quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I find hilarious is when professional female politicians assure us that women should not vote and should not work outside the home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I wouldn't belong to NOW today because I think their emphasis has moved from equal rights for women to special rights for women in some areas, but I'll always call myself a feminist so long as I think we deserve to be treated as full citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

So I stopped calling myself a feminist. I'm not an anti-feminist either. But, on the other hand, I had to stop blogging arguments against some of the things the most prominent feminists of my generation (Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Jill Filipovic, Sadie Doyle, etc.) say because the rape and death threats got to be too much and the people making them were too tech savvy about hiding their IP addresses.

I know there are those who say that if you are in favor of equal rights for men and women then you are a feminist. But words mean what people mean when they use words, and I can't determine if the majority is still using the word that way.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I would love to hear you say more about this, Saysay. I'm not familiar with any of the writers you just mentioned but I've heard things over the years that were so extremist and so angry toward men -- including little boys!--that I could hardly believe they were serious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

I don't understand very well what you're saying here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

So I stopped calling myself a feminist. I'm not an anti-feminist either. But, on the other hand, I had to stop blogging arguments against some of the things the most prominent feminists of my generation (Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Melissa McEwan, Jill Filipovic, Sadie Doyle, etc.) say because the rape and death threats got to be too much and the people making them were too tech savvy about hiding their IP addresses.

I know there are those who say that if you are in favor of equal rights for men and women then you are a feminist. But words mean what people mean when they use words, and I can't determine if the majority is still using the word that way.

---

I would love to hear you say more about this, Saysay. I'm not familiar with any of the writers you just mentioned but I've heard things over the years that were so extremist and so angry toward men -- including little boys!--that I could hardly believe they were serious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

For those couples/families really need 2 incomes in order to survive, then it's not about feminism, it's the same economic probs that made mums into washerwomen or fishwives selling their husbands' catch etc long before feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Just don't call yourself a feminist if you're male, or The Silent Acolyte will rip your lungs out.

---

If believing in equal pay and equality under the law and all of that makes one a feminist... if getting angry at the pink Barbie world foisted on little girls as their only option makes one angry... then I'm a feminist.

(Of course I have no idea whether The Silent Acolyte is anything like that, but I thought I'd mention this.)

I used to not classify myself as a feminist because it seemed to assume an array of things, and as well I don't have problems with all manner of hierarchy in marriage as long as it is consensual, but then when any given issue came up I wound up on the "feminist" side, so at this point if it walks and talks and quacks like a duck, I may as well emit appropriately feminist quacks rather than keep thinking I don't count.

And while I'm not thrilled with there being any conflict between Hillary and Obama right now, I will eagerly vote for her in 2016 though I would probably prefer Elizabeth Warren.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I've never heard such hogwash from a politician (people vote for this woman?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best.. Feminism is about women being able to choose what to do with their bodies and their lives and possessions.

For those couples/families really need 2 incomes in order to survive, then it's not about feminism, it's the same economic probs that made mums into washerwomen or fishwives selling their husbands' catch etc long before feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
It's true that many men resort to violence more often and more quickly than many men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.

---

But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?

Feminism is about women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

But the end result is that everyone finds they have to agree to having a double-income sized mortgage in order to get a house. And single people find they're screwed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.

---

So I'm guessing you don't live in the US with its easy access to guns?

It's true that many men resort to violence more often and more quickly than many men. It is not true that the only thing any man suffers from a woman's anger is hurt feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
(Yes, yes, I know that's not Feminism. But you know what? It's the practical outworking of it. Shouldn't be, but it is for most families.)

---

I'm not convinced that's the outworking of feminism, seems to me it's the outworking of greed. A better house, better car, better holidays etc etc requires maximum income. THe outworking of feminism might be for each parent to work part-time-that's what some couples I know do. Of course they have less status and less money but they're less stressed and their kids get the care their parents believe best..

---

Best contemporary option in my opinion. But not common. And I'm not convinced it will become common soon.

And yes it is about greed but it's also about societal expectation. We somehow believe we can have it all: work full time and be good parents and look after a household and care for our elderly parents.

Simply not possible in my opinion.

But many still ascribe to the fable.

And the kids and the marital relationships and the elderly parents in nursing homes alone suffer the most.

I call bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Excellent. I'm sure some random molecules of air somewhere are feeling duly chastised, seeing how you've given us no real clue as to who this might actually be directed at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.

---

But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?

Feminism is about women.

---

It's not just about women. It's about children, and parenting, and relationships, and power. Of course, some men benefit from patriarchy - but power comes at a price, and for some the price is too high. Ask yourself this: did white people benefit from ceasing to become slave owners? I'm glad I'm not a slave owner, aren't you? if you want to know how patriarchy can oppress men, you might start with Owen's Parable of the Old Man and the Young

Alternatively, some women also benefit from patriarchy - is that a reason for not ending it?

Evensong - you can call bullshit all you like, but "having it all" is a bastardised version of feminism perpetrated by disciples of capitalist materialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Except that men have institutional power over women - their exchanges are not equally weighted. When women are angry towards men, men have hurt feelings. When men are angry towards women, women die.

---

Given that the first of those scenarios is perfectly legal and the second is exceptionally illegal and vigorously prosecuted, in what way is that an institutional issue?

A biological or physical issue, maybe. But not institutional. Not at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Feminism is (or is supposed to be) about the liberation of women from the patriarchy. Equality is a side-effect of liberation but not the main goal.

---

The best kind of feminism is about the liberation of everybody from patriarchy. It's about breaking down hierarchies of power, so equality is not just a side effect: it's the main point.

---

But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?

Feminism is about women.

---

It's not just about women. It's about children, and parenting, and relationships, and power. Of course, some men benefit from patriarchy - but power comes at a price, and for some the price is too high. Ask yourself this: did white people benefit from ceasing to become slave owners? I'm glad I'm not a slave owner, aren't you? if you want to know how patriarchy can oppress men, you might start with Owen's Parable of the Old Man and the Young

Alternatively, some women also benefit from patriarchy - is that a reason for not ending it?

Evensong - you can call bullshit all you like, but "having it all" is a bastardised version of feminism perpetrated by disciples of capitalist materialism.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: But the patriarchy benefits some people - how can they be liberated from it?

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: Feminism is about women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!) is incidental to the benefit to black people - it's not important, and it wouldn't matter if white people didn't benefit. We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism. The same applies to men and liberation from the patriarchy - it's incidental and not the point of liberation. Tired old privilege denial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The losers in this case are families containing women who don't want to work* - in the prior social arrangement, they were protected from competition with families with women who wanted to work by the fact that nobody would employ a married woman. Once you remove that constraint, families with women who want to work win, and those with women who don't want to work lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
The losers in this case are also frequently the women who work taking care of other people's kids. They are paid to work full-time, but frequently do not receive wages that would actually allow them to live independently in the areas in which their services are needed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!)

---

quote:

---

We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
if men feel that it's OK to kill women much more than women feel that it's OK to kill men, that is an institutional difference between male and female anger within society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.

---

And the number of men who die at the hands of other men is far greater than the number of women who die at the hands of men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
White people's benefit from not being slaveowners anymore (I hope you're not suggesting that slavery has ended!) is incidental to the benefit to black people - it's not important, and it wouldn't matter if white people didn't benefit. We have white privilege so we do not need liberating from racism. The same applies to men and liberation from the patriarchy - it's incidental and not the point of liberation. Tired old privilege denial.

---

Clearly the oppressed suffer more than their oppressors and thus gain more if oppression ends. But oppression dehumanizes the oppressors as well as the oppressed, so while the point of liberation is and should be to free the oppressed, don't underestimate its potential effects upon oppressors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
The losers in this case are also frequently the women who work taking care of other people's kids. They are paid to work full-time, but frequently do not receive wages that would actually allow them to live independently in the areas in which their services are needed.

