Necessary warning: this is a rant. Please forgive me if in my clumsiness I hurt or offend anyone.

I was reading an article on working mother's guilt and the effect of external childcare on young children. It read something like this:

"The development of a secure attachment to her primary caregivers is crucial for the child's happiness, stability and emotional development. The child needs a consistent and appropriate response to her needs, but the mother is not the only figure who can provide this response. The primary attachment figure can be a parent, a relative, a nanny..."

I don't judge anyone for needing or wanting to work. I don't think children will grow up traumatized by daycare. I don't believe a nanny can ever replace a loving mother (ETA: a mother who's actually trying hard to spend time and bond with her children) as an attachment figure, be it a SAHM or a working mother. Please, do not take it as a judgement on anyone's choices or situation, because it is NOT.

But... how INSULTING is it to mothers? And to children? Stay-at-home or working, the attachment a child forms to her mother cannot be compared to that of a paid nanny. How insulting is it to SAHMs, who are definitely not replaceable by a nanny. How insulting is it to working mothers who get told they're not "there" enough to be the primary attachment figure. And this was presented as a positive... "oh don't worry if you send your child to daycare, she'll get the very basis of her emotional development and sense of emotional safety from the nanny! Yeah, the one paid to look after your child, who definitely doesn't care about your child as much as you do, and who might disappear from your child's life tomorrow without a warning."

I am disgusted. How can someone present this possibilty as a positive one. In an effort to "liberate" women from mom guilt, they're telling them that their worthless/replaceable, and telling children that their emotional stability should depend on the nanny's contract expiry date. Mothers are worth way more than that.

EDIT I am not referring to children in boarding schools, with wet nurses and governesses etc. I am talking here about parents who are trying to form a close relationship with their children, take care of them personally as much as possible and spend time with them. I do not believe that telling these mothers "Oh your child will be fine even if you work, because her primary attachment figure can be the nanny/daycare worker" is reassuring, respectful of the mother's role, or (if it were true) positive for the child's development. Paid workers "can't" be the primary attachment figure because it's not good for young children - it's possible of course, but not positive. I believe children will be fine with working mothers, but for different reasons, not because the nanny becomes the key figure.

/rant