I Think, mothers need their "career" as well as fathers, but not on cost of their children; goo, if there is a granny, who takes the child that she nows for some hours a day; otherswise mothers may get burned out in need for some substantiell work. and granny has allready experience in education, and more patience in telling tales. Even if it may sound oldfashioned, but I think, it is the better model - of course if there is harmony among the family!

Maria Spari, Mörlenbach, Germany

Women can have their careers, 'but not at the expense of their role as mothers' - what about the role of fathers? To my mind it is the role of fathers that needs to be changed. Why should women have to settle for a lesser career just because they have a child? Why cannot a man 'have his career - but not at the expense of his role as father'? The stigma surrounding paternity leave is only going to be reinforced by articles such as James'. Men such as James need to realise that it is not a woman's duty to forgo their career for the sake of the children and a man's maintaining of his. Why should a woman leave her high-flying career to return to the home when her husband could just as equally leave his? James' proposition is out-dated and does little to challenge the traditional sexual division of labour.

Katy Pilcher, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire

Oliver James obviously has a very clear idea of where he wishes woment to be-in the home, looking after the kids. Women , in his eyes, should never get beyond themselves, too uppitty and forget " their role as mothers".
With this philosophy I feel he is not objectively evaluating what is happening to children in daycare-he is seeing what he wants to see.
Unfortunately as he is not an unbiased observer I think his observations about daycare should be kept to himself instead of alarming and distressing mothers-which is what he intends to do.

Jane, London,

Now we have got to the point of needing two working parents to pay a mortgage to buy a home, where does that leave children? Now prices are so high how do we turn this around?

margaret beck, farnham, surrey, uk

A childs first relationship in life is with it's mother. How it learns, when it is tiny, to interreact, and make a dependable relationship with her will be the backbone of it's relationships with outsiders later. Again so with it's father and siblings. This first relationship should be a dependable one from which to gain the stability to go out into the world. It is where boundaries are learnt and confidence is built - a sense of belonging - a place of safety. No child care can offer this. No child care can offer that special one to one in anyones life that is built on a mothers unconditional love.

margaret beck, farnham, surrey, uk

Dear Bela,
Even mothers have adult interactions on a daily basis, children are looked after by other adults. Why do some people tunnel vision about rearing you own children i.e. you are isolated with x number of small children all day? As a graduate I think taking time out to look after your children (if you can afford to), is the most important thing you can do. The carer can be male or female.
I find it annoying that someone who intimates she went to university uses exaggeration (playing games 24/7) to try to demean T. Chambers who has the intelligence to see the value of bringing up her own children. It also concerns me that if you are *clever* chilcare is beneath you. This is all part of the thinking that has lowered the status of being a stay at home parent (male or female).

J. Reynolds, Sheffield, south yorks

I have been a stay at home mum now for 16 years, yes 16!! now that my youngest child is eleven I am ready for a new challenge ( parenting is extremely challenging belive me) and would love to pursue my long held dream of being an airhostess!! Do you think I have the suitable qualities? ie: running a home, organizing people with military precision, being at the beck and call of people who think its their god given right to treat you with disdain, Does anyone think I would get through the application process?

R.L, Edinburgh, Scotland

Shocking to see the solidarity of feminism so undermined by Bela...

Btw, T. Chambers, *some* adult women want interaction with other adults on a daily basis. Some of us didn't go to university to play games, kick a ball around or bake 24/7.

....to so underestimate the importance and value to society of motherhood. The freedom to have a worthwhile career or interact with other adults on a daily basis is not disputed. However all prospective parents should accept that their responsibility to their children comes before any career or personal aspirations. Adults who are unwilling to make some lifestyle sacrifices to better enable them to be attentive, loving parents should think long and hard about their suitability for the role.

John, Sheffield,

A girlfriend of mine has to leave her 6 month year old baby in day care because she can't afford not to be in full time work. It isn't her choice.

Charlotte, London, England

Ah, yet another man telling women what they should be doing!

"Real feminism requires us to reevaluate the roles of both men and women. Of course, that means women having careers as men do — but not at the expense of their role as mothers. Likewise, it entails men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children and investing less in their careers — at present, by far the most significant pillar of identity for both sexes in the English-speaking world. " That *was* what we, feminists, envisaged, back in the '60s and '70s. It didn't happen. I wonder why...

Btw, T. Chambers, *some* adult women want interaction with other adults on a daily basis. Some of us didn't go to university to play games, kick a ball around or bake 24/7.

Bela, London,

As regards feminism and women doing a worthwhile job, don't they realise that the most worthwhile job they can do is to build and mould the child they have born into a fine well adjusted adult, and this starts from birth.
Who on earth could want to give their child in it's formative years to a stranger to mould into what they see as the right way. That is not a strager's job, that is the parent and particularly the mother at that age. I'm sure it was Baldur von Schirak, Hitler Youth leader who said "give me a child in it's formative years" etc etc. His organisation made young children into heartless Nazis, most of the young men joinging the SS. This of course is an extreme case, but it shows that children not taught good valuse by their parents when young will learn the values of others. A child learns very quickly from bein born till five and they learn by example, don't believe me, try learning to speak another language when you're older. When others to teach your kids they aren't yours

Dante, Hartlepool,

If Erica comes from Newcastle, she probably will know just how low peoples wages are. She has very valid points. When children are asked to give honest answers to the question....would you swap all you gameboys etc for your mother or father to play with you, the answer is always YES. You don't see parents organising football or cricket games on grassed areas now, every summer night, duiring the 50s and 60s, parents played out with their kids. I've seen 20 a side football with parents and kids making up the teams but not any more. As far as Starling not being able to afford a TV licence, big deal, what is there on TV worth watching? Spend the time playing with kids and stop letting some terrible American TV show babysit them.

Dante, Hartlepool,

Every situation has to be evaluated individually, children having stay-at-home depressed mothers are, they in turn, very likely to be sad and depressed. It should be a choice and not an obligation. Having young au-pair girls is no solution they are just watching the clock ready to be relieved of their "duties" instead of watching or caring for the children ( based my own experience !, along with a group of other au pairs). After leading a fabulous career circumstances were that after bankruptcy of the firm I worked for I found myself at home. Revelation !. It was the best thing that happened to me and ... my children. I chose to stay.
Although I missed the comradeship of friends at work. The sheer joy of having my children running into my arms at 4 0'clock instead of being the last to be picked up at the "garderie" in the wee small hours of the evening and starting my "second job" as an exhausted mother. The price to pay - difficult to go to the Bahamas for Holidays. Hmmm.

Ann Johnson, Brussels, Belgium

er...the whole feminist thing began with the total rejection of motherhood: having children and looking after them at home was said to drive all women mad. They needed liberation by being allowed to go to work and be independent of fathers of their children. Sorry...is this basic feminist doctrine now deemed to be catastrophic for our culture? Could feminists please tell us this? Or deny it?

Ibnezraster, Homerton, UK

I am a stay at home mum with two well balanced and well behaved children. I do not find being a mother in the least bit boring, there is always so much to do: I play games with my children, we do sporting activities, we bake and I support them at school. BUT, I am looked upon as lazy (by working mothers), because I do not have a job, and people constantly make veiled and not so veiled suggestions that I am using my children as an excuse for not finding a job. I find this very hurtful and it demeans what I feel is the most important job in the world.
Your article in the Times 15/02/07 totally backed up my views on parenthood and also why I rejected nurseries. It was a great boost to my self-esteem that being "just a mother" is not demeaning, in fact quite the opposite. The article puts forward the refreshing and revolutionary idea that staying at home to look after your children is the most rewarding and essential job in the world. Thank you for a pat on my battle scarred back.

