homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: If you go around saying feminism is a bad thing.... (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: If you go around saying feminism is a bad thing....
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Choices. You can't have it all. Are you or your kids more important for the first 6 years or so of life before they go off to school and you then have more time to do what you want.

The reasons more people don't just do the full time slog of the early years (IMO) are manifold:

1) A lack of understanding of how important those years are for a sense of wellbeing and love.
2) Society expects you to do more than just be a parent. Pathetic but true. Parenting is the most important job you will ever do.
2) Since there aren't that many full-time stay at home parents anymore in society, and our societies are so transient (we don'tt often have great, deep relationships with our neighbours) those that can and do choose to stay with their children find themselves isolated, alone and dismissed as vital contributors to society. So they go back to work and put their kids in childcare.

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) and when they went to school full time I returned to University. University proved flexible enough that I could be home when I needed to be but had an interest outside the drudgery of running a household.

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.

But I have absolutely no sympathy for people that put their kids in childcare full-time that don't need to.

It's just wrong.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Well, lucky you. My mum was very involved with childcare for Children A & B, when I first went back to work. It's been more difficult with Child C, what with her being dead an' all. So there's a thing - how does one do a big age gap & be at home til each is 6? That's 15 years out of work for me.

And you'll know, that as far as attachment is concerned, good attachment is not the same as being at home with the sprog 24/7. I would consider that Child C is very well attached, thank you very much, he's still breastfeeding, shares my bed. We have loooooooooooooooads of time together. And, as it happens, he's also very well attached to his nursery keyworker - he seeks her out if he needs her. His nursery is not some production line - they know him well, they care for and nurture him, they pick him up when he falls & cuddle him when he's sad. He is happier and, frankly, safer there than he would be with most of his extended family (except his sainted auntie who also looks after him).

So I invite you to reconsider your assumptions about nurseries, unless you've visited one recently. It doesn't sound like you have.

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the United States, female physicians outnumber male physicians in pediatrics and female residents outnumber male residents in family medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, and psychiatry. We are already facing a shortage of physicians in these very areas and wonder if posters like Evensong truly believes that women trained to serve others are really doing the right thing by dropping out to sit 24/7 with a child for whom she can hire qualified early childhood caregivers trained in this area. Or should scientists, engineers, physicians, nurses, teachers and highly skilled others just forgo having children altogether? That doesn't sound like a healthy society.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Piglet
Islander
# 11803

 - Posted      Profile for Piglet   Email Piglet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ...


Agreed, but I can understand LC's logic; those economics were a major factor in our decision not to have children. When we got married we were both working but neither was earning what was then the average wage. If we'd had children I would either have had to give up my salary or give a good chunk of it to a nanny, and either option would have made money very tight.

It's all very well to talk about relatives (usually grannies) looking after children (not an option open to us anyway as they lived too far away) but IMHO they've done their child-rearing, and no matter how loving their care, their role should be as occasional babysitters rather than full-time unpaid nannies.

Having said all that, I can sympathise with couples who want to have children and feel that they must both work in order to meet their (and their children's) modern expectations.

--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music

Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Financially speaking, I earn half of what MrJt9 earns, and approx 70% of my take home pay goes on nursery fees. If I were to put Child C there for all my working hours (rather than giving my sister the little tiny bit she will take every so often), fees would swallow almost all my pay. I'm working in a professional, graduate job, so I'm pretty well paid. If we had a Child D (hahahaha! no) in quick succession, we'd be in deficit, I should think.

I'm not working for financial gain, and I think there's wide acceptance among women in my position that we're not - we work to stay in the professions we're in. We're basically running to stay still for a few years, until the kids are in heavily subsidised childcare or school.

[ 18. August 2014, 15:59: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A friend of mine just had her last day of a child in nursery - it included information about the total they'd paid. £59k over 4 years (2 children, not always full time). By no means a small sum.

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only bad thing to say about feminism is that there hasn't been nearly enough of it. Those who say that they don't need it, were not around when many of the battles were fought. There's a hell of lot more required. When we properly support women, we also support children; some of us used to be children and some of us still are. It's for all of us, and not just because of that.

