Child guru says nurseries harm small children

The Sunday Times ^ | February 12, 2006 | Sian Griffiths

[tbird5]

The Sunday Times - Britain

The Sunday Times February 12, 2006

Child guru says nurseries harm small children Sian Griffiths ONE of the world’s most popular parenting gurus is to warn that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their development.

Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate” job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies.

The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.

In his new book Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.

He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.

[Paperdoll]

May I suggest that unless you can afford to stay home to raise precious wee ones with love and wisdom, please do not beccome pregnant!

Nurseries = the number one cause of road rage.

[Paperdoll]

No. 2 cause = high taxation

No. 3 cause = inlfation

And an extemely important No. 4 cause - Dr Benjamin Spock

[usmom]

Sadly, I have heard of many situations like this. Many times, the mother doesn't even work, but has the child in daycare full-time so she can do her own thing (shop, work out, clean house and do errands) during the day. Of course they always rationalize it by saying how much their child 'loves' daycare and how they (the child) would be 'bored' at home. I have a friend who claims that when her baby is home all day (on the weekend and such) that they are bored and miss daycare!

[usmom]

My wife would be MISERABLE staying at home with our son;

Wow. I wonder if you realize how sad that statement actually sounds. As a husband, aren't you offended/hurt that your wife is made miserable by being around your own child? I consider it an extension of my love for my husband that I love, care for and educate OUR children. If I rejected raising our children, I can't help but think he would feel, in some part, rejected himself. He would also be wondering why we had a family in the first place. Did she not want a child or did she just think she would feel differently? It can be hard, lonely and even frustrating work staying home with babies and young children, but the time is actually short in the grand scheme of things and very well spent in the end.

[RMDupree]

So instead of being grateful to God for your good fortune - you choose to believe it was all of your own making? Your superior decision-making skills are the reason you've had a happy life?

I'm stunned by your conceit.

It's gonna be ugly when something happens to shake up that perfect world ~you've~ created. I'll pray for you.

[Ramius]

If I can select the perfect wife and raise the perfect child, by following my own theories, I do not see why everyone else cannot do it also.

You're just kidding... right? Otherwise, I sure hope for their sake that they never disappoint you.

But then, I tarry in futility, for what use is the advice of someone with no problems?

[Ramius]

Heh. Funny that.

[ShadowDancer]

I'm so tired of hearing how 'the system' has failed people. They are your children. Raise them. Do whatever you have to but for Christ's sake, do it.

[RMDupree]

Many over-the-top knee-jerk reactions are merely borne of insecurity and overcompensation. They assume life must always be controllable. The prospect that life may take a turn that doesn't fit their lifelong plan is simply terrifying. Its the hallmark of a control freak.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Even if I'd had a ~perfect~ life, I simply cannot imagine strutting around insisting that it was all because of some "personal blueprint for success" I'd created.

Seems like doing that would be practically begging that God take you down a notch or two. There's much to be said for a humble woman/man.

[Snoopers-868th]

Again, you go round and round by saying that the term "single mother" is an example of political correctness. Let's try it again: The question is whether a woman is ~less~ of a single parent depending on how she got there? And if placing the child in day care while she works to support that child an indication that she is a bad parent?

I never made any judgmental statement and there is no going round and round on my part. I made a simple statement that single mom is politically correct speech. It is either widowed, divorced, or unwed mother. You apparently are offended by one as you seem to read more into my statement than was intended.

[RMDupree]

Otherwise, I sure hope for their sake that they never disappoint you.

They just don't let him find out. Kinda like the dad DeNiro played in "Meet The Parents".

:-)

[RMDupree]

You apparently are offended by one as you seem to read more into my statement than was intended.

I'm not offended at all.

And I understood your point the first time.

But - by wanting to spell out ~why~ the woman is a single mother, it does seem that you want folks to judge her based on how she got that way.

Or am I just reading you wrong?

[Salvation]

I used to own a child care center and agree that these young children should be home with their parents. That's why I had one -- our residence was attached and I was there when my children needed me!

[Snoopers-868th]

That's funny, all these years I've thought that "single mom" means a Mom who is single! Now I realize it means "communist"! Thanks for enlightening us!

Dumbing down of society to create more victims--just as the liberals want. Tell me why these women are special or why a designation such as "single mom" should be used when mom fits fine or divorced or widowed or unwed? If these are nasty terms--who should we blame? The no good father because he was no good and the smart woman is a victim because she got involved with him. Give me a break. The adjective single has victim written all over it and I don't buy it. Life is about choices and living with those choices--sorry.

[RMDupree]

For the record, Trout - I do not consider myself a victim.

Nor do I expect anyone to treat me as such.

[Snoopers-868th]

But - by wanting to spell out ~why~ the woman is a single mother, it does seem that you want folks to judge her based on how she got that way.

I am not wanting a why in particular because I think it is irrelevant. Choices people make are personal and they should be responsible for their choices, be it day care, marriage, divorce or whatever. Divorced, widowed and unwed are legitimate terms in our society and were used until the liberals came along with politically correct speech and disguised the above as single moms. Seems it is a bad thing if the liberals use it but if it suits the conservatives on a personal level we all should accept it. Well I don't. It is politically correct speech and has victim written all over it. See post 214.

[Snoopers-868th]

Then may I suggest you drop the term single mom from your vocabulary? Mom will suffice.

[RMDupree]

I responded to the post you referred to just one second before your post to me.

Divorced, widowed and unwed are legitimate terms in our society and were used until the liberals came along with politically correct speech and disguised the above as single moms.

I never knew it was politically incorrect to say someone was a widow, divorcee or unwed mother.

But I don't see why it is anyone's business as to why a person is a single parent. And you seem to want it advertised.

What other reason would you have other than to make judgements based on the reason?

[RMDupree]

I don't go around blabbing about being a single mom, Trout.

The only reason I brought it up was to show that not everyone can stay home with their children instead of placing them in daycare.

[Snoopers-868th]

See post 217.