T. Chambers, Wainfleet, Lincolnshire

No, they don't need those things, Erica, but you obviously have no idea how badly some people get paid. What can people do when they can't afford to buy a house, and the council refuses them a council house? They either live in a damp hell-hole without heating, or they both work so they can live somewhere decent. It happens. Trust me.

Starling, Lancaster,

Both parents do not need to work. A family can still be supported on one ('low paid') job.

It just means that a lot of the things chelsea -type parents think children 'need' will have to go without - big cars to ferry them round their structured lessons in the evenings, junk food, no computer, slightly smaller house, no garden (so they have to play in the park with friends instead) & no new expensive clothes

- So we will be going back to the kind of life kids had say 20 years back when one parent stayed at home anyway, and it may be tough but even still the quality of life will be better still than then.

do they need these things? What do people think?

erica whalley, Newcastle, Tyne and Wear

I am a working mum with 4 children,and have used a variety of different sorts of childcare - I've done it myself, family members have helped, we have had nannies and we have used nurseries. With regard to nannies and nurseries - nannies are fine until they are ill or have an off day, but at a good nursery (in my experience) there's safety in numbers for your child. I will also add that I have been lucky enough to have a very supportive partner who has done a lot of child care stuff, and also to have a job that has enabled me to work flexibly. This job involves working to implement Equalities legislation - the more I do it, the more I can't help feeling that small children need their mums, and that as a society, we should do more to help this happen.

v.young, Swansea, Wales

Oh gosh!
You are probably better to keep on working and stay well away from any children, J Tomalin, if you regard childcare as "hard, thankless and intellectually dull".Even better: a threat to your "mental health".

Yes, who are "we" to tell you what to do with your children. That's a legitimate question! The answer is pretty simple: as "we" as society may bear the brunt of "wrongly" raised children (as seen on the news everyday), I think "we" do have a say. At least regarding general outlines of child raising. One example: school education is not "up to the parents". "We" mandate it!

Pat, London, England

How completely ridiculous (but I suppose he just wanted a soundbite headline... ) to blame the problems of children on their mums. I agree with the comment, that surely men have an equal role to play. He uses a completely useless analogy with S Europe. Where does he mean? If he means S Italy and Greece, there is widespread poverty in these areas which mean there are simply no jobs for anyone, never mind women who want to work. And why, if a woman is better educated and earns more than her husband, should she stay at home? Part time work is where it is at. The carer can also be fulfilled by having a life outside of the home and can be a better carer in it. I wasn't a feminist before, but misogynist articles like this make me want to perform a 'bobbett'!

Lisa, Milan,

I have seen the light! I shall no longer be a horrible money-grabbing woman who doesn't love her kid properly! I shall quit work, live on the dole, and watch telly all day!

...

Or maybe not. I don't think I can afford the TV license.

starling, Lancaster,

I used to feel the same as Mikki but now I have two children I would give anything to be a stay at home mum. Unfortunately I am the major wage earner in our family and if both my partner and I did not work we would not be able to pay the morgage. I do however agree with a policy of getting parents who have never done a days work in there life into the workplace as I tend to resent having to work so hard to support my own family and watch as the money I pay in taxes goes to support people who are content to sit on there backside and do nothing but have child after child for the rest of us to support.

Michelle, Gillingham,

Do you notice that we never get race or crime issues from the Chinese, who live in the UK in large numbers?
15 years ago, I worked on a state funded Afro-Caribbean community project in Bristol. The leaders expressed concern at the 'culture' of young feral males whose career options of choice were music, drugs or sport. By contrast, black women were opting for education, with a high success rate. As a consequence, such women were becoming less inclined to form relationships with black men but chosing men of other races who shared their cultural, social and economic aspirations. This led to further disaffection among black men. Their fecklessness was seen in the numbers of white girls I met who lived in state funded accommodation with small children by the same black father, one of whom boasted that he could sleep at a different address every night . The Harry Enfield 'Brown Baby' and Matt Lucas' 'Vicky Pollard' sketches are spot-on. Unfortunately, the offspring now carry guns.

Ian, Bristol, UK

susie from sheffield shows us how big a problem we have. she believes her toddler of one year and eight months is capable of having friends. when people know so little about children what hope do we have for our society?

Lewis, London, UK

My 2-year old daughter attends nursery 5 days per week. Far from being 'manifestly distressed', she is a happy confident normal child. Unlike some of her stay-at-home peers, she has excellent language and social skills, which in fact lower her potential levels of distress as she can make herself understood, and is happy to share and take turns with other children.
I have a universty degree and post-graduate qualification. The decision my husband and I made for both of us to continue working after our daughter's birth was made for the benefit of all of us as a family, not least to safeguard her mother's mental health. Childcare is indeed hard, thankless and intellectually dull, and I applaud any woman or man who chooses to to make it their full time occupation. But no-one has the right to tell me I am not doing the absolutely best thing for my child, nor to belittle the work of hundreds of dedicated childcarers in excellent nurseries around the country.

J Tomalin, Guildford,

Errr... why do we assume in this article that it's the women who will be the "stay at home" parent? What's wrong with the man doing it? Or did I miss that bit?

Mikki, Birmingham,

It is interesting how a marginalised (on a global scale at least) way of thinking (=feminism) here in Europe and the USA thought it could topple a social institution (the family) which has proved itself for tens of thousands of years without side effects, which are currently being felt in today's Western societies, one of which is the demise of any social structure due to ego-centric females, who feel they have to catch up on millenias of being "subdued" (which is arguable).

Many men are now "voting with their feet", or should I say: beds! I know many Western European males who are tired of these overzealous female attitudes and are longing for a "traditional" family, so what do they do? Seek an Eastern European, Asian or Oriental woman. From my own experience I can say: those women are head strong, have their own will, are emancipated and lead independant lives, yet have not lost their traditional values of family, children and, most of all, femininity. Thank God!

Pat, London, England

Nothing will change. In an ideal (theoretical) world, a couple would share childcare, for example, one would work from 9am-1pm and the other from 2pm-6pm. However, the sad truth is that the present situation doesn't allow for part time work. If this was changed, it would be interesting to see if most people don't just prefer money to family anyway.

Marco, bhm, uk

I returned to my career on a part time basis after having my child. He is 20 months old. He goes to a nursery which he loves and never cries when I leave him there. He has friends and does many activities that I know I would struggle to replicate at home. I find it extremely difficult to work and be a Mum. My employers pay lip service to equality of treatment but since I returned to work I have lost all status and am treated like a trainee. When I complain I am made to look like I want it all and am not prepared to work hard enough, just because I do not work extra hours which will eat into the time I have with my son. I do not want to work but have to contribute to our mortgage repayments. However, if I could afford to give up work I would still want my child to go to nursery because I have seen the difference between him and children who stay at home all the time: he is more confident, more outgoing, more socially developed and more advanced in every sense.

Susie, Sheffield,

I have just given up a lucrative full time job which I loved. The decision was driven by a niggling feeling that I just wasn't getting the work/home balance correct.

The nursery I send my 3 year old daughter to is wonderful. She is a happy, boisterous, loving little girl. But working hours, dashing through traffic to get her, fit in shopping, cooking, cleaning etc just started to feel like being on a carousel. Apart from weekends, we didn't have time for swimming, or family walks or just doing fun things together.

I now freelance from home, and things are much easier and nicer for us. That said, I still keep my daughter part-time in nursery. She loves it, has lots of little friends in there and enjoys the activities. I feel she is in there for fun, stimulation and development now.

I do feel that it's a shame that my company didn't offer more family friendly solutions, and that it seems to be left up to each family to work out a solution for themselves.