Some battles yet to be fought and won: how not be red-circled in your career because you had a child, changing the organizational structures in workplaces from hierarchical to consensus, requiring all businesses to have in-house child care, taxation policies to fund all of the above.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Any justification for this? Why education and not child care?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My experience is that women work for the same reasons men do--because they have to financially. Fulfillment and all that good stuff comes way down the list.

I would have worked when LL was little if I could have found a job (long, LONG spell of unemployment due to former employer illegally blackballing me). As it was, we racked up $40,000 in debt before I finally found work and we started paying it off (will be done in December, yay)

I don't think anybody should rag on someone else for working--or not--when their children are little. It's so often a case of necessity.

And nurseries are not all that bad, either. I thought of homeschooling LL, but he's the most social creature alive and would go batshit insane if he didn't have tons and tons of social interaction a day. Homeschooling can arrange a certain amount of that, but his need for people people PEOPLE! was unreal. Seriously, it was like an addict needing drugs.

Thus he went to preschool as soon as he was eligible.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
That's ridiculous (and pretty cheap) and you know it: obviously male violence is a concern but most male-on-male violence is not domestic violence. When it comes to domestic violence, I think it's been well established that although some men are abused by female partners, Jade Constable is is absolutely right about the numbers of women who die.

Having said that, male-on-male violence does relate to feminist concerns, because it could be argued that it's all part of the patriarchal system, which oppresses not only women but also men who are perceived as unmanly: men who are gay, men with physical disabilities, men who reject violence & men who are "hen-pecked".

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was thinking of that whilst reading this Graun article from the weekend about men & suicide: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/15/suicide-silence-depressed-men

It's long been known that men are more likely than women to attempt suicide and more likely to take their own lives. The men in the article mention some issues to do with "not being a real man" - the idea that "real men" just put up with the way they are feeling, expect themselves to get over it, and so on.

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643

 - Posted      Profile for Carex   Email Carex   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Interesting... I was taught that women were more likely to attempt suicide, but men were more often successful.

But that in a different time and a somewhat different culture, and I'm certainly willing to consider that "It's long been known" applies more recently.

Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to t'wiki, you're right & I am wrong. I must have misremembered. My apologies.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think your overall point is still valid, Jemima, perhaps particularly in what one might loosely call Anglo-Saxon cultures.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

You have inadvertently demonstrated the judgmental mindset which made feminism necessary. Women would like to be able to make choices for themselves and their families, according to their circumstances. True, in the early days of feminism, some feminists were judgmental in the opposite direction: women who chose traditional models were, as you put it, "just wrong". The incoherency of that position meant that it has been overruled by mainstream feminism.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Thank you.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189

 - Posted      Profile for anoesis   Email anoesis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. Have you ever actually BEEN inside a childcare centre? I have, you know. Morning and evening, four times a week. That's because I'm a working parent. Would you like to have a stab at my gender and see if it makes any difference to how judgemental you feel toward me? After all, either or both parents might do the drop-off and pick-up (yes, I see a lot of that, too). But the main things I see are bright children, engaged in activities specifically designed to be stimulating to them, interacting with adults who have chosen to work with young children because that's what they are passionate about*. They get to go outside and play with sand, and water, and mud, they learn to share. (They eat nutritious food and say please and thank-you when they're there, also). I cannot understand why a segment of the population persists in viewing childcare centres on a level with Russian orphanages, but you have outstripped even that with your analogy. It is abominable of you.

On another note, one of my children is at school now, and I have seen far more to concern me with regards to behaviour, socialisation, poor communication with parents, and things 'slipping through the cracks' than I ever did at daycare. Yet the amount of funding my child's school receives per student per year far outstrips what I paid to have her in childcare - and the child/teacher ratio is massively larger!

*Let's face it, it's not a career a person would choose because they are looking to make their first million by the time they are thirty. It's also worth noting that a majority of them (in this country at least), do have a B.Ed (ie: they are as qualified as any teacher).

