So what's the issue?

[ailbhe]

I paraphrase: "If you'd rather not leave your 10-month-old baby for more than a day, you have deeper issues." I didn't paraphrase the "deeper issues" phrase, since I'm not clear what it means, but the context implies "problems".

But I've heard this before - that it's unhealthy to want to spend almost all of every waking day with your baby, that wanting regular time away in multi-hour chunks is more normal than not, that not wanting such time is evidence that the parent is weirdly dependent on the baby and fostering a dependent attitude in the child, suffocating and other things I can't remember the names for now. If it's a boy-baby Oedipus comes into things once the discussion gets sufficiently heated.

The bit I don't understand is why it's bad for parents, particularly mothers, to want to spend most of the time with their children, caring for them, not leaving them with a sitter or a carer or similar. How does it hurt the mother? How does it hurt the child? How much time away from the child, leaving someone else to care for it, is necessary for optimal psikerlogical development?

This makes about as much sense to me as the assumption that it's bad for children to be left with an alternative carer while the parents, to pick a random example, go out and earn food money, or study, or take papier mache lessons. Why?

Comments

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

I would have thought that biologically we're programmed not to want to leave a child that young. Unless of course, they mean that you should be breaking at that point, because you've already had the next one or are about to...

It's the usual thing, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Stuff the lot of them. You have a healthy, well-balanced charming child, so clearly you're doing something right. Which probably makes you wrong. Or somefink.

[shreena.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't dream of criticising a random person for this - if it works for them, it's none of my business. Well, even if it doesn't work for them, it's still none of my business... ;)

But, on the other hand, I can certainly see how wanting to spend almost all of your waking time with your baby might cause you problems - the most obvious one would be with your relationship. Most relationships are strong enough to survive a few months to a year of baby coming absolutely first and being around all of the time, but I can certainly see it being a problem for couples who go years without spending any time together without the baby/child/children. I sometimes see mothers on the internet who seem proud of never having spent more than a couple of hours apart from their four-year-old and I must admit that my first thought there is "did your marriage/relationship survive that?" because I'm pretty certain that mine wouldn't. And, sure, if you don't have as much invested in your relationship/marriage as you do in your role as parent, that's fine if it works for you but I don't think that's true for most people.

But, yeah, if it works for you, there's no problem with it but taken to extreme I sort of doubt that it will work for you in all areas of your life.

I also think that it depends a bit on what you mean by "being with your child" because I've noticed that children I knew who got plenty of alone time are more self-sufficient, more polite (because less inclined to interrupt an adult conversation randomly and loudly), have more time to explore their own fantasies/make up games/etc, but alone time obviously isn't completely alone time. You can be in the same house as your child all of the time and still give them plenty of time to themselves. And whether or not you think that's worthwhile depends on what sort of things you think is important anyway.

[shreena.livejournal.com]

Oh, and also - at some point, your children will grow up and there certainly are some women who never get over this. It would probably have been better for them in the longrun to have developed other interests even if they didn't want to at the time so as not to feel the empty nest syndrome too acutely.

I don't think that applies to all women who don't like to leave their babies, by any means, but I suspect it does to a minority.

[shreena.livejournal.com]

I am Paranoid and am therefore going to clarify that that was a generalised "you" not you specifically.

[ailbhe]

Well, when I leave Linnea with someone else, I have no idea what happens, but when I don't, I know that she sometimes wants my company, and sometimes plays for hours alone (up to two hours at a stretch). Often she plays in the same room as me, while I do something entirely different.

I do know that Rob spends proportionately more time actively interacting with her than I do when he's got solo charge, but less overall.

[shreena.livejournal.com]

Which sounds about right to me. But I have an aunt who used to literally follow her kids around and insist on entertaining them and, now, she has a 13 year old and a 7 year old who cannot entertain themselves (even together with a game) for more than 20 minutes at a time. That's being with your child taken to extreme.

[ailbhe]

If I had as much energy as your aunt I'd cook better :)

[pariyal.livejournal.com]

Eek! Mine are twelve and two instances of almost-eleven and perfectly able to entertain themselves/each other with or without me around. I wouldn't have taken the job if I'd been at all uncertain about that. (Though they have both my work number and my mobile number and know which nearby adult to call in which circumstances, just in case)

[bookwitch.livejournal.com]

This sounds perfectly healthy to me.

I posted recently about feeling guilty when I have to do housework instead of playing with my daughter. Some people responded as if I NEVER LET THE CHILD HAVE A MOMENT'S PEACE. She plays by herself plenty.