Liz, Dublin , Ireland

Interesting - this article's appearance coincided with a number of others that all seem to be rooted in the misguided belief that "happiness" is an absolute human right. The US Constitution uses the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" but wisely does not try to define what it might look like when it is found. This never-ending whine about failure, malcontentment, unhappiness and so on is because we have been sold the idea that we have a right. to it . We do not. We have obligations to find the safest surest path to raise our children and fit them for the difficult world they face. We do not have the right to abdicate this obligation to the state, but that is what we have done in pursuit of material gain and the elusive "happiness".

Tim, London,

I sense a contradiction here. Mr James points the finger at full day care and even cites an esteemed day nursery in Denmark as being upsetting for its toddlers. The UNICEF report however puts Denmark at 3rd from the top in the league of childhood contentment. In Denmark, most parents work full time. Is Mr James' assessment of the children's feelings on the day he was shown round really objective assessment? It may have been a bad day. Are not the UNICEF findings more reliable?

Colin Dennis, Dursley , Glos

James Oliver is 100% right!

I was born and bred in Italy, I moved to the UK 1989, I have an Italian mum born in Edinburgh.
This is the difference between Italy and the UK. Italy still values family and the role of a mother, children are brought up by their parents. We need to go back to that very soon.
Family is important to the UK but it has no time to think about it. We are too busy trying to keep up with jobs, flats and creating a position for the next generation.
But I will be poor when I stop working because I want to give my children the same upbringing I had. I am against leaving them in childcare.

Gabriella La Rocca , London,

It is interesting how a marginalised (on a global scale at least) way of thinking (=feminism) here in Europe and the USA thought it could topple a social institution (the family) which has proved itself for tens of thousands of years without side effects, which are currently being felt in today's Western societies, one of which is the demise of any social structure due to ego-centric females, who feel they have to catch up on millenias of being "subdued" (which is arguable).

Many men are now "voting with their feet", or should I say: beds! I know many Western European males who are tired of these overzealous female attitudes and are longing for a "traditional" family, so what do they do? Seek an Eastern European, Asian or Oriental woman. From my own experience I can say: those women are head strong, have their own will, are emancipated and lead independant lives, yet have not lost their traditional values of family, children and, most of all, femininity. Thank God!

Pat, London, England

It is always the fault of women - especially mothers. If we work we're ambitious, grabbing, child-haters. If we don't work we're lazy couch potatoes. Teenage girls just get pregnant for the money and single parent families (almost always single mothers) are the cause of all social ills.
Meanwhile you would be hard-pressed to find criticism of an ambitious father, no matter how many hours a week he works. What is the effect of a father that works, versus one that stays at home? What is the effect of a father working 60 hours a week and barely seeing their children? You don't read much about 'research' into that.
My two happy and secure children attend a nursery for 3 days of the week. I work 4 days a week, my husband works 4 days a week - that makes him an exceptionally good father and me an exceptionally bad mother.

mumof2, Scotland,

This raises really interesting issues about our elected "representatives" in the party elites who appear to live in a different world to us the majority. Can they be expected to find the proper solutions to day care when they don't use day care centres themselves but can afford one-to-one nannies? Is there no real alternative to the plutocracy?

Les, Lavendon, UK

Nonsense article. The Scandinavian coun tries top the league in happy well brought up children. feminism and a comrephensive welfare state has acieved this. What the author really wants is to put women on a pedestal, with men owning and cnontrolling the pedestal - its about putting women in their place and turning the clock back.

"Real feminism requires us to reevaluate the roles of both men and women. Of course, that means women having careers as men do — but not at the expense of their role as mothers. Likewise, it entails men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children and investing less in their careers — at present, by far the most significant pillar of identity for both sexes in the English-speaking world. "

Sweet - and will actually do the work? Are single people to be slaves of a new brattocracy?

Neil Murphy, cromer,

It's interesting how, if you give up your career to look after a relative who is incontinent and incapable of walking, speech or feeding him/herself, you are seen as a saint - unless the relative happens to be a baby, in which case everyone nags you to get back to some 'real' work.
Perhaps the media haven't helped by going on about the 'yummy mummy', giving the impression that full-time parenthood is a luxury for the rich and fashionable - and then printing whining articles from rich and fashionable women who tried to be 'yummy mummies', found that it was hard, boring work and nothing like the idyll they'd been led to believe, and therefore gave it up. Personally, I am grateful to my mother for giving up work from when I was born until my brothers started work, and I think spending our formative years living in second-hand or home-made clothes did us nothing but good.

Elizabeth Bullen, Leeds, England

Its the rampant materialism, and marketing schemes which indoctrinates people into the wants and desires of chasing careers, to be able to afford nice things and drive the economy forward. Its no longer up to the man to be the bread winner in a given family, but human evolution gives that the maternal instinct is better for bringing the child up. The Government has made this difficult via the cost of living, and as stated above, childish, snobbery, and judgmental comments by those affected marketing of materials and wanna be's are making people feel negative and isolated to stay at home and look after their children. What's more important, a nice coat, or a bright future for your child? Consumer Marketing is one of the main reasons for depression, you must have this, do that and need this. We are not listening to what our families NEED, but we are to what we as individuals WANT.

J Threadgill, Swindon,

Why is it that although the research quoted states that children cared for by 'a parent' does better, it is always the women that are demonised for wanting to return to work? By increasing statutory maternity leave to 9 months with no option for men to take more than 2 weeks, the government is saying it is really only the woman's responsibility. In Germany more leave is available (at a higher rate anyway) if both parents take some. As no men appear to be fighting for this right I assume they realise that although looking after children is certainly hard work, it is not necessarily intellectually stimulating, or something they aspire to but are happy for women to do.

Chantal, Worcester, UK

"While Thatherism was astonishingly successful, and in some respects benign, it increased the proportion of children raised in low-income families - from 19 per cent in 1979 to 31 per cent by 1981"
In other words: While astonishingly successful, it's results were catastrophic. Wha...?

Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.

Surely, it's not the type of child who has two career parents that's going off the rail. I think a few issues are to blame here: 1. Culture, which encourages lack of achievement (or defines achievement as appearing on a reality show) 2. Discipline at home and at school; it's hard at home when the child's father is an unknown variable and its mother is badly behaved herself.

On the contrary, the career mothers you speak of are hardly responsible for unruly kids.

Abioye A Oyetunji, London, UK

Oliver James is like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but what a welcome voice it is. How long will it take Governments to realise that the inevitable outcome of a policy which encourages parents to leave their children in childcare from the earliest age is this endless cycle of disaffected youth, agression, crime, and lack of respect which blights our cities. Children need to develop the confidence and loving relationships that only their parents or grandparents can give them. Nursery can never be a surrogate mother or father, and the Government needs to seek out ways to encourage and enable parents to work flexibly around their children's needs. Alas! experience suggests that such a move will not happen, as it will require consent on the part of employers to a review of working practices, and this would be far too politically risky to ever by a viable policy. In the meantime, our children, and inevitably society, suffer.

B Harrold, Manchester,

Oliver James is only suggesting that children under 3 should have the full time care of one parent. Surely it isn't too much to ask that when deciding to have children, parents should consider who and how they are going to be cared for? It doesn't have to be the mother, maybe the father, but all the evidence shows that in their very early years, children relate best one-to-one. However good the nursery may be, it cannot supply such care. Children have to learn to wait their turn before they have developed any understanding of their own and others' needs. Their day has to be structured at an age when they need to have all the time in the world to just "be". For some, it may be an inevitable result of dire economic circumstances, but, if we're honest, for many it is a "lifestyle" decision and the more people speak up about the consequences for the children, maybe the more people will challenge this. Looking after young children is the greatest privilege - let's hope more people can see it that way!