--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --

Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258

 - Posted      Profile for art dunce     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My children attended some very wonderful early childcare centers before starting Montessori at 18 months while I returned to work I love and I have no doubt their days were more enriching than kids dragged around Walmart and then plopped in front of the television while their SAHM is camped on Facebook and FarmVille.
This idea that home is guaranteed best or that childcare is damaging is ridiculous. Most early childcare providers are dedicated, loving people who understand child development and who create safe, enriching environments for joyful learning and play.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Selective reading. You ignored this part of my post:

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.



--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
I did not suggest childcare workers were cynical operators. I said they were generally excellent and loving carers.

But my "battery hen production line of childcare" was not the right phrase because it confused my point. The point of that particular line was that they are more impersonal than family care, and that's a problem.

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

Worked in one for five years.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

What does that mean to you? How desperate must a woman (because this is also part of your implied thesis) be before you will give her your grudging moral allowance to seek external childcare? Nice touch, by the way, with the word "eventually" (Won't somebody think of the children?)

Your posts on this thread have been an absolute Cirque du Soleil performance of hypocrisy and leaps to judgment, with a stunning lack of empathy. I don't know whether to be appalled or impressed or both.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

[Roll Eyes]
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.

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.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What you're calling a failure to contextualise, the rest of us call making unwarranted generalisations.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ?


--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
My children attended some very wonderful early childcare centers

Mine too.

They went to childminders from 6 months to 3 years, then Nursery. It cost me most of my wages at first, but it was worth it.

My husband was a headteacher and I was a teacher.

1. To give them far more experiences than I could.
2. To keep me in my career.

When the youngest was 4 my husband left his job and became a house husband for a few years.

No regrets for any of us. My youngest is an airline pilot and my eldest a nurse. They are both well adjusted, caring young men.

It is crazy to think only mothers can care for young children. Some mothers (like me) are simply not cut out for it. I'm fine with a class of 35, but a couple at home drive me insane! I have told my niece that the twins can come to stay as soon as they can sit down for 15 minutes and play quietly!

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?

[ 19. August 2014, 07:22: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What you're calling a failure to contextualise, the rest of us call making unwarranted generalisations.

My generalisation is that children are better off being cared for by their families than by childcare centres; especially in the early years.

You and whoever are welcome to disagree of course. Makes no difference to me.

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 ?

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

Secondly, he was better able to earn money than I was at that stage - he had the more practical qualification.

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

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Not long considering the above reasons. And of course, the fact that I wanted to be with my babies.

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?
See my response above to orfeo.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

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.


--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Nope. I continued with my career when the kids went to school. As for putting your kids in full-time childcare after a 3 month maternity/paternity leave because you want to continue with your career (but don't have to financially), yes I do denigrate that choice because it places the needs of yourself above the needs of your kids.

Personal sacrifice is so uncool these days isn't it?
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.

Who the fuck cares that breastfeeding doesn't make children smart? Way to miss the point.


As for that article you linked to on attachment it supports my beliefs well.

A family is much more likely to be able to provide a long term loving figure to be attached to than a childcare centre that has an ebb and flow of transient workers ( regardless of how loving and caring they are). Childcare in Australia has one of the highest staff turnovers in any profession due to the demanding nature of the work and its relatively poor pay.

[ 19. August 2014, 11:06: Message edited by: Evensong ]

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well bully for you that your "career" allowed you to return after a 5 year plus break. Most professions and careers do not, without a significant amount of retraining and/or a loss in promotional prospects and other career development goals.

I love, not, the way you think that the world is exactly the same as Australia. Or perhaps in the world that revolves around Evensong you perceive all the people you interact with as also being in Australia. News flash - there are very different childcare regimes in different parts of the world. You cannot generalise from your experience and assume everyone is dealing with the same situation you did.

That article says that attachment is not as important as you and Bowlby suggest. Attachment as described by Bowlby is a conflation of several different things and some of them are more or less important than Bowlby suggested. Several researchers show that children often have several attachment figures, that being brought up at home with one mother is not the norm for most of the world and primitive societies, so you're driving a modern, unnatural system and later additional research has found:
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).


