Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Parenting › Life as a Parent › Stay at Home Parents › Where did the idea come from that little kids are better off NOT at home with their moms?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Where did the idea come from that little kids are better off NOT at home with their moms?

post #1 of 196
2/10/12 at 6:24am
Thread Starter 

If you don't agree with me, please don't reply, I'm not really in a state to handle attacks and arguments right now! smile.gif 

 

I don't know about in America, but I live in the UK and am constantly hearing about how wonderful it is that the government invests into small children by providing free nursery school places for 3 year olds.  Most people put their kids in when they're 2, and many while they're babies. EVERYONE puts their kid in by 3 though.I understand it's good if the kids are from bad homes and are better offf not with their moms, but EVERYONE  I know, all educated people, really believe their kids are better off with some strangers in child care.  Where they're 'being taught' things.  Why don't mothers know they can teach their kids stuff themselves, and that little babies and little kids are better off with them?

 

I really hope some people on here agree with me, I don't want to start an argument.  I couldn't say this to anyone here, they're all brainwashed to think their kids are better off NOT with them.  It makes me feel really sad for them and for the kids. 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Plarka - 2/10/12 at 8:47am

You may also like:

What NOT to Say to Newly Pregnant Mom
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
post #2 of 196
2/10/12 at 6:52am

.

post #3 of 196
2/10/12 at 7:57am
Thread Starter 

Hmm?  Not sure about that blank reply...

post #4 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:07am

in the US in my area we have what is called "Headstart" and i believe it starts  at age 3. most people who send the kids there are lazy and don't want their kids around or they have to work. i don't know many people who actually think kids are better off away from home all day but i sure have known lots of parents who can't be bothered to parent!

post #5 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plarka View Post

Hmm?  Not sure about that blank reply...


Missed the part "if you don't agree, please don't reply" - sorry!

 

post #6 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plarka View Post

I don't know about in America, but I live in the UK and am constantly hearing about how wonderful it is that the government invests into small children by providing free nursery school places for 3 year olds.  Most people put their kids in when they're 2, and many while they're babies. EVERYONE puts their kid in by 3 though.I understand it's good if the kids are from bad homes and are better offf not with their moms, but EVERYONE  I know, all educated people, really believe their kids are better off with some strangers in child care.  Where they're 'being taught' things.  Why don't mothers know they can teach their kids stuff themselves, and that little babies and little kids are better off with them?

 

I really hope some people on here agree with me, I don't want to start an argument.  I couldn't say this to anyone here, they're all brainwashed to think their kids are better off NOT with them.  It makes me feel really sad for them and for the kids. 

 

If you don't agree with me, please don't reply, I'm not really in a state to handle attacks and arguments right now! smile.gif

 

 


I don't think its so much that "children are better off with strangers" as it is, "Hey, isn't it great that you can get great quality childcare if you need it??!"

 

I work - I HAVE to work (I'm a single mom - without an income we'd be homeless and starving, NOT whats best for my kid even if he was with me 100% of the time) - and I had to hunt for quality childcare that I could barely manage to afford, and couldn't afford without my ex's court ordered child support. One month of childcare where I am runs me $1400. And thats the second cheapest in my area, and the cheapest isn't a place I would send ANY child.

 

It IS great when parents can get good quality childcare, where their children are nurtured and cared for in age appropriate ways, when parents have to work. And no, its not JUST the children who have shitty parents who benefit from good quality childcare - ALL children who need to be in childcare benefit from it.

 

And I DO NOT work because I can't be bothered to parent. I parent 100% all by myself whenever my son is with me (which is 70% of the time). That includes bringing in the paycheck that feeds him. The child support I receive would NOT house and feed us. I must work - therefore my son needs high quality childcare.

 

 

 

post #7 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post


I don't think its so much that "children are better off with strangers" as it is, "Hey, isn't it great that you can get great quality childcare if you need it??!"

 

I work - I HAVE to work (I'm a single mom - without an income we'd be homeless and starving, NOT whats best for my kid even if he was with me 100% of the time) - and I had to hunt for quality childcare that I could barely manage to afford, and couldn't afford without my ex's court ordered child support. One month of childcare where I am runs me $1400. And thats the second cheapest in my area, and the cheapest isn't a place I would send ANY child.