And I can tell you, even when I feel like I just HAVE TO HAVE TIME AWAY, after a while I start missing her.

I think it's perfectly healthy.

[ailbhe]

I just realised - I meant all of the *baby's* waking time, which is usually 4 hours or so less than the adults, given that babies spend 12 hours in 24 asleep, sort of generally, and adults spend 7 or 8.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Partly I think there's a guilt thing. A lot of women can't cope with being totally responsible for their baby 24/7 and need to get away from that for a bit, other women need to go out and earn money to feed the child regardless of what their natural desires vis. staying with the child might be. So it's partly 'you are doing something I can't do thusly you must be wrong or else I'm wrong and I can't stand to be wrong on this' (one-ture-way-ism sucks).

A lot of people might feel that by refusing to leave baby with someone else you are compromising your marriage/relationship and/or missing out on working/socialising/studying/whatever-it-is-they-do.

Other people might feel that by constantly being with a child you deprive the child of the oportunity to socialise with a)other children and b)other adults without your interference. I don't know anything about child psychology though so I've no idea whether they are right. I suspect if the child in question was 10 years then the answer is yes but at 10 months I've really no clue.

Personally I think that it's up to the mother to figure out what will work for her on this front. Most children grow up to become sensible adults who have only a mild dislike for their parents, thusly I suspect that most (obv. there are things which You Should Not Do but they are all terribly horrible things that no sane person would do to their own child) parenting styles work Just Fine.

[tammylc.livejournal.com]

The context I've mostly heard this in is not "I'd rather not leave my child with someone else" but "I couldn't possibly leave my child with someone else." Not necessarily because they don't want to, but because they feel the child couldn't possibly cope. Which I think can be a problem if the mother needs and wants a break, but feels so duty bound that she can't let herself have one. And when the person she "couldn't possibly" with is her spouse, well, I think that could indeed be a sign of a "deeper issue."

But if it's truly "I'd rather not," then I'm with you in thinking that it's silly to think that it's somehow actively harmful.

[ailbhe]

Heh, my take on that is a bit different. I've seen the "can never leave children in anyone else's charge ever" people and well, I'm glad they've never needed surgery requiring an overnight hospital stay, or whatever.

The times when I couldn't leave Linnea with Rob were "deeper issue" times, yeah - sleep issue times. He needs 9 hours in 24. Linnea didn't for months.

Me, I'd prefer not to leave Linnea in someone else's care and company for longer than I have to. Certainly neither Rob nor I would enjoy a weekend away without her; we'd *miss* her. Especially Rob, who doesn't get as much time with her as I do.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

There's also a matter of "left with whom?" I'd be far more willing to leave my kids with my parents for a weekend than I would with a stranger, not only because they're people I trust, but because they're people the kids know well and love dearly. I leave them with their father (and he leaves them with me) pretty regularly, sometimes for a couple of days at a time if he's gone on a business trip or I have a music event I want to go to. Having a parent gone for a little while is one issue; having nobody the child knows and trusts present is a different one. Both have some impact on the child and have to be handled (we definitely put our two year old on the phone with the missing parent when one of us goes away), but it's a lot more of a big deal to be left with someone they don't know.

[jenett]

I think it's a spectrum thing. I think there's a problem if a parent has nothing in their life *but* their child. (And I've seen parents where that's the case: it's really scary.)

However, I don't think that's a problem at 10 months. I think it's more of a problem if the child hits school age, and the parent is still totally revolving their life around the child.

I'm also, as someone else mentioned, really grateful that my parents *did* give me lots of alone time (starting pretty early: certainly by the time I was 3 or 4) when they were nearby, but busy doing necessary business and writing things. It gave me a lot of good perspective on appropriate boundaries about what I could do with my time, and that it was okay to spend time in different ways (and it didn't mean they didn't love me, or care about me.)

The 'knowing from an early age how to amuse myself quietly without need for technology' has come in very handy many times, too. Again, though, 10 months is not where I'd start worrying lots about that.

I think it also depends on what the parent is doing: someone who is staying home with their child every day and not interacting much with other adults is in a different place than you are, or than my mother was (going to the library, to other groups with small children, etc.) And you've got the added bonus of online discussions, so you can talk to other adults without needing another specific person to meet up with you, or be available at exactly the same time.

I was also a little spoiled in one way: my parents didn't need to hire an outside babysitter until I was at least 5 (and I think older) because my older siblings (15 and 16 years older) were around. (My mother would occaisionally go to my father's local performances, especially if it was a situation he hated driving in - bad weather, center of Boston, etc. At the same time, a small child is not the best thing to take to performances of Greek tragedies, even if I did have an excellent attention span for my age.)