--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

I went back to work when mine were each 6 months old after 6 months maternity leave. They were getting weaned by then, but I continued to breastfeed too. It's perfectly possible to last 8am to 5pm and express at lunch time for their following lunch time.

I chose to do it. I loved my work. They had a happy, fulfilled Mum and learned that I was always there for them wherever they were. I was, and still am, the constant in their lives.

If I had stayed I home I'd have been a basket case in no time. Who needs a basket case Mum?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258

 - Posted      Profile for the famous rachel   Email the famous rachel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I could very easily start waving around my experiences of childrearing and childcare on this thread, but I think I will just say this:

Evensong: you and I have made different choices on this issue. I absolutely respect your choices and believe they were most likely the right choices for your family at the time when you were raising your children. Well done you. It makes me sad that you can't show me the same respect.

However, the arguments on this thread speak strongly to why feminism, real feminism, not thinly disguised misandry, is still needed. I would define feminism as "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." On this basis, I see it as a campaign for equality of opportunity for men and women, whether those are the opportunities to work, to stay at home and raise children, or to go for a run without being leered at and cat-called. We're still working on all those and more in the western world. In the rest of the world, the issues are rather more profound. Young women in Saudi Arabia may need the permission of a male guardian to travel, go to college, take up a job, open a bank account or have elective medical procedures. They aren't legally allowed to drive. If they are raped, it's possible that charges will be brought against them, not the rapist. If we think we're all done with feminism in the west (which we're not) let's stop navel-gazing and lift up our eyes to see what still needs to be achieved worldwide.

After the recent rash of anti-feminist stuff on tumblr/facebook etc, I read various ripostes. I think this is the one which best captures my view:
link.

Which brings me almost back to my original point - we women need to stop sniping at each other and denigrating each others choices, and - with the help of as many men as want to join us - do something about all this stuff.

Best wishes,

Rachel.

--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.

Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

I comprehended you just fine. Your shifting the goal posts with nondefined weasel words didn't help you. What is "a bit of childcare"? What does "if they don't have to" mean? And, most of all, why do you feel entitled to define and judge these things for other people?

Do you have an older female role model in your life whose conversations involve these sorts of judgments about other women? Are meeting these standards an important part of your identity? Do you think you are somehow defending the interests of children by attacking and judging their mothers? Were you surprised by the ferocity of anoesis' response?

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?

I really liked your tough-guy act in your last paragraph. It reminded me of a leetle bug in a cartoon, trying to sound tough in a tiny angry voice, jumping up and down in the palm of a giant. So cute!

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

I'm a theological liberal and a social conservative.

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*
*bold added for emphasis for your reading for comprehension handicap

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696

 - Posted      Profile for Evensong   Author's homepage   Email Evensong   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Good article.

The AWCC are imbeciles.

This in particular is staggeringly stupid:

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.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688

 - Posted      Profile for la vie en rouge     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 [Big Grin] ) 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.)

--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France

Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Thank you for answering the question.

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*

I am reading you perfectly well, from your own allegedly po-mo stance of reading the power dynamics involved. I read your little "or"s as attempted cover for some pretty ugly attitudes. I read your privilege and superiority just fine.

It kind of breaks my heart, actually. I would have hoped you would be able to have more compassion and understanding than you have thus far demonstrated.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Re: grandma. I mentioned earlier, she's dead. And none of the remaining non-dead 3 grandparents have the mental, physical or emotional ability to care for a lively 2 year old all day long for 2 days a week.

Even healthy & energetic grandparents might live hundreds of miles away, or may not wish to be involved in childcare.

It's not about carers loving Child C as much as I do, it's about them being able to care for him as well. Which brings us right back to the quality of childcare settings mentioned earlier. Child C's nursery has a very low staff turnover - most of the staff are the same working there when Child B was there 5 years ago. I'm sure there are huge variations in quality of care when it comes to caring.