---

Yes, the economics of childcare are rather difficult. Childcare, particularly for infants, is about the most labour-intensive occupation in existence. There is no reasonable way to achieve significant productivity gains in childcare, so it suffers from Baumol's cost disease with a vengeance.

A stay-at-home mother* with two or three small children has a full-time (and then some) job. If she wants to work outside the home, and hire someone else to care for the children, by construction that person has to be paid significantly less than the mother earns. Then think about overheads...

*Could also be father - there are some stay-at-home dads - but the calculus is the same. Basically, you need to compare the wage of the parent with the lowest earning capability with the wage of the childcare worker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children (or grandparents or extended family) to bring them up themselves and not relegate them (too much - yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue) to the battery hen production line of childcare.

Childcare workers IME are excellent and loving carers, but they are not family. And kids know that. And I think it's damaging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Tricky. There must be many two-parent households with one earner who could support the whole family, leaving the childcare to a stay at home parent. The problem is that many "second parents" don't want to stay at home: they may have had just as fulfilling a career as the other and be very reluctant to drop it, especially as it may be impossible to pick it up again a few years later.

I wouldn't like to have to tell them to give it up, for the good of the kids and society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

I was there for the early years ( and when I couldn't be, I got my mum to help - which she loved) and when they went to school full time I returned to University.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... A stay-at-home mother with two or three small children has a full-time (and then some) job. If she wants to work outside the home, and hire someone else to care for the children, by construction that person has to be paid significantly less than the mother earns ...

---

Children are not economic subjects that should be subjected to economic rationalism ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I speak from personal experience, but I'm proud to say I did not succumb to societal pressure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is to the good of society as a whole, that children be nurtured and educated. Even if I have no children myself -- I want intelligent nurses around me in my old-age home. I want my airplane pilot and my auto mechanic to be intelligent and competent and well-trained persons. I want my politicians to be well-educated (in so far as it is ever possible for them) and my culture to be vibrant and full of creativity. It is worth my tax dollar, to pay for child care and education.

---

Education yes..... chid care is what their parents are for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The amount of women who die at the hands of men far outstrip the number of men who die at the hands of women. It is not an equal situation.

---

And the number of men who die at the hands of other men is far greater than the number of women who die at the hands of men.

---

Men don't matter, apparently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

It's long been known that men are more likely than women to attempt suicide and more likely to take their own lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I speak from personal experience, but I'm proud to say I did not succumb to societal pressure. (Even tho we were butt poor, my husband was a student at the time - but it was only possible because our families supported us financially)

I was there for the early years ( and when I couldn't be, I got my mum to help - which she loved)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I think your overall point is still valid, Jemima, perhaps particularly in what one might loosely call Anglo-Saxon cultures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children (or grandparents or extended family) to bring them up themselves and not relegate them (too much - yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue) to the battery hen production line of childcare.

Childcare workers IME are excellent and loving carers, but they are not family. And kids know that. And I think it's damaging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I speak from personal experience, but I'm proud to say I did not succumb to societal pressure. (Even tho we were butt poor, my husband was a student at the time - but it was only possible because our families supported us financially)

I was there for the early years ( and when I couldn't be, I got my mum to help - which she loved)

---

Do you not understand how this reads? Why are you proud of circumstances you happened to have, which others do not, and yet judge them for it?

---

quote:

---

Some people have to put their kids in childcare in order to survive. And that's absolutely fair enough. And I think kids (eventually) understand that too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children (or grandparents or extended family) to bring them up themselves and not relegate them (too much - yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue) to the battery hen production line of childcare.

Childcare workers IME are excellent and loving carers, but they are not family. And kids know that. And I think it's damaging.

---

I would like to rend you limb from limb right now, Evensong. Your ill-considered lump of bile above (even with its weak sop of a final sentence) is insulting to those who run childcare centres, suggesting that they are cynically operating 'battery lines', insulting to early childhood teachers who work in these centres, suggesting that they are colluding with a system which views children as no better than pieces of meat, and insulting to parents, suggesting that they would leave their children in such places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
Have you ever actually BEEN inside a childcare centre?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The point of that particular line was that they are more impersonal than family care, and that's a problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Some people have to put their kids in childcare in order to survive. And that's absolutely fair enough. And I think kids (eventually) understand that too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The point of that particular line was that they are more impersonal than family care, and that's a problem.

---

That obviously depends on both the quality of the childcare centre and the quality of the family.

In fact it's so obvious, no-one should have to point it out to you.

---

I apologise for not being able to contextualise for every and each specific family and childcare institution in this discussion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Some people have to put their kids in childcare in order to survive. And that's absolutely fair enough. And I think kids (eventually) understand that too.

---

Thank you for making my point for me about your judgmental attitude. You yourself enjoyed significant supportive resources for childcare, yet anyone who does so for any other reason than "survival" earns your opprobrium.

---

quote:

---

yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I speak from personal experience, but I'm proud to say I did not succumb to societal pressure.

---

Really ? And the reason it was you and not your husband staying at home throughout their early childhood was what exactly ? How long did he spend thinking about whether he would be doing that ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
My children attended some very wonderful early childcare centers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for parents that put their children in childcare full-time from a very early age that don't have to: damn straight I'm judgemental about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What you're calling a failure to contextualise, the rest of us call making unwarranted generalisations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I speak from personal experience, but I'm proud to say I did not succumb to societal pressure.

---

Really ? And the reason it was you and not your husband staying at home throughout their early childhood was what exactly ?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
How long did he spend thinking about whether he would be doing that ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for parents that put their children in childcare full-time from a very early age that don't have to: damn straight I'm judgemental about that.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Rutter argues that these problems are not due solely to the lack of attachment to a mother figure, as Bowlby claimed, but to factors such as the lack of intellectual stimulation and social experiences which attachments normally provide. In addition, such problems can be overcome later in the child's development, with the right kind of care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Right, so because you wanted to be with your babies and didn't have a workable career at the time, you're going to denigrate everyone who is trying to continue with their careers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

You do of course know that Bowlby's research showing children did better with their mothers was 50s propaganda to get women back out of the workplaces to give the returning soldiers jobs?

Breast feeding does not make children smart
Bowlby's attachment theories which is the basis for the twaddle you're spouting is criticised on a number of counts - Bowlby is conflating a number of different effects, he's laying it all on to the mother, but other attachment figures (the father, siblings, objects) create the same effects and he misattributes the effects he sees:

quote:

---

Rutter argues that these problems are not due solely to the lack of attachment to a mother figure, as Bowlby claimed, but to factors such as the lack of intellectual stimulation and social experiences which attachments normally provide. In addition, such problems can be overcome later in the child's development, with the right kind of care.

---

---

quote:

---

There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
]Mammary glands is a pretty weighty factor if you're planning to breastfeed. And yes I think breastfeeding is preferred to bottle-feeding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh look. More lack of reading for comprehension.

quote:

---

yes a bit of childcare is fine but full time no way and certainly NOT in the very early years when attachment is such a big issue

---

As for parents that put their children in childcare full-time from a very early age that don't have to: damn straight I'm judgemental about that.

You got a problem with that? Find someone that cares.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

BTW do you think it incongruent to claim a theoretically tolerant liberal approach to Christianity, and decry conservative Christians, while at the same time judging women harshly? Or are you just an old-fashioned judgmental douche in a new-fashioned pomo robe?

---

quote:

---

If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children ( or extended family) to bring them up themselves*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Oh Evensong. I get what you're trying to say - I think - but you are totally out of your league (to say nothing of being way out of line) on this one. You might find this article on "phony feminism" and the childcare issue helpful. Perhaps it was the AWCC stuff that got you going. In which case you have a point - don't fuck it up by insulting people who could otherwise be your allies.