Jill Mumford, Wimborne, Dorset

It's good this has been addressed. I think there does need to be a third way. But I think the problem in this country is no-one is prepared to think outside the perimeters of the existing system, as it costs too much, now that everything is so costly. I think it's a case of being trapped in welfare dependency or working all hours, which is going to erode any idea of a 'family'. However, there's no point working part- time, as it doesn't pay, and people tend to get frightened of losing their benefits if they do get a job, which is a socio-economic trap of Modern Britain. And it is disgusting, as those who work hard are never rewarded and those who want to work will never be able to. And we talk of equal opportunities? Politically Correct nonsense. There is no reward for parents to stay at home and parents know quality time with kids is a thing of the past. My mum stayed at home to look after me - and is now working her socks off for a pension; she'll be still workin when she's 80.

Herbert, Elstree,

I have four children all of whom went to fantastic nursaries - and I can tell you they loved it and so did I. In Flanders, as in Denmark, they offer ceap but excellent child care facilities. If the nursaries are well regulated and well funded then I believe that children can benefit from the stimulation of a nursary envirnment.

In Flanders the "stay at home mother" is simply not an issue. Everyone - mothers and fathers - take advantage of the opportunity - and no the children, well the ones that I have met at least, are not unconfident malcontents.

Kathleen Garnett, Leuven, Belgium

I also agree totally with Oliver James. How many people who leave their children at day nurseries would let the (often young inexperienced) nursery staff drive their car or stay in their home unsupervised? There is something wrong with the lack of value we place on our children in the UK. Buying expensive toys and gadgets cannot make up to today's children what parents are failing to do which is sacrifice some of their own desires for their children's welfare and dare I say it, even ENJOY being parents rather than viewing having a baby as just another possession to be put aside when it suits. Then these children are seen as a bigger problem when they become teenagers - is it any wonder many of them are depressed?I have absolutely no regrets about being a full-time mother as I cannot think of any other job which would have had more meaning to me. What kind of society are we creating for the future?

Carol, Northampton, UK

As a father of a 13 month old I'd love to stay home and look after him full time. I know it would be hard work and stressful at times (it's a lot more work than the paid job I do), but I feel the rewards would be far greater in terms of job satisfaction.

Pete Thomas, Bristol, England,

The most striking fact observed by Oliver James is the general 'blindness to evidence' of the harm done to very young children by regular separation from their mothers. There are vast numbers of academic papers, particularly in the neurosciences, detailing what happens when young infants are separated from their mothers, particularly when this is for too long and too frequently: reduced synaptic growth, raised levels of stress chemicals inhibiting certain types of development in the brain, problems with bonding relationships and attachment disorders, patterns of depression being set up, reduced efficacy of the immune system: the work is all there so why is it not getting through to the opinion formers and policy makers? Is it because the emphasis has been on reducing financial poverty [needed too of course] rather than emotional poverty? Children from low income homes who are constantly and securely loved can grow into strong resilient adults more able to achieve financial independence

Diana Dean, Cambridge, UK

And why does it follow that it must be the woman who stays home with the child? In the U.S. (and in most Western countries, I believe) more women than men are receiving advanced degrees. I have a University degree, my partner does not. As a result, my salary is far higher than his. Should we struggle along on his salary rather than mine (even if that were possible) so we don't threaten the apparently eggshell-fragile egos of Western men who have decided that if they can't unfairly dominate the opposite gender through paternalism and the old boys' network, they'd rather throw in the towel and not even try anymore; they merely reserve the right to whine about "men in skirts" and blame feminism for their "downfall"?

T. Roth, Danbury, Connecticut, USA

If day care is the problem, why did Unicef put Sweden, Denmark, and Finland near the top of their ranking for child welfare? They have state provided daycare and most women quickly return to work after their year's paid maternity leave. No evidence that children have more psychological problems there.

jonathan hopkin, london, uk

Absolutely, Helen! If stay-at-home mothers are stigmatised, where does that leave a stay-at-home dad like me?! When will people finally get the idea that trying to encourage mothers (rather than parents) to look after their kids puts loads of fathers off doing it - and that's not good for the children is it? Come on - let's leave the 1950s behind and stop being so sexist.

Hugo, Cambridge,

If less parents were bound in mortgage slavery they would have more time to spend on bringing up children equipped to cope with the world's madness.
Destigmatise rented property and things will change.

http://machiavelli.blog.co.uk/2007/02/15/the_unhappiest_children_in_the_world~1746589

Ian Thorpe, Accrington, UK

As a full-time stay-at-home Dad (since January 2006), I agree strongly with many of the points made in this article.

We all agree, I think, that women should have equality in paid employment. But for this to happen - and for the sake of family life and child welfare - we also need to encourage equality in the domestic sphere. This will allow families to balance the skills and experiences of mothers and fathers in the way that is best for them and their children.

Dr Andrew Norton, Hitchin, England

I feel surestart programmes give opportunities for disadvantaged families to have quality play activities put in place for their children, play is an important part of a child's lifes, in which they can learn and develop. Being a parent does not mean you have automatic knowledge of how to interact with children. As the above article says, cycles of parenting need to be broken and programmes like surestart can help through parenting programmes and quality play activities. Pilot schemes such as surestart are proof that educaton and the importance of play within nuseries can help children, who may for a number of reasons not have stimulation at home, a nursery place may be an important environment where they receive care and a direction. But the view that middle class women going out to work is the problem, will not solve anything.

Problems with inclusion and engagement with families from excluded backgrounds I feel is the main problem, but again this is linked to cycles needing to be broken. But I also agree poverty is a key factor and more investments need to be made.

jane, doncaster, south yorkshire

As a man now retired, I would like to cast a little experience
into he debate. I firmly believe that 'feminism' is about women wanting only certain of the jobs men do. Yes they want to be lawyers, teachers, doctors, some artists[ often very good] even MDs of certain types of companies. I've yet to hear of a rush to work in a slaughterhouse, rod out the drains, very few are bricklayers. No sir they like the sharp tailored business suits too much.Furthermore I hear the constant , crying out for more child care--- well if it's so good, then set up your own business!

DAVID VINTER, LOUTH,LINCS., UK.

Excellent article. I agree with everything said. The importance of the mothers role is completely under valued in society, and we pay the price of neglecting our childrens wellbeing.
As my wife says: "Nice to hear a man extolling the virtues of the "stay at home mum"!

Steve Foley, Brough, UK

There is a huge assumption here that staying at home with a child is always the best option - well not unless the parent at home invests quality time with the child. As a friend of people who send their children to daycare and also those that stay at home I see more personal input from those who spend limited time with their child ,as it seems to be more valuable, than those who spend all day who seem to take it for granted and do the shopping and lunching with friends and kids get the tv instead. Generalisation maybe but so is the article above, the real difference seems to be how much you care for your child not whether you have to work or not.

SM, High Wycombe, Bucks

In December 2001 I asked the EPPE team at the Institute of Education, researchers/advisers on child development to HMG why babies were included in The National Childcare Strategy when there appeared to be no research to support it. Prof Kathy Sylva, supported by her team, assured me it had been a purely political decision to include babies.

Joan Woolard, Spalding, UK

The only status I am interested is is that earned by rearing a happy, healthy, well-adjusted child. I stayed in the home and raised both my son and my daughter and have never regretted it. Those who feel that such a course diminishes the worth of the woman who chooses it have misplaced priorities. The Blessed Virgin Mary has forever enobled the role of wife and mother and neither political correctness nor current fashion can tarnish the image.