Being an aging hippy, I quite like a bit of Bowlby (from the little I've read) - the importance of attachment to primary attachment figures. Timingwise, this was coming out in the 1950s I think, hot on the heels of Truby King - don't cuddle your infants, don't tend to them when they cry blah blah blah. Tending to a baby's cry, feeding to demand, all that stuff, is a good thing in my book. But that still doesn't mean being with a 4 year old 24/7.

And as noted above, miserable mothers do not good quality mother-child relationships make. (Btdt, not funny.)

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Curiosity -- I'm sorry I don't have any links. I haven't read much on this subject in the past twenty years, so maybe it's all been refuted. I did find articles that said all the latest studies contradict each other and this which attempts to explain why we don't see many anti-daycare books around.

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.

I usually don't talk about this subject as I was a total failure at child raising, but it seems like someone should benefit from my mistakes.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Holy Mother of Fuck.

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

Economics doesn't go out of the window just because we're talking about people.

Of course there are considerations other that the economic ones, and in pursuit of those considerations, parents with high earning power may decide that they prefer not to subcontract their children's care, even though it would be in their naked financial interest. Similarly, other parents might decide that they need to work outside the home because they enjoy their jobs, want to keep up-to-date in their chosen career or whatever, even though it makes little financial sense for them to do so.

I'm not about to go around second-guessing the choices that people make for their children. In almost all cases, the people best placed to make decisions about a child's care and education are that child's parents - the choices that are right for one combination of parents and children will not be right for some other combination.

When the state encourages some choices over others (for example via subsidized childcare) it is appropriate to consider the merits of the state providing such an incentive. This is not the same as judging whether individual families are right to use, or not to use, childcare, but it is similar to judging whether, on average, particular kinds of families should or shouldn't use childcare.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106

 - Posted      Profile for Jemima the 9th     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I'm sorry. (Gawd, I've been wrong twice in hell in 2 days! Time for a holiday....) Yes, I was utterly in favour of mum doing as much ice cream eating and rose smelling as possible.

Your broader point about mistakes in childrearing is a good 'un. I realised earlier that the reason Evensong's posts are getting on my well-functioning mammaries quite so much is because they remind me of all the debates I've had with Home Edders & anti-vaxxers over the years. And I've had many.... "This is the right way to do things, because school is bad, mmkay? Evidence? Well I did it this way and that's the right way. You? Well, schools are bad, you shouldn't have all those children in the same place at the same time. Think of the measles risk! Your kids are ok? Well, you've got away lucky then. Oh I'm not judging you, I'm just saying those choices are really bad for your kids..."

And so on, and so on infinitum.

Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
QLib

Bad Example
# 43

 - Posted      Profile for QLib   Email QLib   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Being in over your head is not necessarily about being stupid, but might simply indicate that this is evidently not one's area of expertise. Evensong has been making sweeping judgements about people on the basis of what appear to be ignorant and ill-thought-through assumptions.

As for you, Twilight, God knows we've had some spats in the past - but the quite long-distant past, if memory serves me correctly. We may not agree on everything, but I'm struggling to recall an unkind word in recent years. Unless you class anything other than: "What Twilight said" (accompanied by the notworthy smilie) as an unkind word.

[ 19. August 2014, 17:17: Message edited by: QLib ]

--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.

Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Twilight I did briefly look at your article and also checked the antecedents of the National Review online. I'm not sure an article on childcare / daycare from what Wikipedia describes as "the Bible of conservatism is unbiased on the subject.

This article comes from a school textbook and quotes recent research on daycare. The general summary says:
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.
There's another AS psychology textbook article from a more UK based point of view that quotes several pieces of research showing benefits from daycare from a young age.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Twilight, with the language you're using you're not just advocating against any childcare in the first 3 years, you're advocating against having a night out while there's a babysitter in the first 3 years. You're advocating no time left alone in the company of grandparents for the first 3 years.

You're bordering on advocating no time playing with the kids a couple of houses down the road for the first 3 years.

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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools