's papers on Deprivation and Childhood development were cited as the reasons why mothers of young children should not work.

Coincidence or what? Or has cynicism overtaken me in my old age?

Andypandyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You can love somebody very much but still do a less good job of looking after them than someone who is trained, experienced and caring.

There are some terrible parents around who love their children very much.

Which was why I excluded those parents at the margins. The average parent biological or otherwise, the good parent, the extended family. I really don't believe that anyone else can do as good or better job. The bond of love cannot be replicated imo.

FBaby

NewShadow wrote: »

*cough*Does Early Maternal Employment Harm Child Development? An Analysis of the Potential Benefits of Leave Taking (University of Chicago)*cough*

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/345563?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents



*cough* The Effects of Stay-at-Home Parents on Children’s Long-Run Educational Outcomes (University of Stavanger and Torbjørn Hægeland at Statistics Norway) *cough*

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675070?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Except that if I could be bothered, i could find you as many if more that will tell you exactly the same. I think one of the largest study showed that the most significant factor that affects the future prospect of children are the level of education of their mother. Of course, a number of mum who've gone to Uni will stay to be SAHM, but not the majority.

Well, on a basic level, for the average loving parent, I can't see that anyone can argue that their child is better off being looked after by someone else.

If that was true and supported by evidence, why would the government subsidise childcare before school, and now even increasing the hours and age despite pressure on the budget...

If that means you live in dire poverty, or the sahp can't cope mentally without the stimulus of work or the demands of a small child, then the argument is different.

What a bleak view! Most working mums cope very well carrying out both roles and I would say better with the stress that comes with it rather than the stress that comes with being short of money.

PS: not against families who choose to be a SAHM, but don't agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits than those who work and contribute.

FBaby

The bond of love cannot be replicated imo.

it is not all or nothing. It's not because a kid spend some time with a childminder or nursery staff that they get less loved.

The reality is that there are kids who grow to be balanced and happy children/adults whose parents worked full-time, and some who will struggle, just as they are some who will despite growing up with their mum at home 24/24.

My kids were in FT childcare before the age of 1. They are now very well adjusted teenagers. Recently, I asked them if they wished I'd stayed at home. They looked at me like I was mad and said 'no, why would we?'. My parents worked full-time too and I never felt I'd missed out. However, my friend's son who is also a teenager now often said he wished his mum didn't have to work when he was growing up. Saying that, although he was a difficult child, he is now a lovely 16yo.

missbiggles1

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Which was why I excluded those parents at the margins. The average parent biological or otherwise, the good parent, the extended family. I really don't believe that anyone else can do as good or better job. The bond of love cannot be replicated imo.

The bond of love doesn't disappear because someone else looks after the child, nor does it guarantee good parenting skills. For me the two things are quite separate and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Andypandyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The bond of love doesn't disappear because someone else looks after the child, nor does it guarantee good parenting skills. For me the two things are quite separate and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

No, it doesn't disapear, but if your child is being "parented" for 7 hours a day by someone paid to do it, then in my opinion (for the average or maybe normal is the word to use) parent they won't be doing it as well as the actual parent would.

I stress that is not the case with parents who lack parenting skills or have other issues, but, in general, I believe it to be true.

Andypandyboy

FBaby wrote: »

Except that if I could be bothered, i could find you as many if more that will tell you exactly the same. I think one of the largest study showed that the most significant factor that affects the future prospect of children are the level of education of their mother. Of course, a number of mum who've gone to Uni will stay to be SAHM, but not the majority.

If that was true and supported by evidence, why would the government subsidise childcare before school, and now even increasing the hours and age despite pressure on the budget...


What a bleak view! Most working mums cope very well carrying out both roles and I would say better with the stress that comes with it rather than the stress that comes with being short of money.

PS: not against families who choose to be a SAHM, but don't agree that they should be entitled to the same benefits than those who work and contribute.

Tbh, I thnk it is a bleak view that you believe others can do a better job than you.

Person_one

Andypandyboy wrote: »

No, it doesn't disapear, but if your child is being "parented" for 7 hours a day by someone paid to do it, then in my opinion (for the average or maybe normal is the word to use) parent they won't be doing it as well as the actual parent would.

I stress that is not the case with parents who lack parenting skills or have other issues, but, in general, I believe it to be true.

Did you stay at home with your own children then I assume?