Georgia Mackowiak, Austin, Texas USA

I have never regretted staying at home with my 4 children until the youngest reached school age, when I went out to work part-time. I think it's tragic for today's children that the vast majority of mothers have to work in order to pay the exorbitent housing costs required today in order to put a roof over your head. I was lucky to be able to buy a house and pay an affordable mortgage back in the 1970s, on a pretty low income. That option is not open to young mothers today. The only mopthers who can afford to stay at home are those on soical security who have their rent paid through housing benefit, or their mortgages paid via social security, and even they are now being required to work.
We need a radical change in our priorities.

Pat, Bristol, UK

The most striking fact observed by Oliver James is the general 'blindness to evidence' of the harm done to very young children by regular separation from their mothers. There are vast numbers of academic papers, particularly in the neurosciences, detailing what happens when young infants are separated from their mothers, particularly when this is for too long and too frequently: reduced synaptic growth, raised levels of stress chemicals inhibiting certain types of development in the brain, problems with bonding relationships and attachment disorders, patterns of depression being set up, reduced efficacy of the immune system: the work is all there so why is it not getting through to the opinion formers and policy makers? Is it because the emphasis has been on reducing financial poverty [needed too of course] rather than emotional poverty? Children from low income homes who are constantly and securely loved can grow into strong resilient adults more able to achieve financial independence

Diana Dean, Cambridge, UK

You haven't quite noticed that men have roles to play in raising children then? Hmmm? Why assume that the mother wants / needs to stay at home to raise the child - how about Dad doing a bit more.

Shiv, London, UK

Why is it only Mothers who are expected to stay at home? Why don't the Fathers stay back and look after the children while the Mother goes out to work. Surely a loviong nuturing parent is a loving , nuturing parent regardless of their sex?

Thomas Davies, London, UK

Strange how no-one mentions the fact that whenever mankind moves away from God's model of anything it all goes haywire:- sex, marriage, families, children, discipline, punishment, general caring for one another. We left Eden a long time ago, and mankind's constructs have no hope whatsoever of getting us back there.

margaret robinson, london, united kingdom

Sir
The Economist Magazine I love states the true cruel harsh view of the children.
Why Netherlands by UN. Drown them? History of Hitler repeated again?
Suffer the children?
Feb 14th 2007
From Economist.com
The best Comment I can post and repeat is
Send them to the Netherlands, says a UN report

For ten years I have been advising various elements of new Labour on how to improve the care of small children. Alas, almost everything the Government has done has been the opposite of what was needed. No wonder Britain came bottom of Unicef’s league table of the happiness and welfare of children in industrialised nations.

Firozali A.Mulla , Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

Blind feminism, eh? Is that to say masculism is visonary? It seems to me there is a creeping agenda to place women even more under the domain of males. This article is another example.

Carol, London,

How very presumptuous it is to assume that all women who return to work do so out of a desire to be good feminists. It seems to me entirely misoygnistic to put that label on such a difficult and deeply personal decision.

Not all women return to work to pay off the mortgage - many do so for the intellectual stimulation and social interaction that work brings. It is achieving a balance between that stimulation and being at home which challenges so many women.

James's article is an insult to those women who face that challenge and decide to work to be better mothers. Why should any woman feel guilty about that?

Ben, London,

As KT from Dublin says, it is not just that more women are working, it is that men are not taking on their share of the burden. Women are having to work a double shift, one for money, then another unpaid and unacknowledged at home. When more fathers start playing their part, recognising that children exist all day, not just when daddy comes back from work, the status of carework might increase.

As for blaming feminism for the low status of care, thats rubbish. Care has always been low status.

Emma, Brighton,

How re-affirming to read Oliver James' article today. As a 'stay at home' mother of an 18 mth old, I can sometimes feel as though I am constantly swimming against the tide. The lack of financial incentive from the government and the generally perceived low status of being a 'full time mother' have been well documented. But I have also found that it can be very isolating to stay at home when most of one's peers have gone back to work and put their children into nurseries. You sometimes wonder if you are doing the right thing.
However, articles such as this breathe new life into the struggle to raise the profile of motherhood. it is the most worthwhile job there is. And I think it is very brave of Oliver James to risk incurring the wrath of the politically correct faction by implying that women's rights in the workplace should not take precedence over children's rights.
After all, some things are far more important and precious in life than the accumulation of mere material possessions.

Julie Rowley, Keighley, West Yorkshire,

Hurrah
A man with the guts to spell out the truth - babies and small kids need parental love and care above all else. I have spoken with many new mothers and the overwhelming feeling from them is that they would rather care for their own children if at all possible. That is what the government should be enabling and not encouraging any more shrill comments and demands for "good, affordable childcare".

Patsy Graham, London,

Danmark and Sweden have the highest rate of children in daycare (after the parents having taken care of the child the first year at home). Denmark and Sweden were also among the highest ranked in the children welfare report on the news yesterday. If it is then bad to have your kids in daycare maybe the author could explain the reason why these countries aren't at the bottom of the list?

Charlotte, London, England

I do wonder whether Oliver James - or any of the other men who decry a culture in which women work "at the expense of their children" (Kenneth, James, R Mason, I'm talking to you) - are willing to downscale or give up entirely their interesting careers, their self-sufficiency, and their financial wellbeing (not to mention the threat of a "very poor old age") to spend five years at home with a child who, within a decade, craves only your absence. What Britain needs is (1) a change to the maternity/paternity laws to allow parents to share more equally, rather than forcing mum out of work; (2) more flexible working hours encouraged in all organisations at all levels, and (3) MOST importantly, a culture where dad is really and truly as committed to raising a healthy child as mum is expected to be. Without these, it is women who bear 100% the burden of the healthy children vs parental wellbeing debate and criticism from Oliver James and his ilk only adds to this already weighty load.

E Hofman, Horsham, UK

At last, someone talking sense about blind feminism.

Paul, London, UK

What limited options Oliver James offers. We are either grasping Thatcherites or frazzled stay-at-home parents. As an ex- Blairite perhaps he can envisage a 3rd way ? Reconsider the reasons to have children. It is often an sad attempt to cement a relationship with a new partner, to be repeated with the next, or another status possession regarded as a "right" & reinforced by free IVF - as if anyone not having children needs treatment. There is a life without children and it includes travel, culture, interests and time to help others - not just your "affluenza" values.

R Bowden, London,

My partner and I are expecting our first child later this year. We would rather one of us was able to care for our child full time, but this is impossible. Thanks to the relentless rise in the cost of living under this Labour government, both of us will have to work full time just in order to scrape by.

Financially, It hardly seems worthwhile going out to work at all. Neither of us have ever claimed any benefit in our lives, and have always worked. All we have to look forward to is financial hardship, thanks to childcare costs, and minimal contact with our child.

D Lawler, Hertfordshire, UK

Hooray!!! Some one is thinking clearly for a change. Children are not little machines to be parked in a nursery each day while parents go off and do their thing, however 'enabling' that thing may be. They are little human beings and as such require cherishing.. not merely having someone there to ensure they dont come to harm, but someone to cuddle them when they need a cuddle .. someone to play and learn with them, staff in nurseries do not have time to give such individual attentions. Is missing the smile on your child's face when he achieves something new worth the extra car, the new pair of shoes. NO! It most certainly is not. Is it any wonder we have problems with our youth. They have never learnt to do things for themselves because they have been in the system from babyhood, and the system finds it easier to do it for them. Then we release them into young adulthood and they dont have the means to entertain themselves properly.

jaki, Holbeach, Lincs

This government is taxing parents to the point of failure, has taken away the rights of children, created secret courts to rule on the most vulnerable whilst empowering the state beyond Orwell's dreams. It would be a misrepresentation to describe the UK's presence at the bottom of the league table for the wellbeing of children as failure when it is deliberate government policy and it will get worse. All this from a Prime Minister who turned round and blamed children. The government have been successful, they are achieving their aims regardless of all, it is both the public and the media who have failed.