---

quote:

---

The AWCC has argued that stay-at-home parents (overwhelmingly 'mothers') are non-contributors. Not only do they fail to contribute to their families' incomes, they also fail to contribute to the Australian economy.

---

They contribute much more than money ever can.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I'd just like to point out that Eversmug is once again in the role she loves best here - her against all, bravely showing the flag against the mob.


 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
There are women who really don't like their children very much and women who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are women who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are women whose families can't physically survive without the money she earns and there are women who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those women's choices, but not all of them.

Study after study in child development has shown that it's best for children to have the one on one relationship with mother or father for the first three years. No matter how wonderful your child care service is, they don't love your child as much as you do. Some of them may not like your child at all, though they say and do all the correct things, but the child can sense the difference. In the very young groups, the caregivers have to divide their attention over too many children, even in the smaller, more expensive facilities.

If you're positive that your caregiver loves your child as much as you do then it's probably the child's grandmother. In which case, I wonder why she has been asked to make the sacrifices for your child that you are unwilling to make.

You can say you're always there for your child but you are not. You are not there when they are suddenly hurt or frightened, you are not there when they ask their first childish questions about race or gender. You just aren't there. All day long.

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Evensong, why do you assume extended family are anywhere close by these days? If I have children, one set of grandparents will be in a different country, and the other set will be (a) in the same country, but a seven-hour trip away and (b) significantly disabled.

Now I’m not averse to the idea of taking said hypothetical children to their grandparents’ place now and again for a holiday (they need to stay in England every so often because growing up bilingual confers some big advantages ) but it’s not like I can just drop them off for the afternoon.

My choices are stay at home or use childcare. (My fiancé could technically stay at home, but he earns a higher salary and enjoys his job considerably more than me, so it’s a no-brainer.)
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Twilight - can you find some references for your assertions, please? Because the references I found were not saying what you are saying. 3-6 months is probably all that's needed.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Are you just an old-fashioned judgmental douche in a new-fashioned pomo robe?

---

I'm a theological liberal and a social conservative.

---

quote:

---

As for judging women harshly, you really do suck at reading for comprehension. I think this is the third or fourth time you've failed to read what I've written.

quote:

---

If you want the good of a society as a whole, you would pay the mother or father of their children ( or extended family) to bring them up themselves*

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

If you're positive that your caregiver loves your child as much as you do then it's probably the child's grandmother. In which case, I wonder why she has been asked to make the sacrifices for your child that you are unwilling to make.

You can say you're always there for your child but you are not. You are not there when they are suddenly hurt or frightened, you are not there when they ask their first childish questions about race or gender. You just aren't there. All day long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Holy Mother of Fuck.

Children are not economic subjects that should be subjected to economic rationalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Jemima -- I don't think you understood what I was saying. I wasn't asking anyone why they didn't use their child's grandmother to care for their child. I'm against that altogether, on the grounds that she has already raised her own children and shouldn't have to raise anyone else's. It's now her chance to get better educated, travel, have nice furniture, sleep through the night, eat ice-cream for dinner, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Evensong -- Sorry if you wanted to argue this alone, but once QLib said you were too stupid to discuss this with her, (in over your head) I had to jump in, being a charter member of that club myself.

---

quote:

---

It is very difficult to generalise the effects of day care because the quality and types vary so widely and research studies only sample a small section of this variation. Generalisation is also difficult because most of the research is carried out in the USA, which means that the findings may not be relevant in other cultures. Furthermore, individual differences in personality, social background and family relationships will also influence the effect of day care on a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
How the hell did you get that out of Twilight's post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If it's wrong to put a child in childcare because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened, it is equally wrong to put them in any other situation because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
There are women who really don't like their children very much and women who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are women who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are women whose families can't physically survive without the money she earns and there are women who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those women's choices, but not all of them.

Study after study in child development has shown that it's best for children to have the one on one relationship with mother or father for the first three years. No matter how wonderful your child care service is, they don't love your child as much as you do. Some of them may not like your child at all, though they say and do all the correct things, but the child can sense the difference. In the very young groups, the caregivers have to divide their attention over too many children, even in the smaller, more expensive facilities.

If you're positive that your caregiver loves your child as much as you do then it's probably the child's grandmother. In which case, I wonder why she has been asked to make the sacrifices for your child that you are unwilling to make.

You can say you're always there for your child but you are not. You are not there when they are suddenly hurt or frightened, you are not there when they ask their first childish questions about race or gender. You just aren't there. All day long.

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If it's wrong to put a child in childcare because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened, it is equally wrong to put them in any other situation because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened.

---

And can you not see the distinction between occasionally not being there during those moments and frequently or never being there during those moments?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Twilight - can you find some references for your assertions, please? Because the references I found were not saying what you are saying. 3-6 months is probably all that's needed.

---

quote:

---

The results confirmed the hypothesis that there is a relationship between the number of hours spent in non-maternal care and later disruptive behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted in a different gender construction by Twilight:
There are [men] who really don't like their children very much and [men] who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are [men] who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are [men] whose families can't physically survive without the money they earn and there are [men] who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those [men's] choices, but not all of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If it's wrong to put a child in childcare because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened, it is equally wrong to put them in any other situation because you won't be there when they're suddenly hurt or frightened.

---

And can you not see the distinction between occasionally not being there during those moments and frequently or never being there during those moments?

---

Yes. But the point is I don't think it's correct to label childcare as meaning that you are frequently or never there during those moments. The vast majority of people are not putting their children into childcare for the entire waking day, 5 days a week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

If you assume general attachment theory has merit (which as I understand it and as I have been trained to believe is fairly commonly accepted psychological theory these days), then full-time childcare from an early age disrupting primary bonding relationships is purely common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Frankly, the notion that a parent must be hovering over their child at all times makes me wonder what happens the first time the child is separated from the parent, as must inevitably happen. If you really take it to that level, I would have thought the child will completely freak the first time there is no parent around.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of the mom staying home with the kids full-time while dad goes out and earns the bread for the whole family is recent, short-lived, middle-class, and very white. People talk like it's the divine right of all children to have a stay-at-home parent. Very few families in the history of the planet have managed to pull this off. Some of us may need to pull off our privilege blinders and smell the coffee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you assume general attachment theory has merit (which as I understand it and as I have been trained to believe is fairly commonly accepted psychological theory these days), then full-time childcare from an early age disrupting primary bonding relationships is purely common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

quote:

---

I want to work. I want to know that if my husband is ill, disabled, dies, I can provide for my children. I want to know that if his pension scheme goes bust, we have something to fall back on.

I want my husband and I to share equally in the joys, challenges, frustrations, demands and rewards of work both in and out of the home, since we're both equally suited and equally capable of both.

I want to enrich the economy by paying half of my salary to the nanny to do the job she is trained and qualified to do, and loves doing. A job that enables her to earn a very good living, while having her children with her when they're not at school.

I want to have a fair share of the world's economic power - to earn, to save, to spend and to give. I want my children to see how the right to earn, save, spend, give fit into a socially just world.

I'm very lucky to have excellent childcare, employability, earning capacity and choice. I want more people to have those things, not fewer.

---

 

---

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
How about this then?

quote:

---

Originally posted in a different gender construction by Twilight:
There are [men] who really don't like their children very much and [men] who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are [men] who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are [men] whose families can't physically survive without the money they earn and there are [men] who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those [men's] choices, but not all of them.

---

Isn't it odd how we don't hear people saying this?

---

If I were a man, I'd be ok with having kids. The amount of interest and involvement that I'd be happy to have would be perfectly acceptable and even lauded in a man, but intolerable and vilified in a woman.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

I want to work. I want to know that if my husband is ill, disabled, dies, I can provide for my children. I want to know that if his pension scheme goes bust, we have something to fall back on.

I want my husband and I to share equally in the joys, challenges, frustrations, demands and rewards of work both in and out of the home, since we're both equally suited and equally capable of both.