The one time I was left alone for longer than an evening, I was, I think, 3, and my father came down with appendicitis while in the Midwest on a trip with my sister: she flew home to help my brother, and my mother flew out there to be with my father (who couldn't travel, and they didn't want to deal with managing a small child in an unfamiliar city, given that my siblings could do a perfectly good job with me. Plus, there were all sorts of adults - family friends, my sibling's friends, etc. who could help out at home.)

[ailbhe]

When's "school age" in your culture? How does home education fit into the picture?

I do think that if someone I trusted and could just call on was living nearby, I'd leave Linnea more often, but, well, they don't. So it would involve getting to know and trust a local casual, ie irregular, babysitter, and, er, that gives me the screaming heebie jeebies.

[jenett]

5ish, give or take? (here, pre-kindergarten usually starts at 4-5ish, and kindergarten at 5, first grade at around 6. There's some variation.) It's also, psychologically, as I understand it, about the time that kids can start dealing better with some kinds of separation. (They get that you'll come back, they can enjoy the process, etc.)

As far as home education: I think it's important for kids being educated at home to have regular interaction with other kids, and for their parents to have something in their life besides being a parent.

I think it's easy for stuff to get warped, otherwise. And then there's just stuff like my mother, who spent 30 years not going on the trips she preferred because of the rest of the family. She's made up for it since, but I think sublimating all of your desires to another person - whether that's another adult, a child, a boss, whatever - can get problematic for anyone.

Mom wasn't insane about it, just she didn't make much fuss about some of the bigger stuff like trips (she was better about small daily stuff in some ways) But I've picked up relationship patterns from that that are *definitely* unhealthy for me, because she was my primary close-relationship model of how women behave towards male partners. I don't think she meant to do that - but it happened all the same, and it messed up my relationship with her for almost 10 years.

As far as home schooling, I've seen some very sensible versions (home schooling combined with after school creative or athletic or other group activities - Girl or Boy Scouts here, for example - which can also give the main at-home parent a chance to go do something else during that time, especially as the child gets older.

I've also come across (professional reading, a few cases of people I've known as acquaintances) the folks who want to completely encase their child, or keep them so tightly tied to home they can't ever explore anything else. And, again, I think that part's unhealthy.

When I was a teenager and babysitting, I worked for a couple of parents who had similar concerns. I think the answer they came up with was to find a couple of trusted babysitters, and rotate them (and actively look for replacements when they got to an age they were less available).

I also generally wasn't babysitting for very young children (in fact, my favorite job was about two years where I babysat regularly for kids who started at about 2, 4, and 6 - I'd get there after the 2 year old was in bed or almost so (7:30ish?) and the other two would be ready for bed. I'd read to them, etc. and the parents could still go see a late movie, go out to dinner, etc. They got private time, the kids knew me, but got lots of time with thier parents before they left. Everyone won.

When I was that age, I did certification training through the local hospital, and they kept a list parents could ask for. Asking people with teenagers if their kids or their friends babysit worked too. (If you go to the library, the librarians might know, or teenage pages might know, for example). Then you do the compatability thing - several people I sat for wanted to talk to my parents, too, to make sure that I'd be generally available for babysitting for at least 6 months.

With several of them, I also spent a couple of sessions (paid, but in some cases less than normal rate) being a mother's helper (the mother was around, but doing other tasks) while I played with the kid. Everyone got to see how it went, I could get pointers on the specific house rules, etc.

[ailbhe]

We had a teenager willing to babysit Linnea in the evenings when L was 3 months old and the teenager was 14 years old. Uh, no. But now that they're both better ages for being babysat, the teenager is too busy :/

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Why? Because I, the person saying that, do want to leave my child for more than a day, and I feel guilty about wanting to, so therefore I'm going to make it so that I'm right and everyone who feels differently than I do is wrong, and so I don't have to feel guilty.

Rather than just accept that it's okay for me to feel that way, and leave the child in capable hands for a day or two, and it's ALSO okay for someone else to NOT feel that way.

'Cause it's very hard for a lot of us humans to accept that other humans may be different than we are and yet not have anything wrong with them. Therefore, we have to define "difference" as "wrongness", so that we can make ourselves be right.

[rmc28]

I think you've pretty much got it there. The idea that different things work for different people seems surprisingly hard to get across.

I have no idea how I'll feel about wanting to be away from my baby, but I guess I'll find out.