D Stanley, Bridgend, Wales

Al of Newcastle and Mr. Armitage of Suffolk make much sense and their ideas should be taken seriously. Some additional factors should be examined. First, crime causes poverty: the victim loses work, property is often damaged or destroyed, medical bills mount, time off for the legalities cut into work and family, and (perhaps most significantly) trust in society is broken, often never to be reestablished; the criminal loses work, thrusts huge financial burdens onto himself and his family, develops and even more warped attitude, is thrown in with similarly warped criminals, and emerges from prison a far more destructive person with far fewer social skills, a walking time-bomb. Crime simply causes poverty by crushing those involved. Much the same can be said for illegitimacy, with a few noteable expections to the rule (such as Jesse Jackson, who gains a livelihood by prying money from corporations who want to left alone), but the predictable result of illegitimacy is poverty.

James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.

The problem is not just about mothers....why are women being blamed yet again! Please use the word "parents"....fathers are just as able to stay at home as mothers are, and the government should be encouraging this possibility. Women are keen to be in the workplace after years of discrimination, and while nobody regards childcare as inferior "work", they should have the same rights to make a decision as men. Please stop blaming women yet again for our social problems. The buck stops here!

Helen, London, England

After having children young I stayed at home to look after them. On returning to work (part time) once they were at school my prospects had plummeted and I struggled to make the after school and holiday child care payments. I waver between regret and knowing that I did the right thing, my children have grown up secure and confident having had the care they deserved. I however have a depleted pension and difficulties re-training as I have to work to keep up my mortgage payments. I have friends whose children from a very early age are in day care 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. I know people think they can't do without the money but should the children have to pay?

Elizabeth, Bournemouth, UK

I quite agree with Oliver James.

I note that GK Chesterton viewed the enemies of the family as "big government" and "big business".

When will we learn that motherhood is the most important job of all !

PButcher, Reigate, UK

The key issue is not so much that feminism has advanced the cause of women's careers to the detriment of their children but that men assume that this should have no impact on their careers. So despite the fact that many women work full time and bear the bulk of the burden as far as childcare and associated guilt complexes are concerned, little or nothing is said in condemnation of the fathers who spend significantly less time again caring for their children, who are less inclined to take time off when their children are ill and who are less targeted by complaints of feckless fatherhood.

In truth, society serves no participant well when the sole method by which each is judged is by their economic output. Historically, women have made a massive contribution to society by staying out of the formal workforce to raise their children. They have not, historically, won any or very much recognition for that, and even when they play the economic games for careers, they are still condemned.

KT, Dublin, Ireland

The Unicef child happiness table surely reflected the popular teen "chav" culture and not just toddler child care provision whether good or bad. Teenage pregnancy, drug taking, illiteracy, drunkeness etc. reflect entirely on societal and parental leadership and boundary setting. Society and parents have mostly given up when faced with the onslaught of intense marketing to children/teens for commercial gain in the US model (no suprise the US were bottom too). When UK society treats all children as a precious gift, feeds them well, educates them for life instead of a treating them as a burden and a consumer unit we may start to get back on track. Enforcing age laws on drinking, smoking, nightclubs would help, and removing advertising of such products to under 18s.

john smith, manchester, UK

There is a simple, but very unpopular, way of getting rid of child poverty in one fell swoop. Restrict the top salary to £100,000 per year, with no extras for bonuses, contributions to pension schemes etc. This would bring down the average wage to under £25,000 per year and ensure that nobody could be on much less than half of this figure for the poverty figure. Unfortunately, as poverty is defined as being a percentage of a mean figure, however much everybodies income rises, the proportions won't change, so although people are lifted out of obsolute poverty, the figures used for comparitive poverty are a constant.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

So Double Income No Kids suddenly became Double Income Needed (for) Kids - and it was the Kids that suffered. Surprise, surprise. I appreciate and welcome women in the workplace, but a simplistic drive for equality ended up with the woman's income becoming a necessity and career drive detracting from child care and involvement (as has always been the case for us men). Maybe somone should have considered this before blindly legislating for equality at all costs in simple financial and opportunistic terms.
After all the public money wasted in studies to tell what we did wrong, how about investing a little real research into how the workplace can be structured for the involvement of women without trying to make them follow a career pattern designed for men. Women have proved their worth in the workplaces historically reserved for men and losing their involvement would be a disaster. Are we really saying we don't have the brains to find a solution that works properly?

KR, Stockport,

Rather than pouring money into improved childcare facilities, wouldn't it be better to spend that same money on encouraging mothers (or indeed fathers) to stay at home and look after their children. I believe this system operates in Germany, where stay at home parents are given a monthly allowance from the government.

I would wholeheartedly agree with the author that the status of stay at home mums is incredibly low in Britain. It is unfortunate that caring for children is considered in this way, when quite frankly it is by my own experience one of the most demanding and at the same time fulfilling roles that anyone could wish to choose. After all we are nurturing our citizens of the future. This is hardly a role that shold be assigned such a low opinion in our eyes. And I think the emphasis by the current government on pushing Mothers back to work (or should I say paid work!) does nothing to enhance that opinion in the eyes of society as a whole.

Deborah Towers-Best, Rugby, England

Children need time with their parents far more than they need a houseful of luxuries. When they are grown, memories of a happy home life will be far more important than the knowledge that they had the latest toys. Full-time motherhood can be such a joyous experience! Nurturing your children and watching them grow is far more rewarding than any other job I can think of. Mothers do not have to stagnate. Children are so full of questions about the world they inhabit and so interested in a wide variety of things that if mothers take them seriously, they will find their company stimulating. Is discussing your latest purchase or a popular soap opera with another adult more
interesting than answering the questions involving the real world which children often ask? Of course, not!
Unfortunately, it can be truly difficult financially for women to stay at home. This should, but probably won't be rectified for I can think of no higher calling in this life.

cheryl, hatfield, j

"it's" instead of "its". "Past time" instead of "pastime". "drunkeness" instead of "drunkenness". Half-literate? Yes, Pete, I think there could be something in that.

Allan, Halver, Germany

Many years ago I lived in student accommodation in London, while pregnant with our first child my husband and I visited the on-site day-care center, there and then I took the decision of never leaving the care of our children to others. I say as some psicologist has said it before, why have children if you can not care for them yourself, after all you are required to do it for such a short time, what ,4 of 5 years?, imagine the benefits that those few years will mean for them, do they ask too much?. Society as a whole and the State should get behind it.

G. Hoffmann, bergen, Norway

Can you explain why you made so much of Denmark in 'Affluenza', and talked so little about Italy given the latter's anomalous position on the happiness vs equality graph?

IanWhickham, London, UK

True feminism is all about celebrating womanhood. This means appreciating and recognising the vital role that mothering plays in society, while providing women with sufficient opportunity to contribute to the economy.

The Labour type of 'feminism' has promoted women, but only on men's terms. The unique role played by mothers in nurturing future generations (without downplaying the role of the father of course) has harmed Britain.

The author is right. However, Britons have to care enough about this issue to force government to review its approach. I'm not holding my breath.

JL, London,

The writer of this article presumes two things: First that the government is or should be invested in improving and maintaining our society. I have seen no evidence of that in the whole of my lifetime. Second, that it does not disadvantage women to remain at home and look after the children. Patently it does. In the short-term, the income of the entire family is reduced, thereby making their financial situation far more precarious. Most families need a dual income to service their mortgage. Few would give up their house just to be a full-time mother. In the long-term, the woman's pension is significantly reduced by any period out of full-time work and, following a recent European ruling, their salary may be reduced to allow for their "lower level of experience" as against their male counterparts when they return to work. In an era of rising divorce rates, what woman would risk giving up their independent financial security? Finance, not status, has more to do with this than anything.