I want to enrich the economy by paying half of my salary to the nanny to do the job she is trained and qualified to do, and loves doing. A job that enables her to earn a very good living, while having her children with her when they're not at school.

I want to have a fair share of the world's economic power - to earn, to save, to spend and to give. I want my children to see how the right to earn, save, spend, give fit into a socially just world.

I'm very lucky to have excellent childcare, employability, earning capacity and choice. I want more people to have those things, not fewer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

I want to enrich the economy by paying half of my salary to the nanny to do the job she is trained and qualified to do, and loves doing. A job that enables her to earn a very good living, while having her children with her when they're not at school.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I don't think general attachment theory is saying what you think it's saying about childcare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I
And if you're being 'trained to believe' stuff, you should consider moving to another school/college/uni.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

If you assume general attachment theory has merit (which as I understand it and as I have been trained to believe is fairly commonly accepted psychological theory these days), then full-time childcare from an early age disrupting primary bonding relationships is purely common sense.

---

From personal experience I don't.

My son is 28 now and, when home, he's always to be found in the room I'm in. He Skypes at least twice a week and - when on Skype - stays on for an hour or two (ipad propped up on the surface as if he's in the room, I love it) As I said, he's well adjusted, happy and hard working.

My other son is a really social animal. He loves to take his fiance out alone and with friends. He often brings his friends here for meals too - which he cooks. Bearing in mind he lives in Bristol and we live in Manchester.

Poor attachment? Not from where I'm sitting!

---

quote:

---

I put both of my children in full-time daycare. I witnessed my daughter’s severe separation anxiety and felt helpless. My son was diagnosed with ADD in elementary school. Both my children are grown and have now shared with me, as anecdotal evidence∗, what it was like for them to go to daycare while I worked full-time. My daughter said she felt “desperate” and “unlovable” because I was always leaving her. My son said that when I dropped him off, he thought it was because he was “not very important”. I could have made different decisions had I understood what was at stake and now believe that if parents knew that their children’s emotional development was at risk, they would rethink whether they really need two incomes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You want it all. Plenty of leisure time too huh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
How about this then?

quote:

---

Originally posted in a different gender construction by Twilight:
There are [men] who really don't like their children very much and [men] who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are [men] who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are [men] whose families can't physically survive without the money they earn and there are [men] who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those [men's] choices, but not all of them.

---

Isn't it odd how we don't hear people saying this?

---

If I were a man, I'd be ok with having kids. The amount of interest and involvement that I'd be happy to have would be perfectly acceptable and even lauded in a man, but intolerable and vilified in a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea of the mom staying home with the kids full-time while dad goes out and earns the bread for the whole family is recent, short-lived, middle-class, and very white. People talk like it's the divine right of all children to have a stay-at-home parent. Very few families in the history of the planet have managed to pull this off. Some of us may need to pull off our privilege blinders and smell the coffee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You want it all. Plenty of leisure time too huh?

---

You appear to have plenty of leisure time to spend pissing about on the Ship, huh? Who's looking after your children while you make a constant nuisance of yourself in Hell? Attend to your motherly duties, woman!

---

I had my first at 21, my second at 23. I'm now 40. I gave up Uni for them but resumed when they went to school. Just last saturday I finished over a decade of ferrying my boys about to their various saturday morning sporting commitments. The end of an era. I get one day a week to sleep in!

Dad's taxi has stepped up to the challenge of teenage boys. And he plays with them regularly. They need him more than me now.
 

---

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
As a man, ecumaniac, I don't think I could even sustain that level of interest and involvement. I do godfather and uncle fairly well (I think) but that's about my limit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

quote:

---

I put both of my children in full-time daycare. I witnessed my daughter’s severe separation anxiety and felt helpless. My son was diagnosed with ADD in elementary school.

---

quote:

---

The main findings were that although girls benefit from early day-care experience, for boys this is especially marked. The benefits refer to various school related measures. Boys who enter day-care early, between the age of 6 and 12 months, do well in school. They receive high teacher marks for achievement (school performance), they adjust well to school routines in the early school years (school adjustment) and they also display positive interpersonal skills (social competence) at the age of 13.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

If you think farmers/agricultural workers are "home all day" then you've got no idea what such work actually entails.

---

quote:

---

Each child received only one score from the teacher. This was a subjective assessment based on the teacher’s experience of the child in the classroom according to the listed targeted behaviors.

---

quote:

---

The first question on the parent survey focused on establishing whether or not their child experienced any non-maternal care on a regular basis prior to entering kindergarten. If the answer was “No”, then the parent skipped the daycare questions entirely. If the parent aswered “Yes”, they were then asked (1) when their child began this care, (2) the average hours per week of non-maternal care the child experienced, (3) the total number of non-maternal caregiver environments their child experienced (4) the percieved benefits of the care, and (5) the perceived quality of care (“not good” to “outstanding”). All parents were instructed to rate their child on a variety of personality traits ( shy vs. outgoing, cooperative vs. defiant, calm vs.angry, quiet vs. hyperactive, fearful vs.fearless, demanding vs.goodnatured, needy vs.independent, and poor concentration vs.good concentration). Lastly, the parents were asked to provide some demographic information on their child regarding sex, birth order, and the type of household (single-parent, dual-parent, blended, foster care etc.). There were a total of
eleven questions on the parent survey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

If you think farmers/agricultural workers are "home all day" then you've got no idea what such work actually entails.

---

True. But I suspect that in manay agricultural societies, from quite an early age the kids would have been working in the fields with their parents, gleaning or throwing stones to keep off the birds or doing something else useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

If you think farmers/agricultural workers are "home all day" then you've got no idea what such work actually entails.

---

True. But I suspect that in manay agricultural societies, from quite an early age the kids would have been working in the fields with their parents, gleaning or throwing stones to keep off the birds or doing something else useful.

---

For sure. Of course, by the time they'd have been old enough to do that they'd already be out of the "early years" period that's being discussed here (which appears to be roughly up to the age of 3 or 4), making the point redundant..

---

Fair point- I'd missed that. Tho' I suspect that someone like William Cobbett would have claimed that he was earning a living by making himself useful in the fields when he was still in the womb- if not before he was actually conceived...
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

I'm very lucky to have excellent childcare, employability, earning capacity and choice. I want more people to have those things, not fewer.

---

Amen and Amen

 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 
Oh, I've been trying really hard not to join in with his, but I just can't resist.

Curiosity killed... is making some great points about the need for demographic control in research about issues like the impact of childcare strategies. I suspect surveys from Scandinavian countries, like the one she quotes, are better than those from other parts of the world in dealing with demographic bias, since childcare there is well resourced and used by people in a range of life circumstances. Overall though, these studies - whether they point to beneficial or detrimental effects for childcare - are of limited relevance to individual situations.

It is impossible for me to do a controlled experiment on the effects of my personal childcare choices on my specific child. I can't clone both myself and my child, and have mother and child set 1 being at home together, whilst the second set have a work/childcare situation. The argument that it's always best to have mummy around for as much of the time as possible for attachment reasons not only fails to take into account modern thinking about "attachment" (which is, as I understand it, more about how the parents and other carers interact with the child than how often), but also spectacularly ignores individual circumstances.

One easy example well known to me is of a kid whose mother would be generously described as a borderline alcoholic and whose father has been the subject of a restraining order keeping him away from both mother and child since not long after the child was born. Said child is in a nursery 8 til 5 every weekday. The nursery is a very loving and sweet environment, but his Mum (on the other hand) never seems to show him any affection - at least in public. Are you sure he would really be better off at home full time?

I will risk talking about my own situation now: along with a lot of professional women, I really like my job and find it stimulating and exciting. I also really like spending time with my son, but when I was on maternity leave I missed the intellectual stimulation badly, and it was a factor in my struggling with post-natal depression. When I went back to work (initially half time, and increasing hours slowly over several years), I found that my mood improved considerably and that I was much more able to interact well with my son. We were under the care of a maternal and infant mental health specialist at the time, and it was pretty obvious to her that under my part time working arrangements, I was so much happier and more well that the quality of my relationship with my son and our attachment to one another were improving dramatically. Currently my son is confident, happy and loves his nursery. When he was ill and we were at home together for a couple of weeks, he was very cross about not being allowed to go. We are both happier with me working. Of course, by the time he's 18 all that may have changed and he may blame me for every misery in his life, but you'll meet plenty of 18 year olds who do that - regardless of the choices their parents make.

Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a fairly large body of professional women out there for whom this story rings true. It is really very difficult to do a controlled study of the outcome for children if mothers who would really like to be working stay home in the early years (and then potentially resent their children). Twilight and Evensong will no doubt rail against how selfish this is, but for me it's not as simple as "I want to work, therefore I will leave my child in daycare". It's more: "I want to be myself, a woman my child can be proud of, and not a depressed lump of jelly, therefore I will organise the best care I can for my child which still allows me to pursue my career to some (reduced) extent".

Given that women like me go back to work after our children are born partly for the good of our own and our children's mental health, and that our staying home might not be a good option at all for the child, you seem to be left with two choices: 1. Prevent us from having children, or 2. Stop educating us to such a high level. You can apply the same two options to fathers as well if you like. The outcomes are not positive whichever you choose. In fact, given that noone is going to advocate forced sterelisation (I hope), and this remains largely an issue for women not men (as we have the uteruses and mammary glands and are always going to be taking at least some of the time off from work), then really the most logical route forward seems to be to stop allowing women into higher education, and just to train us for care roles. After we're done raising children, we can look after our aging parents. We clearly shouldn't be in the workplace at all.

OK - I am exaggerating for effect, but the point remains: for many women the best thing they can do for their children in the short and the long term may be to go back to work. That may be for the reasons I describe above, or economic reasons, or for a huge number of other reasons. Even if being looked after by mum or dad at home were the best solution on average (which such reliable research as is available really does not seem to suggest) it would not necessarily be the best solution for any given individual child. That means that the focus needs to be on providing high quality, affordable childcare, in order to give all parents equal choices - which brings us back (finally) to what feminism is all about: equality of opportunity for men and women - i.e. for everyone.

Best wishes,

Rachel.

PS.... sorry for the long post. I have been sitting on these thoughts and got over-excited.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I don't think general attachment theory is saying what you think it's saying about childcare.

---

Perhaps not. Doesn't matter. I'm not subject to the whims of contemporary psychology.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if you're being 'trained to believe' stuff, you should consider moving to another school/college/uni.

---

Most of contemporary education is about being trained to believe contemporary mores. Why would they teach things they don't believe in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:

Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a fairly large body of professional women out there for whom this story rings true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Evensong, your proof is a masters paper from a mother trying to work out why her children developed problems and includes a literature review with some questionnaire research of 175 children in her area. She did not collect ethnic data or accurate ages. This comes from her final note:

quote:

---

I put both of my children in full-time daycare. I witnessed my daughter’s severe separation anxiety and felt helpless. My son was diagnosed with ADD in elementary school.

---

---

quote:

---

There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I don't think general attachment theory is saying what you think it's saying about childcare.

---

Perhaps not. Doesn't matter. I'm not subject to the whims of contemporary psychology.

---

Just feel free to misquote it whenever you think it fits your argument? .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
QUOTE]

quote:

---

And if you're being 'trained to believe' stuff, you should consider moving to another school/college/uni.

---

Most of contemporary education is about being trained to believe contemporary mores. Why would they teach things they don't believe in?

---

[/QUOTE]

It's a Phd in theoretical physics. Very mainstream. You have to take so much on faith.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
( I lied. I'm doing a postgrad Diploma in Secondary Education. )

[ 20. August 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
You're free to think it's a joke but your UBB coding is, without a doubt, shit.

Do you know that there's a thread in The Styx on which you can practice UBB?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

I want to enrich the economy by paying half of my salary to the nanny to do the job she is trained and qualified to do, and loves doing. A job that enables her to earn a very good living, while having her children with her when they're not at school.

---

So that's a good thing for her kids but not for yours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Evensong, your proof is a masters paper from a mother trying to work out why her children developed problems and includes a literature review with some questionnaire research of 175 children in her area. She did not collect ethnic data or accurate ages. This comes from her final note:

quote:

---

I put both of my children in full-time daycare. I witnessed my daughter’s severe separation anxiety and felt helpless. My son was diagnosed with ADD in elementary school.

---

---

What a thoroughly scientific dismissal of said research and scientific literature review. Well done you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

I have been a teacher for 35 years, I taught reception (four year olds) for five years. I find those children whose parents have over protected them and not happily sent them to child care are the least well adjusted by far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:
Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
.
Are you sure he would really be better off at home full time?

---

quote:

---

Given that women like me go back to work after our children are born partly for the good of our own and our children's mental health, and that our staying home might not be a good option at all for the child, you seem to be left with two choices: 1. Prevent us from having children, or 2. Stop educating us to such a high level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:


Paraphrasing "women like you.":

First, I want my child to be proud of me. He would be ashamed to have a mother who was a mere housewife and not (name of glittering profession.)

Secondly, I'm far too smart to be a housewife. My towering intellect would never stand for a period of time without paid work.

---

quote:

---

If you really would resent your child for slowing you down on your fast track to success, or go into a deep depression, then by all means go out to work.

---

quote:

---

Of course, I could read, paint, write books, express myself on the internet or with friends but it wouldn't be enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Ahh, there is your problem, right there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Ah, now we're getting down to it.

Paraphrasing "women like you.":

First, I want my child to be proud of me. He would be ashamed to have a mother who was a mere housewife and not (name of glittering profession.)

Secondly, I'm far too smart to be a housewife. My towering intellect would never stand for a period of time without paid work. Of course, I could read, paint, write books, express myself on the internet or with friends but it wouldn't be enough. If my education went unused for any amount of time it would be a travesty against higher education everywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Of course, I could read, paint, write books, express myself on the internet or with friends but it wouldn't be enough.

---

Oh, and this bit takes the cake. Women shouldn't go back to work, contribute to the economy, use their training and potentially help others. No, we should stay home and pursue hobbies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

If you think farmers/agricultural workers are "home all day" then you've got no idea what such work actually entails.

---

True. But I suspect that in manay agricultural societies, from quite an early age the kids would have been working in the fields with their parents, gleaning or throwing stones to keep off the birds or doing something else useful.

---

For sure. Of course, by the time they'd have been old enough to do that they'd already be out of the "early years" period that's being discussed here (which appears to be roughly up to the age of 3 or 4), making the point redundant..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I worked part time during my child's first five years and then full time for the next 40 years and I still couldn't say that I achieved my full potential and arrived at a secure sense of self. I don't think those things come from job titles or paychecks anymore than they come from needlepoint or watercolors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.

---

If you think farmers/agricultural workers are "home all day" then you've got no idea what such work actually entails.

---

True. But I suspect that in manay agricultural societies, from quite an early age the kids would have been working in the fields with their parents, gleaning or throwing stones to keep off the birds or doing something else useful.

---

For sure. Of course, by the time they'd have been old enough to do that they'd already be out of the "early years" period that's being discussed here (which appears to be roughly up to the age of 3 or 4), making the point redundant..

---

Really? You've never seen people working the fields with their toddlers playing underfoot, or preserving food with their small child in the next room, or doing their work with a baby strapped to them?

I really am in the wrong century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
You've never seen people working the fields with their toddlers playing underfoot, or preserving food with their small child in the next room, or doing their work with a baby strapped to them?

