Vent - My Mother (and her generation?)

Andypandyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm sorry you don't understand what I mean - having the best interest of the child at the forefront, just like loving that child, doesn't mean that the people involved have good parenting skills.
It may mean that they'll do the best they can but that still doesn't mean that the skills will be there.

As examples, think of the parents who spoil their children, who don't discipline them, who overfeed them, who don't challenge them or help them to develop their interests. These could all be "normal" loving parents, not from problematic backgrounds, but in all those situations, the child might well be better off spending it's early years (daytimes, of course) with a skilled professional carer who actually does have the appropriate skills.

In my experience, both of seeing childcare staff in their places of employment and from seeing them prior to employment in a college setting, there are many who enter the childcare profession who don't have those skills either.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one!

mumps

I think alot depends on the age of the child. I used to work with someone who finished work on the Friday, had a planned C Section on the Monday and went on holiday on the Saturday for two weeks. The new nanny went with them. When they got back she returned to work fulltime, so the baby was exactly 3 weeks old. Her husband was older than her and had a well paid professional job, she was earning about double what I was and I was earning above average wage for the time. She left her 3 week old baby with a 16 year old who had just left school. She and her husband worked long hours as was expected in the well paid jobs they did and her baby spent pretty well all day Monday to Friday with a 16 year old who was earning NMW for a 16 year old, ie not a lot. I can't believe that was great child care although to be honest a well paid woman who wants childcare on the cheap might not give the greatest care herself.

If we are talking about an 11 year old going to breakfast club at school well they aren't going to come to much harm.

Just generally talking about childcare for children can mean either of those two things or many other combinations and what is good for one isn't going to suit another.

When my daughter did work experience at a nursery she was upset about a 3 month old baby who screamed most of the day. She was told it wasn't to be picked up as it had to "learn" poor little soul, what does a 3 month old learn about a world where he can scream all day and not get comforted.

missbiggles1

Andypandyboy wrote: »

In my experience, both of seeing childcare staff in their places of employment and from seeing them prior to employment in a college setting, there are many who enter the childcare profession who don't have those skills either.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one!

If you're thinking of most FE students doing low level care/childcare courses, I couldn't agree with you more - I wouldn't leave my budgie in the care of most of them!

I was thinking much more about a qualified, experienced nanny or a really good profesional childminder (some of those are awful as well).

However, just to continue the discussion further, do these useless childcare bods suddenly become brilliant parents when they have their own or would their children be better off in a good childcare setting?:)

NewShadow

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.

I'm sure you can find an article that demonstrates the academic achievements of the parents has an impact on the development of a child.

But can you find a single study that shows a positive correlation between parents working full time and childhood development? Given that's what were talking about.

I spent a casual half hour looking and really struggled.

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...

Economics over social benefit - why do politicians do anything?

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.

I dont disagree - I stated above I think SAHPs shouldn't get in work benefits, but should get NI stamps in recognition of the value of child care.

FBaby

When my daughter did work experience at a nursery she was upset about a 3 month old baby who screamed most of the day. She was told it wasn't to be picked up as it had to "learn" poor little soul, what does a 3 month old learn about a world where he can scream all day and not get comforted.

This is horrible My DS started nursery at 6 months old (no such thing as being able to be off for a year back then!) and would only fall asleep when rocked in his pushchair. I tried to get him used to a cot bed before going back to work without success so was quite anxious how he could cope at nursery, but when I explained, I was totally reassured that they would continue to rock him in his pushchair for as long as he needed. Indeed, I checked on him a few times during the day in the first week and witnessed his careworker doing so a few times. I can't imagine a nursery letting a baby cry itself too sleep. Surely that is against their policy?

Person_one

Andypandyboy wrote: »

My children had one or other of us as a sahp when they were young, yes.

Was it ever you? Was it mostly their mother?

This is a massively gendered issue, its very easy for men to pontificate about the importance of staying at home when they are very unlikely to be the one expected to actually do it!

FBaby

I spent a casual half hour looking and really struggled.

Oh dear....googled and below is the first one that came up! It does state that working under 30 hours was best (indeed, wouldn't argue that) but that working full-time had a neutral effect, not negative.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/7921052/Working-mothers-do-not-harm-their-children-study-finds.html

In any case, we can throw articles after articles, I believe our opinions are more likely based on our own experience. Mine is my parents, my partner's parents, my friends, all working mums, part-time and full-time, who have all raised very happy children and balanced adults, that's more valuable than any research I read.

Economics over social benefit - why do politicians do anything?

What's the economic benefit? In my experience, SAHM don't start going to work when their kids start nursery, they just get more time for themselves, so not sure where the economic benefit lies.

I dont disagree - I stated above I think SAHPs shouldn't get in work benefits, but should get NI stamps in recognition of the value of child care.

But they do already, of course only up to the time they actually cared for their children, not for becoming a housewife once they've turned adults.

NewShadow

duchy wrote: »

I dont see any research that claims that there is a sudden drop in bonding between parents and children at the age of five when most children (regardless of where Mum and Dad are in the daytime) spend six hours a day apart from their family.

I'm wondering if you might be interested in Of Human Bonding: Parent-Child Relations Across the Life Course (Alice and Peter Rossi).

I found it a very well written and in-depth study of age trends, historic and cultural norms, and wider variations in kinship obligations/networks.

It's a little heavy going at times, and some of the language is a little dated (It was first published about 25 years ago), but it explores some interesting topics and themes around bonding with parents as both children and adults.

EDIT: I think this link should be to the googlebooks version I've got in a box somewhere. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OH7HMIa2d_IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=of+human+bonding&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGmoP694vLAhWECBoKHXqCCQcQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=of%20human%20bonding&f=false

FBaby

This is a massively gendered issue, its very easy for men to pontificate about the importance of staying at home when they are very unlikely to be the one expected to actually do it!

I have to say I do find men's perspective on this very interesting. I have a young colleague (late 20s) who is adamant he wouldn't want his wife to work because he strongly believes that it is better for the children that she stays home, although he also often mentions that he doesn't do much chores at home because after all, his wife is home all day long and it's 'her job'. Then there is my OH who doesn't have the same respect for women who want to stay home looking after the children rather than working, but then his mum always worked full-time and was still an amazing mum (he has always been very close to her), so he believes that any woman can do it.

FBaby

It was first published about 25 years ago

ummmm.....