L Kent, B,

It is a tragedy that 50 years ago it was the norm for the well off, and most of the nost so well off, to stay at home to look after their children. Now, we are infinitely richer as a nation, are less able to afford to look after ourt children and are forced to go out to work and have strangers do it. Where has all the money gone?

R Mason, London, UK

Low income/below average income family isnt a barrier to a happy childhood, but lack of investment by a parent is. Using my own childhood as an example - I didnt have gleaming new toys all the time, my bike was a family hand me down, my cricket bat was bought from an older friend, most of my lego was bought from the second hand column in the local paper. Did it matter - No.
Did my parents work hard yes - long hours yes - but they didnt do it in the office, they came home for family dinner and then did an hour or two work once we were in bed or whilst we were doing our homework. The same can be done now - leave work on time, invest the time with the kids, then plug in the lap top.

Al, Newcastle, UK

I thought feminism was about choice - if you want to stay at home with your kids that should be an acceptable choice. However Mr James doesn't mention the fact that to buy any kind of home these days requires two salaries and so many women have to work regardless of their feelings which is no choice at all and very sad.

C Tyrrell, London,

Politicians are fond of providing alleged facts and figures but in the first instance I do not accept that 700,000 children have been moved out of poverty, whether through additional social handouts or not; there is no real proof. Feminism is not entirely to blame for the numbers of surly, ignorant and sometimes arrogant young people of today, but the break-up of the 'standard' family unit of father, mother and children does play a big part in the growth of antisocial behaviour and, besides, it seems that women now care more for their careers than they do for their children and that includes those that say they pay for childcare. Yes, there may be financial pressure, with the high cost of housing and utility services, for both parents to work, but we appear to have reached the stage where only 'rich' people will be able to afford to have children in future. Perhaps women are their own worse enemy when they pass snide comments on women who stay at home for the children until at least age 5.

Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England

The key problems are the notions that there is no such think as human nature and politicians must run everything. Thus, successive governments assume that nurseries can substitute for parenting and that mothers can hand over their children and work like a man or giving money to the poor will end poverty. It’s all nonsense. Kids do best with TLC from a parent in the early years. Mothers usually hate leaving them, and getting money for nothing means it’s not worth working - unless you really want to. If it is all run by monopolistic, politicized know-nothing MPs them we lose expertise, flexibility, initiative, accountability and innovation. It’s obvious really. Arms length government, self sufficiency and competition are what made Britain great. It is no accident that the social services and education in Scandinavian countries is devolved, local and most of the schools are independent. It is known to work. This is probably why they do things so much better than us.

R Mason, London, UK

This might be a relevant article if it wasn't so focused on a single set of statistics - recently published research on children. If we expand the frame, however, we find that Britain as a whole appears to be miserable, and it doesn't require complex analysis to understand why. The country is a mismanaged sty, sinking into the mire. It's citizens are oafish, half-literate peasants whose abiding past times are drunkeness, slovenliness and football.

That sounds unfair, but it is a broad perception based on considerable evidence. This country appears to have embraced failure and despair - there is an internal sense of surrender here in which is not so much grasped as endured.

Oh, and as an aside to Alfred Nassim, a reclusive and antisocial 16 year old: who would ever have imagined such a thing.

Pete, London,

I agree wholeheartedly with Oliver James' assessment of the predicament that many women find themselves in. Caught between the tax trap set up by the current Labour government (which followed in the footsteps of previous Conservative government) whereby mothers and fathers are penalised if they choose any path other than placing their children into the care of strangers and the unnatural expectations placed on parents to place their careers above all else even their children, it is not surprising that 90% of women work full time.

James, Richmond, Surrey

I agree. I realise that a number of women actually prefer to be at work. However, why or why, and when, were 2 salaries taken into account for obtaining a mortgage? When I was a mother 35 years ago it was so much easier for a woman to remain at home.

pamela stunt, chelmsford,

Being danish I find mr. James' views on danish childrearing extremely biased (so are mine, but a least I've lived in Denmark for 41 years and are rearing two children here - one teenager, one four year old). Sitting in one creche in Copenhagen for one week hardly gives a basis for concluding anything. In contrast professor in psychology Dion Sommer some years ago published a study about young danish children and care. He'd followed a very large group of children from birth. Most of the children were cared for in creches from the age of one year, and they were evaluated on a number of factors: physical health, contentment, how often they smiled, agression and so on. He found virtually NO differences between children reared at home and children in daycare.
Add to this the brandnew FN survey of childhood, were danish children comes out as the fifth happiest children in the world.I Please note, 'm not saying UK should adopt the danish system or that daycare fits all. But distressing - no.

MA, Copenhagen, Denmark

T Hayward from Australia may have something. I note that France, which for years had a declining birthrate, has recently been celebrating an increase in births, and their population has overtaken that of the UK. This has been achieved by policies targeted at assisting parents. The Netherlands (a country which I visit quite frequently) also has a lot to teach us. Our politicians should study, and learn.

Cathy Tailby, Bristol, UK

And how do Mr. James, in my opinion hopelessly out-dated views, add up with the OECD's findings that children from Sweden and Denmark where a majority of children attend nursery from a very young age, come second and third on the list of where children are the happiest??

H. Hansen, Zurich, Switzerland

I live in the Netherlands and my 2 1/2 year old is in a group day care for 4 days of the week. We built it up from 2 days a week to 4 days a week over 2 years. I would not say that my child is being in any way negativly affected by his time in day care, and he is in no way surly or aggresive (unless you dont put jam on his sandwich). I admit I would not like it to be 5 days a week, but he likes to spend the day playing with the other kids, and is even excited in the mornings when he has to go there. I am not saying that the research in the article is wrong, and I agree that parents should be able to work part time if they so chose (this is very normal in Holland), but to sweepingly say that all day cares are bad and our children with be adolescent deliquents if we dont molycoddle them through early life is a little to much.

Lee Ayres, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

I was lucky enough to be able to raise my own children in the days when ambition wasn't everything but I have been punished financially for the decison. I should have had a career and be looking forward to a decent pension but hidsight is a wonderful thing. Given today's conditions for mothers I wouldn't even consider having children. Group daycare is not only poor, it is frightening. Babies left to cry all day with no attention. Young, inexperienced badly paid staff who stand in corners doing their nails and recovering from the previous nights drunken antics. Despite the fact that I will be enjoying a very poor old age I don't regret a thing. I couldn't have sacrificed my children to the state under any circumstances. I would advise people to think very, very carefully before deciding to have a family. If you cannot afford to rear your own children you are taking huge risks with their future. Do you really know what goes on behind the closed doors of your child's nursery?

judy, liverpool, england

There is no surprise in the recent findings by the survey: - society sponsored child abuse. I am glad people make a living out of researching it, no doubt at the expense of their own children.
As a stay at home father, post entrepreneur, CEO,etc- believe me it is crime of society that children cannot be given the proper care, attention, nae love, which they have a natural right.
No amount of material wealth in latter years will replace the love lost experienced by a young child.
To blame politicians or to seek their support in such matters is nonsense - they are the cause of it.
It comes down to mothers and fathers - acting on the truth, they already well-know and are reminded everytime they close the door on their child at 0800hrs Monday to Friday.

adrian, STPETERSBURG,

The increase in the proportion of children raised in low income families from 19% in 1979 to 31% by 1981 may have had a composite of several possible causes. These include then prevailing economic conditions, rising divorce rates, and the concept of ‘playing the system’ then popular, whereby welfare benefits were viewed by some with a thinking legacy from the 'flower power' generation as a legitimate lifestyle and career choice, rather than as an adjunct to a traditional working life. An unfortunate effect of a generous welfare system was that child-rearing could be used as a way of maximising such benefits.