I really am in the wrong century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:

Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Ahh, there is your problem, right there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
Or maybe the wrong country? Work in the fields is done with alarmingly large and lethal machinery here, and in what small experience I have, also in the UK where Marvin is. It is a bit different, I guess, where work is being done with a machete or a hoe. But surely things are mostly mechanised in the US??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Spiffing. So you'll be happy to accept the ideas of those with different personal experiences and ideas of common sense as equally valid and likely to have merit, then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:

Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?

---

Now see if you'd listened to your parents when they told you not to judge a book by its cover, you might not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Doesn't sound like you read the literature review either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Ahh, there is your problem, right there.

---

You form all your opinions from textbooks? You must be very well read considering how opinionated you are. And a real original thinker to boot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:

Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?

---

Now see if you'd listened to your parents when they told you not to judge a book by its cover, you might not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Doesn't sound like you read the literature review either.

---

I read as much of that shoddy piece of shit as I could stand. Seriously, does that actually look like a piece of valid research to you? Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Ahh, there is your problem, right there.

---

You form all your opinions from textbooks? You must be very well read considering how opinionated you are. And a real original thinker to boot.

---

Did you notice the word I italicised? I am questioning your perceptions which, given you missed that, do not appear to be very sharp. And you tend to jettison all sense when you argue down here.

---

Shit. I did miss that. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Oh look! And here's another one from the Archives of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine on Child care and the well-being of children.

quote:

---

Children who began care early in life and were in care 30 or more hours a week were at increased risk for stress-related behavioral problems

---

quote:

---

Children in day care centers had higher language scores and early school achievement, especially if they came from disadvantaged backgrounds and the centers offered high-quality care

---

quote:

---

Children who began care early in life and were in care 30 or more hours a week were at increased risk for stress-related behavioral problems. Elevated risk was more likely if they had difficulties interacting with peers or had insensitive parents.

---

quote:

---

Parent and family characteristics were more strongly linked to child development than were child care features. and, parent and family characteristics predicted some developmental outcomes that were not predicted by child care. for instance, children showed more cognitive, language, and social competence and more harmonious relationships with parents when parents were more educated, had higher incomes, and provided home environments that were emotionally supportive and cognitively enriched, and when mothers experienced little psychological distress.

---

quote:

---

The results indicated that although parenting was a stronger and more consistent predictor of children's development than early child-care experience, higher quality care predicted higher vocabulary scores and more exposure to center care predicted more teacher-reported externalizing problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. I hate you all for sucking me into cherry picking scientific papers to support my opinions.

---

I've done that. Not an easy habit to shake.
 

---

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I didn't form my ideas from a textbook, I formed them from personal experience and (what I perceive to be) common sense.

---

Spiffing. So you'll be happy to accept the ideas of those with different personal experiences and ideas of common sense as equally valid and likely to have merit, then.

---

If a family is not able to lovingly care for an infant, then I would accept that it is better for that infant to be in childcare.

If your personal experience and common sense tell you both parents in a family are able to have full-time paid jobs, negotiate the full-time unpaid job of running a household, spend lots of time with their children, look after ageing parents and have sufficient leisure time for relaxation and spiritual regeneration then I'd say you're off you're rocker and your ideas do not have merit.

It's not rocket science.

---

I appreciate you're exaggerating for effect (at least I assume so). But rachel, anoesis and I are describing something far more prosaic than that. I've all but lost my faith, so spiritual regeneration isn't really on my radar these days, but a lot of relaxation is found at work. Not having to plan distractions so you can go for a wee is a start!

My opportunities for relaxation away from work are limited - arguing with strangers on the internet , the odd trip to the pub with friends, a keep fit class......But these are dictated mostly by MrJt9's working hours (rarely home by 9pm) not my working patterns. And it's exactly the same for the SAHMs I know.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
And it also says:

quote:

---

Children in day care centers had higher language scores and early school achievement, especially if they came from disadvantaged backgrounds and the centers offered high-quality care

---

But you're absolutely right that cherry-picking is wrong. Have you read the whole article? Do you know how the studies this review used controlled for the children's home circumstances?

---

quote:

---

the amount of time that children spend in child care from infancy through age 41⁄2 is not related to their cognitive outcomes prior to school entry. children who spend many hours in child care, however, show somewhat more behavior problems

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

ETA: In any case, this is just one huge tangent. Child care and its outcomes are legitimate matters for debate within feminism. Feminism does not dictate child care arrangements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually your cherry picking is missing a big point on all those papers, that the parental background has more impact than any childcare. From the papers quoted above:

The abstract from Bradley and Vandell 2007

quote:

---

Children who began care early in life and were in care 30 or more hours a week were at increased risk for stress-related behavioral problems. Elevated risk was more likely if they had difficulties interacting with peers or had insensitive parents.

---

The NICHD study, following the main findings on childcare, which as you noted are a generalisation for all non-maternal childcare, gives this caveat:

quote:

---

Parent and family characteristics were more strongly linked to child development than were child care features. and, parent and family characteristics predicted some developmental outcomes that were not predicted by child care. for instance, children showed more cognitive, language, and social competence and more harmonious relationships with parents when parents were more educated, had higher incomes, and provided home environments that were emotionally supportive and cognitively enriched, and when mothers experienced little psychological distress.

---

The full finding from Belsky et al (2007) is

quote:

---

The results indicated that although parenting was a stronger and more consistent predictor of children's development than early child-care experience, higher quality care predicted higher vocabulary scores and more exposure to center care predicted more teacher-reported externalizing problems.

---

All this research is saying the parenting children get is more important than the small effects of child care. So actually forcing mothers to stay at home and care for their children unwillingly is counterproductive, which is where we all came in.

PS glad to find you're finding peer reviewed stuff now, next step is to read it properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I appreciate you're exaggerating for effect (at least I assume so). But rachel, anoesis and I are describing something far more prosaic than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm not arguing SOME childcare is bad. I'm arguing full-time childcare is bad (especially in the early years).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm not arguing SOME childcare is bad. I'm arguing full-time childcare is bad (especially in the early years).

---

Then where the fuck is this avalanche of "full-time childcare" you're railing against?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

But then I don't really like kids much anyway. So sue me. (I don't have any kids. I'm not going to have any kids.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think that kids' desires are necessarily more important than adults' desires and I don't think that living in a culture which elevates kids to this status is doing anyone any favours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:



Of course, I could read, paint, write books, express myself on the internet or with friends but it wouldn't be enough.

---

Oh, and this bit takes the cake. Women shouldn't go back to work, contribute to the economy, use their training and potentially help others. No, we should stay home and pursue hobbies? Because while I am painting my masterpiece whilst simultaneously dictating my novel and using my toes to tap out messages to my friends on the internet, my child clearly has my fullest attention, and is receiving much better quality of care than he could anywhere else. Good to know.

There are plenty of mums out their following this advice, and their kids watch an awful lot of television. My Mum pursued a similar path, and stuck me in a play pen to achieve it. I don't remember her playing with me at all. A lot of our interactions that I do remember came through me trying desperately to engage with her hobbies, which I pretended to like. Of course she had post-natal depression, so we should probably cut her some slack. Oh wait.... not that's not what we do if we follow Twilight's example...

go and do seaside-themed crafts at the local museum and watch a Punch and Judy show. Twilight and anyone else nasty enough to join her can continue their foul insinuations without me.

R.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I appreciate you're exaggerating for effect (at least I assume so). But rachel, anoesis and I are describing something far more prosaic than that.

---

I don't understand what you mean by prosaic here. And I don't think I'm exaggerating for effect. I'm arguing children are better off being cared for (especially in the early years) by family than by childcare.