 

It IS great when parents can get good quality childcare, where their children are nurtured and cared for in age appropriate ways, when parents have to work. And no, its not JUST the children who have shitty parents who benefit from good quality childcare - ALL children who need to be in childcare benefit from it.

 

And I DO NOT work because I can't be bothered to parent. I parent 100% all by myself whenever my son is with me (which is 70% of the time). That includes bringing in the paycheck that feeds him. The child support I receive would NOT house and feed us. I must work - therefore my son needs high quality childcare.

 

 

 


 

 

Sorry, I'm talking about people who DON'T work!  They're stay at home moms but ship their kids out to childcare as early as possible because they think they aren't 'qualified' to look after or teach their children.

 

But I didn't want to argue about this!

 

 


Edited by Plarka - 2/10/12 at 9:13am
post #8 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:45am

yeah, i am not thinking of working parents, either. my first daughter was in daycares from 6 weeks bc i was single and had to work. when i didn't work though, she was with me. the OP is saying parents who don't work think the small children are better to be in these school programs than at home. in my experience, many parents who don't work send the children away so they don't have to parent. or they say "we have to pay for the whole week regardless". i lived in the projects(gov funded housing) where these attitudes were common. i don't see parents who feel the way the OP is describing until the children are 5 and entering kidnergarten.

post #9 of 196
2/10/12 at 8:57am

I still don't see a problem with it. Not everyone wants to be with their children all of their waking hours, and not everyone wants to be in charge of their children's education. I don't think it makes them bad parents, or lazy. Some parents take on all of that - and thats great. Other parents take advantage of childcare and school. There is something to be said for socializing children - which is definitely not necessary, but can be beneficial depending on the family. There is also something to be said about using the "village" that you have available to you, and if that includes govt sponsored childcare whats so wrong with that? Becoming a mother doesn't mean losing your identity outside of motherhood - and its harder for some to hold onto that when they are with their children all of their waking hours of the day. Or if they only have a few hours to themselves a few times a week.

 

I can't even imagine being a SAHM because of how hard it was when I was one - I hated it with the passion of 100000000 suns. I love my ds, but I do not want to stay at home with him, and if I didn't work I still wouldn't be able to do it 24/7 - I just don't have the right personality/temperment/whatever (I'm certainly not patient enough!). Mom's who WANT to do it all should, but those who don't shouldn't be judged for it.

post #10 of 196
2/10/12 at 9:15am
Thread Starter 

I guess I should have known that people who don't agree would come on here just to argue.  I guess I'll just keep my thoughts to myself.  Thanks purplerose, though, for having a civil conversation with me about what I was actually talking about!

post #11 of 196
2/10/12 at 9:27am

Sorry--wrong discussion. I meant to post on a different thread. shy.gif

post #12 of 196
2/10/12 at 9:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plarka View Post

I guess I should have known that people who don't agree would come on here just to argue.  I guess I'll just keep my thoughts to myself.  Thanks purplerose, though, for having a civil conversation with me about what I was actually talking about!



people can disagree and still be civil - I'm pretty sure I wasn't nasty. I'm not required to agree, and I really wish I could block this forum from showing up on my feed - but since I frequent the single mama forum I can't. It's very unfortunate really since most SAHM's seem to think that anyone who doesn't spend 100% of their time raising babies is lazy and can't be bothered with their kiddos. oh well. You want to have a judgement day over here all by yourselves go right ahead.

post #13 of 196
2/10/12 at 10:39am

Well...I see you have more than one child, so frankly your opinion on this baffles me in the "what have I done wrong" (jovial) sort of way.  :) I felt that way, too. Then I had another child.  Now I need a break. So I paid a whole lot of money (I'm in US) to send my very independent 3 year old to school, for three mornings a week. She'd been accompanying me to take her older brother for her entire life, and now it was her turn. She was thrilled. I was thrilled. I suppose it's also personality-dependent, as well. My eldest and I were super attached and enjoyed nearly every moment of eachother's company (well at least during the daylight hours!)  The only reason I sent him to school at 3 1/2 was I was certain he was to go at 4 and by an odd twist of fate his little sister was due to arrive the first week of school in the Fall.  We decided that would be an awful turn of events to our very sweet and attached little guy, so we started a couple of months before the end of the year prior so it wouldn't be such a "Hey, kid, you're being replaced. The new model is here" moment for him and more of a "this is what we do," situation.  I enjoyed every moment with my child, I even sat in the car outside of school rarely leaving in those first weeks (yes, I was the preschool spy mom!).  My second and I do better when we have more time a part from eachother, and I'll leave it at that. ;)