[ailbhe]

"they'll talk your methods down until they feel sure they're doing it right"

Apparently I knew all this years ago but have forgotten.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

The only things I can think of that might be bad about it are if the child is made responsible for the mother's happiness by being required to *continue* spending all their time with them, even as they grow up and want to do other things. This is, obviously, totally not an issue with a ten-month-old, but if the mother can't wean herself from her child's constant company when the child is five or ten or fifteen and wants to be adventuring with their friends, there can be problems. I've seen one case of a mother whose definition of 'attachment parenting' obligated her five kids to practice 'attachment childing', and involved major guilt-threnodies whenever they wanted to go anywhere without her.

[ailbhe]

eurgh.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Unfortunately, she found a therapist who agreed with her, and forced her kids into therapy designed to address the "issues that were making them act out by withdrawing from their family." I have to think it's a wonder that the kids are still as sane as they are.

[ailbhe]

Well, the person paying the therapy bills is more likely to be right, right?

[therealocelot.livejournal.com]

I think that, if an otherwise reasonably mentally healthy mother doesn't want multi-hour breaks from her baby, it's probably a sign that she has a good support system.

I wanted breaks from my 10 month old. Not overnight breaks, but multi-hour breaks. I was also the primary person in charge of him 24/7 with very rare exceptions and didn't really have any sort of social network.

I think it's impossible for some people to understand that a primary caretaker could get the relaxation that she needs while still being near the baby.

[ailbhe]

"I think that, if an otherwise reasonably mentally healthy mother doesn't want multi-hour breaks from her baby, it's probably a sign that she has a good support system."

Or an easy baby, or both.

[flybabydizzy.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow, this opens a jar of worms for me!
I was not allowed to leave my kids much. My dh didn't think I needed any guaranteed off duty time, because I loved the kids, didn't I? When my son was 6 months old a neighbour started looking after him for a few hours once a week, but then we moved 200 miles away, to somewhere we knew no-one. The first time I spent a night away from him was when he was 2.5 years old, and I'd just found out I was pg again. It was similar for my daughter; the time I spent 12 hours away from her was when ds was in hospital; she was 20 months old. Dh did take the kids out sometimes, but it wasn't regular, and was often a 'favour' for me.
As various others have pointed out, the type of togetherness is important; whether it is forced, enjoyed, smothering, or simply together in the same house, each doing their own thing.
Mothers and children all need their own friends and own support systems; it is only if these systems work that everyone can be their own person - so important for all concerned. The amount of time parents and children spend together, HEALTHILY, can vary tremendously from relationship to relationship, and still be 'right'.
In a year's time, I will be a lonely empty nester; my kids have been my whole life for the past 20+ years, not totally by my own choice, and it is VERY difficult to let go, but I know that they are more likely to keep in touch if I let them go with a hug and a wave, rather than trying to tie them to me. Oh, and I am trying to make plans for my maternal redundancy! (grin)

I have seen Ailbhe's parenting in real life; and she is superb! So, of course, is Linnea!

[firecat]

More "one-true-wayism" and criticism of mothers, eh?

I'm not a parent but I don't see a problem with a baby's spending lots of time with mom if mom wants. Some of your comments seem to suggest that this bonding increases the likelihood of separation troubles later, but I don't understand why it would increase the likelihood, although wanting to spend lots of time with your baby and wanting to spend lots of time with your child might well be co-located in many moms.

I think it's good for babies to be around lots of different people (unless they hate it) but that doesn't mean mom has to go away.

[k425.livejournal.com]

Crikey. I must have seriously deep issues, because YB is 2.5yrs and I don't plan on leaving him for longer than a day any time soon. He started at nursery when he was 10.5 months and that was the longest he'd been away from me since birth. And I sometimes feel guilty (because I'm a mother, and we're supposed to...) that he goes to nursery full-time rather than being with me full-time because that's what you're supposed to aim for, isn't it.

I don't understand why it's bad for parents to want to spend most of their time with their children. I don't understand why I didn't want to.

[ailbhe]

Presumably for the same reasons some people want children and some don't, or some people want to home-educate and some don't, or some people like to put th emilk in the cup before the tea and some don't - It Just Is, That's All.

[k425.livejournal.com]

I'm with you right up to the issue of tea with milk. Putting the tea in first is Just Plain Wrong.

[ailbhe]

Meh. I've had it both ways, and it's fine. What's wrong is the milk, sugar, teabag, add hot water method. Yeurgh.

[k425.livejournal.com]

Preach, sister, preach! I don't know how anyone call it tea, made like that.