I'm arguing parents should not be brainwashed into thinking "just raising kids" is not a valuable thing to do. I think it's THE most valuable thing a mother AND a father will ever do ( I do believe both are necessary and if you can get grandparents and extended family involved even better).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Only Evensong didn't say a word about vaccinations, just as I didn't say a word about needlepoint or crafts. This tendency to present images that will fit an unpopular stereotype is not helping.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Your discussion with CK about the science reminds me of why these arguments are like those about vaccination:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Only Evensong didn't say a word about vaccinations,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

The concept of a 'simile' floats on by, unrecognised, like a ghost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Only Evensong didn't say a word about vaccinations, just as I didn't say a word about needlepoint or crafts. This tendency to present images that will fit an unpopular stereotype is not helping.

---

Oh, not on this thread, but on plenty of others—and yup, anti-vaxer.

---

It's a public service. I once started a Purgatory thread on the wisdom of healthy adults getting vaccinated against flu. Evensong did a particularly good job of persuading me to get the shot.
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
But I believe the tide is changing. As I understand it, more well-educated women are giving up their careers and their time to be full-time career mothers and housekeepers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
OK, I don't accept that childcare is worse than stay at home parenting as a general rule. I think it depends on so many different variables that it's impossible to draw that kind of conclusion.

HOWEVER, even if it is... so fucking what? When did children become more important than everything else in the world combined? Nobody wants to see kids go through abuse, neglect or failure to meet their basic needs, but when did we decide that it was so vitally important that the kid have the absolute perfect upbringing that we could say "fuck it when it comes to mum's choices - she's over ten years old and doesn't matter?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm firmly of the view that there's a lower standard which is good enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I sometimes say I used to be liberal but liberal moved.

---

quote:

---

I cannot tell you how common it is for me to talk to 19, 20, 21 year old students, who seem like good people, who discuss liberal and left-wing beliefs as positive ideas, but who shrink from identifying with liberalism and feminism instinctively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
To expand a bit - Evensong made a claim about the scientific evidence against childcare use, CK provides the science to refute it, Evensong says it's the wrong sort of science, etc etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
To expand a bit - Evensong made a claim about the scientific evidence against childcare use, CK provides the science to refute it, Evensong says it's the wrong sort of science, etc etc...

---

quote:

---

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

quote:

---

There was an important confounding variable in this study that must be kept in mind when interpreting the findings. Those children who started day care earliest tended to come from the wealthiest families. Thus the reason they did better could have been because they came from the most advantaged families.

---

quote:

---

n one of the most extensive studies of childminding in the UK, Mayall & Petrie (1977) found that only 1 in 4 [childcare centres ]were of good quality, a half were less than satisfactory and 1 in 5 were of poor quality. A third of childminders give up childminding each year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Cotton wool wrappers and helecopter parents are the last thing they need.

When we all visited my brother's farm mine were exploring the woods, playing in the barns, making rope swings from the beams and climbing everything they could see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
So what's your problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
OK, I don't accept that childcare is worse than stay at home parenting as a general rule. I think it depends on so many different variables that it's impossible to draw that kind of conclusion.

HOWEVER, even if it is... so fucking what? When did children become more important than everything else in the world combined? Nobody wants to see kids go through abuse, neglect or failure to meet their basic needs, but when did we decide that it was so vitally important that the kid have the absolute perfect upbringing that we could say "fuck it when it comes to mum's choices - she's over ten years old and doesn't matter?"

---

Thank you for bringing this perspective to the conversation. I wouldn't have had the courage to raise it myself, having already let on that I have children, and one of them is still a pre-schooler. I think 'making your children your top priority' is one of those things that is difficult to pin down how to actually do in all but the starkest situations. I mean, if there is only room in the lifeboat for me OR my child, then my child gets the berth. No question about it. But does that mean that all aspects of everyday life should be arranged around them? I don't know - this sort of stuff creeps up on you anyway.

---

This reminds me of Moth. Wasn't it Moth, who, for a while had a signature that said something like "I would give my life for my children. But it's not Plan A."


 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Cotton wool wrappers and helecopter parents are the last thing they need.

When we all visited my brother's farm mine were exploring the woods, playing in the barns, making rope swings from the beams and climbing everything they could see.

---

I agree. And your description above could well describe my homeschooled children. Children need to not be wrapped in cotton wool, they need to be allowed to take risks, and they need to be allowed to fail.

On the other hand, our children have friends who are completely overprotected by helicopter mothers, but who nevertheless have been placed in childcare and are now in public school.

---

Which shows to me that it's attitude which matters - not our childcare choices.


 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Twilight made this claim:
If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

• all childcare is worse than staying at home with mothers;
• mothers are better at caring for their children than daycare

quote:

---

I offerred (sic) a masters thesis that she and Ariston dismissed without bothering to see if the research was sound or not so I got sucked into finding other evidence that supported that paper.

---

quote:

---

I found evidence from a massive meta analysis from the US govt that showed there were no cognitive benefits to early day care and showed the more kids were in day care the more disruptive their behaviour was and added another few "acceptable" sources to confirm that.

---

quote:

---

There is evidence that children develop better with a mother who is happy in her work, than a mother who is frustrated by staying at home (Schaffer, 1990)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I sometimes say I used to be liberal but liberal moved.

---

Thought you might appreciate this.

quote:

---

I cannot tell you how common it is for me to talk to 19, 20, 21 year old students, who seem like good people, who discuss liberal and left-wing beliefs as positive ideas, but who shrink from identifying with liberalism and feminism instinctively.

---

That's been my experience too.

---

quote:

---

The culture is one of attack, rather than of education. And the claims, typically, are existential: not “this thing you said is problematic from the standpoint of race,” but rather “you’re a racist.” Not “I think there’s some gender issues going here that you should think about,” but “you’re a misogynist.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

I found evidence from a massive meta analysis from the US govt that showed there were no cognitive benefits to early day care and showed the more kids were in day care the more disruptive their behaviour was and added another few "acceptable" sources to confirm that.

---

And you've totally ignored the point that all your research made which is that parenting has more impact on the child's disruptive behaviour than any effects of childcare.

---

quote:

---

And let's not forget, Twilight is saying all mothers should stay at home full-time caring for their children until their last child is 3, which the research really does not back up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
I sometimes say I used to be liberal but liberal moved.

---

Thought you might appreciate this.

quote:

---

I cannot tell you how common it is for me to talk to 19, 20, 21 year old students, who seem like good people, who discuss liberal and left-wing beliefs as positive ideas, but who shrink from identifying with liberalism and feminism instinctively.

---

That's been my experience too.

---

I did like that! This part rang true for many of my older friends who have worked hard for liberal issues all their lives but are now sometimes called racist or sexist over innocent word choices.

quote:

---

The culture is one of attack, rather than of education. And the claims, typically, are existential: not “this thing you said is problematic from the standpoint of race,” but rather “you’re a racist.” Not “I think there’s some gender issues going here that you should think about,” but “you’re a misogynist.”

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The trouble with all these stupid studies is that they don't test for the spiritual and emotional wellbeing of the kids.

(And by spiritual I don't mean attending church - I mean a strong, positive, centred sense of self).

Might be interesting if they tested for emotional intelligence rather than just physical, intellectual and social intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I offerred a masters thesis that she and Ariston dismissed without bothering to see if the research was sound or not so I got sucked into finding other evidence that supported that paper.

I found evidence from a massive meta analysis from the US govt that showed there were no cognitive benefits to early day care and showed the more kids were in day care the more disruptive their behaviour was and added another few "acceptable" sources to confirm that.

My sources were better than Curiosity's sources that showed her belief that there are "several pieces of research showing benefits from daycare from a young age." was incorrect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

*But there's a kind of irony here in that you and Evensong are lashing out with all kinds of ill-informed assertions about people's child care choices - your little sarky piece, Twilight, about woman who think they're too intellectually brilliant to stay at home was a classic - and yet, somehow, it's you guys who are the poor, beleaguered, put-upon ones, the target of a new breed of nasty liberals who are unkind enough not only not to share your opinions, but actually to say so out loud on a bulletin board.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... parody through exaggeration, something you have done far more of on this thread than anyone else. How else would you describe Rachel's "Either don't allow me to have children or don't educate me to such a high level," but a way of saying I'm too brilliant to stay home with a baby?

---

Erm.... you say "you" and then call me on something Rachel said? I'm not sure how much of intelligence is innate, but no, I don't equate someone talking about how they want to use their education with their claiming to be brilliantly clever.
 

---

Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
To avoid any possible doubt I am posting to let you know that I am bored. Bored, bored, bored, bored, bored.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
... parody through exaggeration, something you have done far more of on this thread than anyone else. How else would you describe Rachel's "Either don't allow me to have children or don't educate me to such a high level," but a way of saying I'm too brilliant to stay home with a baby?

---

Erm.... you say "you" and then call me on something Rachel said? I'm not sure how much of intelligence is innate, but no, I don't equate someone talking about how they want to use their education with their claiming to be brilliantly clever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
There are women who really don't like their children very much and women who love them very much but for some reason are miserable without the stimulation, or public approval, that comes with a paying job. There are women who won't tolerate the sacrifice of losing ground in their career. There are women whose families can't physically survive without the money she earns and there are women who can't have the house or car of their dreams if they don't work outside the home.

I respect some of those women's choices, but not all of them.

Study after study in child development has shown that it's best for children to have the one on one relationship with mother or father for the first three years. No matter how wonderful your child care service is, they don't love your child as much as you do. Some of them may not like your child at all, though they say and do all the correct things, but the child can sense the difference. In the very young groups, the caregivers have to divide their attention over too many children, even in the smaller, more expensive facilities.

If you're positive that your caregiver loves your child as much as you do then it's probably the child's grandmother. In which case, I wonder why she has been asked to make the sacrifices for your child that you are unwilling to make.

You can say you're always there for your child but you are not. You are not there when they are suddenly hurt or frightened, you are not there when they ask their first childish questions about race or gender. You just aren't there. All day long.

If you truly have to work then, I'm sorry, but if you just want to then I think you should say so and not pretend that your child is as well off in daycare as she would be if you were home with her, because science doesn't back you up.

---

quote:

---

‘The infantry is very different from any other job.

‘The essence of infantry soldiering is to close with the enemy and kill him face to face with bullets, bayonets and grenades. Facing and killing a large and aggressive male enemy soldier – if necessary in hand to hand combat – requires a certain ferocity, aggression and killer instinct that is more characteristic of men than women.

‘Fighting and killing an enemy in close combat is not a right nor an “opportunity” as the Defence Secretary suggests. It is a dreadful, gut-churning, traumatic and incredibly tough job that must be done to defend the country.

‘The politically correct view that men and women are the same and equally capable of every human activity is a dangerous notion when applied to close infantry combat.’

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I can find people to tell me how many wrong parenting choices I am making in a million different places. On the rare occasions that the people in question care for me and respect me, I listen pretty hard. However, when the people in questions re-interpret everything I say as an exhibition of gross selfishness in order to make debating points, I don't think I need to engage.

I may well be making the wrong choices for my family, but they are the best wrong choices I can come up with in my unique circumstances. I strongly defend the right of other women (and men) to make very different choices to my own. That' good enough for me.

Rachel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How would a woman be treated if captured by enemy soldiers compared to how a man would be treated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
How would a woman be treated if captured by enemy soldiers compared to how a man would be treated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Y'all are presenting a vision of being a stay-at-home mother (and a "working" mother) that is completely foreign to me. Even the terminology bothers me, as it implies that SAHMs spends their days staying at home rather than finding community activities that welcome children, free museums, volunteer activities that welcome children, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
I can't currently recall what was so wrong with calling them 'homemakers'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Evensong, the "wrong science" claim refers to this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The trouble with all these stupid studies is that they don't test for the spiritual and emotional wellbeing of the kids.

(And by spiritual I don't mean attending church - I mean a strong, positive, centred sense of self).

Might be interesting if they tested for emotional intelligence rather than just physical, intellectual and social intelligence.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Good research details assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors ( if not inherently accounted for) and limitations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

‘The infantry is very different from any other job.

‘The essence of infantry soldiering is to close with the enemy and kill him face to face with bullets, bayonets and grenades. Facing and killing a large and aggressive male enemy soldier – if necessary in hand to hand combat – requires a certain ferocity, aggression and killer instinct that is more characteristic of men than women.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twilight:
Good grief! Don't call me out on something I said two pages ago to Rachel and then act all shocked because I'm responding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

quote:

---

‘The infantry is very different from any other job.

‘The essence of infantry soldiering is to close with the enemy and kill him face to face with bullets, bayonets and grenades. Facing and killing a large and aggressive male enemy soldier – if necessary in hand to hand combat – requires a certain ferocity, aggression and killer instinct that is more characteristic of men than women.

---

---

This disregards that women joining the infantry will be the aggressive, tough, anti-stereotype and that many men fail their stereotype as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:

But I'm afraid I share his sentiment. Let me make it clear for you. If a woman is captured she will probably be raped multiple times. That's the elephant in the room here.

---

quote:

---

One of the few academics to have looked into the issue in any detail is Lara Stemple, of the University of California's Health and Human Rights Law Project. Her study Male Rape and Human Rights notes incidents of male sexual violence as a weapon of wartime or political aggression in countries such as Chile, Greece, Croatia, Iran, Kuwait, the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia. Twenty-one per cent of Sri Lankan males who were seen at a London torture treatment centre reported sexual abuse while in detention. In El Salvador, 76% of male political prisoners surveyed in the 1980s described at least one incidence of sexual torture. A study of 6,000 concentration-camp inmates in Sarajevo found that 80% of men reported having been raped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Good research details assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors ( if not inherently accounted for) and limitations.

---

Which is precisely why it contrasts so vividly with some of your own statements.

---

I see what you did there. Nice hiding of a category error.

Can you imagine what the ship would be like if each of us detailed our assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors and limitations before we ventured an opinion?

It would be boring as fuck and not a discussion board but a scientific symposium.

OTOH, they tend to come out in the wash (eventually) anyways so maybe it's not a category error. And scientific symposiums often have plenty of debate and disagreement too.

Such is life.
 

---

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

Can you imagine what the ship would be like if each of us detailed our assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors and limitations before we ventured an opinion?

It would be boring as fuck and not a discussion board but a scientific symposium.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Good research details assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors ( if not inherently accounted for) and limitations.

---

Which is precisely why it contrasts so vividly with some of your own statements.

---

I see what you did there. Nice hiding of a category error.

Can you imagine what the ship would be like if each of us detailed our assumptions, presuppositions, possible confounding factors and limitations before we ventured an opinion?

It would be boring as fuck and not a discussion board but a scientific symposium.

OTOH, they tend to come out in the wash (eventually) anyways so maybe it's not a category error. And scientific symposiums often have plenty of debate and disagreement too.

Such is life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
But here's the thing. Those of us posting on this thread who are 'working' mothers are posting about our actual, everyday, experience. Therefore, no matter how foreign it seems to you, it ain't made up.

And yeah, I mostly did stay at home while I was on maternity leave. I was depressed, and all the other people at mums and kids activities were just too fucking perky to cope with. Until I found a PND support group. I went to that fairly religiously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:
But here's the thing. Those of us posting on this thread who are 'working' mothers are posting about our actual, everyday, experience. Therefore, no matter how foreign it seems to you, it ain't made up.

And yeah, I mostly did stay at home while I was on maternity leave. I was depressed, and all the other people at mums and kids activities were just too fucking perky to cope with. Until I found a PND support group. I went to that fairly religiously.

---

And I'm not doubting your experience. It's just that Twilight has experience as a mother in the US and I have experience taking care of my brother's kids in the US. And in the US we don't have the kinds of employment protections you seem to have - a working mom who takes off work too often because her kid is sick or whatever is likely to find herself without a job before too long.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0