In the USA those distortions were addressed by the ‘workfare’ program, the idea of which was imported here, and there it could be that the age of the child when the mother is encouraged to return to work should have been thought through more carefully as part of a robust overall system.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

I am appalled by the message in Mr James' article! Yesterday, one of the biggest news stories was the UNICEF ratings of how childfriendly 21 rich nations are. My own country, Sweden, was the total second in this list, and I do not believe that anyone missed the position of the UK. However, something which is very common in Sweden is that children start in nursery school (or whatever the term is for publically owned day-long childcare with professional staff, affordable for everyone) around the age of one. A majority of Swedish children are thus socialized with other children when they are young (making transition to primary school much easier). Still, our position in the tables is high.

Maybe the problem in the UK is not solved by going back to stay-at-home parents (thus reducing the nation's workforce and trapping women), but to move forward to a child-care system which functions! There are enough obstacles to starting a family as it is!

Kerstin, Stockholm, Sweden

So, the UK came last in yesterdays "Children wellbeing" list, and the US came 2nd last.

Funny how both countries are hotbeds for feminism. The statistics speak for themselves!

Pete, Cov,

The best place for a child pre-school, most of the time is its home.
Why is it an acceptable career to look after a strangers child in a school, nursery, the career opportunities as a formally trained nanny are heavily promoted in Sixth form colleges, but to look after ones one has no status at all?
I never had much patience with how my status was perceived, perhaps because I was a little older than most and came from an inspiring line of East End matriarchs who ruled their homes and community before feminisim underminded matriarchal authority. So I ran my home and my family at source, and when money got tight took casual work that fitted with my husband's shifts.
When women juggle work, home and family, nothing is held in a firm grip.
Because women don't have a firm grip on home and family, that's why we have trouble.
Thank the Lord writers in newpapers with some influence are starting to realise this.

CA Metcalfe, Essex, England

by what measure have New Labour raised 700,000 children out of poverty? by giving them hand outs?

Government interference is always doomed to fail and whilst you are right to point out these failings, I believe your comment regarding Thatcher is misguided and a misleading generalisation.

These people that choose to become politicians and tell people what's best do so because they have no talent to do anything else. Trying to direct a populus in a direction that suits their personal warped view of the world and against the rules of nature is what these twisted freaks are best at...they should get real work and stop spending the money of hard working people on useless job creation and killing incetives by raising taxes to pay for foresaid...

Sam Gates, San Jose,

I am personally, and unwillingly, in an excellent position to make a comparison. My son, who is now 16, has a Norwegian mother. She and I split up when he was small and he was sent to a nursery from a very young age - although I was nearby much of the time and wanted to look after him. Later, she stopped me from seeing him until a few years ago. He is antisocial and a recluse - quite different from what he used to be. He never replies to my letters, emails and phone calls.

Now, I am looking two little girls (6 and 2) with my more recent partner. I am a stay-at-home dad. The kids always have one parent at home. They are so happy and growing up so nicely that the difference with my unfortunate son is glaring.

As it happens, I went to see SureStart in this town. They have a brand new building and were quite unhelpful - they have nothing to offer me. Also, the tax system is strikingly biased against our arrangement.

Alfred Nassim, Ryde, Isle of Wight, UK

Bravo for an excellent article. The truth is this: society needs to be rebalanced such that women can stay at home or work part-time to be with their children. That is all. God is not foolish - children are meant to be cared for and nurtured in these sensitive formative years. Alas it is evident that the traditional route is actually the best. Men should be men - work hard to take care of their families, and women should be women - support their husbands as much as they can and take care of the children and the home. Anything else is a twisted way of life, and it shows.

Inpo Yo, Dallas, TX, USA

"So more feminism, not less, is needed."

In other words, when in a hole one cannot seem to get out of, keep digging. Women flooding the workforce ever since the 60's helped nobody but big business. A bigger pool of labour to choose from, leads to a lower average wage. The same women still want the option of taking, or leaving, their chosen career at any time they like. Men have no such luxury. We're in the world of work for the long haul, whether we hate our job or not. At least up until this point we were more than willing to do so, for the sake of our own wife and children. I utterly refuse to accept the notion of using my hard earned income tax to fund "reliable affordable full-day daycare" for other people's kids, which I presume, is what many women now demand. Parents who merrily sub-contract the rearing of their children to day care centres get the resentful children that they deserve, with society ultimately paying the bill.

So expect things to get even worse from now on.

C Smith, Bournemouth,

A very detailed and well-researched article. Sadly I suspect Mr James will now be on the receiving end of a massive amount of abuse for his efforts. That is usually what happens someone points out the truth on these matters.

Baz, London,

The best environemnt for children under three is the home environment. If families cannot afford to have one parent staying at home to allow this, the governement should provide financial relief to allow this rather a one-size-fits-all childcare solution. Group daycare for children under three does not provide for the specific nuturing needs of the young child except where the home environment is in crisis. As ever the policy is aimed at helping a disadvantaged minority at the cost of the majority of stable families.

Mark, Perth , Australia

What are you supposed to do when you have a child? You are supposed to wait till you are reasonably financially secure, and then you marry a man willing to stay home and be the primary parent ,or you marry a man who can support you while you are the primary parent. Why should the government raise your child?

primary, beverly hills, usa/ca

I have always liked being a father! But although some things can be blamed on me, I note that in modern society women are responsible for the care of most children - initially from the age of zero to seven, and then as teachers at school for the rest of childhood (where men are discouraged from teaching). Whatever is said about the state of our society, at first sight it looks as if men have lost influence and the future of our children now lies squarely in the hands of women. Now if statistics show that this disadvantages children, we can see quite clearly where to point the finger of blame - those in charge!

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

While the writer of this article is anti-childcare I would like to put forward an economic argument for good care.
Really, why are western economies with declining birthrates still fighting about the way the childcare $ gets spent.
A better focus could be about giving parents of under 5's choices; to be the fulltime carer; to work part time; to study a course that gives them re-entry into a workforce; to work full-time; or importantly to radically share the first year of a child's caring needs between the parents and their workplaces maternity and paternity leaves.
In France childcare is tax deductible and parents can choose which income the deduction is made against.
Good care is that which takes into account a child's early development needs. For every dollar a country spends on early childhood education the return to the economy in the coming decades is threefold. Childcare is about choices that meet the needs of parents and their children. If we want women to have the choice to have children in their fertile years that is; the years that are also their prime earning years.

T Hayward, Sydney, Australia

I could not believe this article. Does Mr James have a clue? Apart from the obvious logical inconsistensies of benign Thatcher increasing the number of kids in powerty and evil Labour lifting them from it, the article is just as blind to the reality as a mole. Women in 2007 cannot afford to stay at home and look after kids, neither can thay afford to work! When I have one, what am I supposed to do with it after 3 pm when the overpriced kindergarten shuts for the day? Maybe he'll look after it for me? I earn about 80 pounds a day and the cheapest illegal nanny would cost 50. Is he going to pay my mortgage? He has beef with a Labour politician for never having stayed at home full time with children. Has he? He preferes minders to daycare. Who's going to mind the minders' children? There needs to be a reliable affordable full-day daycare in this country, and a year's maternity leave - I'll agree there. So, more feminism, not less, is needed.

Svitlana Pyrkalo, London,