 

So, yesssssssss, I did agree with you, once upon a time. It sounds to me like perhaps you have faced some criticism for making a choice outside of the mainstream where you live and that can't feel good. Take heart, your children are fine home with you and if you love every moment to the extent you cannot fathom sending them to childcare part of the time...that's okay, too!  I had three years like that, myself.  Craving time alone doesn't make one lazy, just different than you.

 

 

post #14 of 196
2/10/12 at 1:14pm

I used to want my kids with me at all times. I was going to homeschool because I could not conceive of shipping my kids off with strangers for 8 hours a day. Or that is how I saw it then. I could do better myself! DD1 did stay with me until she was 6.5 years old so in some ways I guess I did it for a while. But I went on to have 4 children in all. And for me, personally, I can't be everything for all these kids now. I very happily send them off to school, my now 2 year will go next fall when he is 3. He is a little different in that he needs special education and they pay for preschool so he can get his services there. Even if that wasn't going to happen, I very well might of put him in this year anyway, for sure the following school year. I'm not sitting at home watching reality TV the whole time they are gone, but even if I was, nothing wrong with a break! I use that time to care for the other kids at home, cook, clean, run errands, work very, very part time so when those kids that are at school are home with me, we just may have more play time together. 

post #15 of 196
2/10/12 at 1:49pm

I'm a SAHM and my 3.5yo just started kindy 3 afternoons a week, and sometime after he turns 4yo he will move up to five mornings a week. I think it's great! I get time alone and he gets to do things that I would never do with him. Infact the whooooooooole morning he asks every ten minutes if it's kindy time yet. Having some time and space makes me a better mother. I have stayed home since my 1st was born because I think it's best for the kids but just because I think it's better to be home with me instead of daycare every day doesn't mean that he has to be with me every second.

post #16 of 196
2/10/12 at 1:49pm
I totally agree with you. Obviously people who have a legitimate reason like they. Must work it makes sense for. For those who do not work I think it is reallydumb and selfish. That being said though lol if they are selfish maybe it reallyis better the kids are there.

Anyway you have the right idea momma you be in charge of raising your kids and spend all the time you can with them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #17 of 196
2/10/12 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post

I totally agree with you. Obviously people who have a legitimate reason like they. Must work it makes sense for. For those who do not work I think it is reallydumb and selfish. That being said though lol if they are selfish maybe it reallyis better the kids are there.
Anyway you have the right idea momma you be in charge of raising your kids and spend all the time you can with them.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You know Love, I have seen your very opinionated posts all over Mothering and all I have to say is that until you have children you really don't know what you're talking and you might want to be careful what you say as it's probably going to come back and bite you in the ass later.

post #18 of 196
2/10/12 at 3:17pm

Your post about not sending a 3 yo to preschool might better received in the Learning at Home forum.  I'm going to assume that the majority of SAHP's who do not homeschool end up using some sort of preschool or child care at some point before elementary.  

 

If you want to strictly talk about how you think babies are better off home with a parent than in the care of others, well, you might get the kind of conversation here you were hoping for.  However, being that this is a forum on the world wide web, where discussions take place, you have to be okay with voices of dissent. 

post #19 of 196
2/10/12 at 3:54pm

So the woman who cannot accept ideas outside of her own little view of the world is calling me brainwashed?   peace.gif

post #20 of 196
2/10/12 at 5:51pm
.
Edited by lolablitz - 2/11/12 at 7:22pm
New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents

You may also like:

What NOT to Say to Newly Pregnant Mom
There Is Not Always a "Fix" For the Difficult Child
10 Things You Don't Need For a New Baby
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Parenting › Life as a Parent › Stay at Home Parents › Where did the idea come from that little kids are better off NOT at home with their moms?