|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: If you go around saying feminism is a bad thing....
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
How the hell did you get that out of Twilight's post?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
How the hell did you get that out of Twilight's post?
All the "you are not there" remarks about crucial moments.
There are any number of situations where you "are not there" at a particular moment in a child's life that have nothing to do with placing them in paid childcare. 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.
[ 19. August 2014, 23:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Well no, I'm not advocating for constant hovering by Mommy only. When my child was young I was with him during the day, then went to a part-time job in the evenings, after his father got home. He went out for frequent rides with his grandfather and stayed overnight with his grandmother about once a month. We went to a park where he played with other children daily. During those years (the first five) the combined income of my part time job and husband's seasonal construction work came to about $3000 annually which was below the poverty level. I would do it again for my own pleasure if for no other reason. There's a big difference between never letting your child out of your sight and only having him in your sight, awake, for a few hours a day.
Maybe, as Curiosity thinks, I had been brain washed by conservative sources but I don't think the liberal sources are unbiased either.
I do know that the liberal sources I read during the 70's and 80's gave me a completely false idea about the (mild) effects of divorce on children and I haven't trusted them since.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I deliberately didn't give liberal sources - I gave AS textbooks on daycare - which is the equivalent of the psychology of daycare 101, balanced arguments and references.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
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?
If it's wrong to starve a child to death, then it is equally wrong to punish a child by sending them to bed without dinner.
Though I'm starting to see why people are getting charged with abandonment for letting their kids play alone at the park.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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.
Well you could try this one.
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.
But it's a bit like cherry picking the bible to suit your argument. No doubt there's plenty of variety to choose from.
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.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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.
Quite. The operating hours of the vast majority of childcare centres in this country are such that, even if you had your child there for every minute they were open, they will spend 2.65 minutes in your care for every minute they spend in childcare, over the course of a working year. (yes, I just worked it out). In addition to this, any time your child is feverish, or vomiting, or infectious, or just overtired, they are at home with you*. Any time they have a specialist's appointment - with you. Dentist - with you. Hospital - with you. X-ray - with you. And sure, you can say, 'well, I should bloody hope so', to the last several of these. You could also say, 'but a load of that is at night - it doesn't count!' To which I would say, it counts quite a bit in those first few years everyone is keen to label as crucial. All the crap goes on at night, believe me. The frightened, the vomiting, the respiratory insufficiency, the falling out of bed. Well, obviously not ALL of it. But enough that you can't discount that time as irrelevant.
*you being 'a parent'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
Exactly.
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. They expect the universe to revolve around them, they don't understand the word 'no' and cling to their parents at the classroom door.
I'm raising a pup for Guide Dogs. The worst thing you can do for pups is to never leave them alone. They develop almost incurable separation anxiety.
Of course children can't be left alone but with kids, imo, it does them no good whatever to have no time away from their parents each day. They learn at an early age that they are the centre of everything. Sadly, none of us are - and the sooner we learn that, the better we cope with it.
[ 20. August 2014, 06:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
Yeah, looking after kids used to be far more an extended family/village thing, and still is in a lot of cultures.
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
I don't think general attachment theory is saying what you think it's saying about childcare.
And if you're being 'trained to believe' stuff, you should consider moving to another school/college/uni.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Erroneous Monk: 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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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.
You want it all. Plenty of leisure time too huh?
What do your kids want?
And I want a pony.
[ 20. August 2014, 10:53: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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.
[ 20. August 2014, 10:53: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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?
All those advantages to working can still happen after taking three or four years off to raise your children.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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:
Originally posted by QLib:
I
And if you're being 'trained to believe' stuff, you should consider moving to another school/college/uni.
Duddette. Most of contemporary education is about being trained to believe contemporary mores. Why would they teach things they don't believe in?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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!
Great to hear your kids didn't suffer from full-time childcare.
Other kids do: (from the link I posted above)
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.
My generalisation is that children are better looked after by family (especially in the early years) and I stand by it.
[ 20. August 2014, 11:08: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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.
Best not to have them then.
Society is wrong to think fathers don't matter. They matter enormously and need to get better at spending more time with their kids.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
I'm so sick of having everything turned into an example of white privilege. It's such an easy label to fling against a white person if you want to make big liberal points. No one was less privileged than I was when my child was young. I wore the same outfit every day for years. I washed all the clothes and diapers in the bath tub and hung them on the line, praying a wind wouldn't come off and make it start all over because I didn't have clothes pins. I would have killed for clothes pins.
For centuries America was more than 80% agricultural.Both parents were home all day.
If you're talking about third world countries then most of those children go to bed hungry every night. Maybe you should quit feeding your kids to prove how unprivileged you are. If "history," is your model you might want to send your six year old out to work and give them all a good beating every day.
[ 20. August 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
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.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
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.
It's not very much.
I am constantly surprised/impressed at how little dads can do and get away with it.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
This contrasts with a much quoted Swedish longitudinal study - Andersson (1992)* which shows:
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.
This study was of a "sample of 128 and children and their families randomly drawn from neighbourhoods representing low- and middle-resource areas in Stockholm and Gothenburg". The children were 3 when they started, at 8 years old 119 (92%) remained in the study, at 13 years old 114 (89%).
* not sure if this will be behind a paywall or not, the first time I clicked on it I got to the article, but the second time (checking my links) I came to a paywall.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
possibly better link to Andersson abstract
I also forgot to compare the analysis work done in the two papers. The Andersson methodology discusses "controlling for home background, child gender, and intelligence, which, of course, have their own effects" which is not covered at all in the eleven questions in the questionnaire sent home by Sklar, where the school assessment was a teacher rating of each child's disruptiveness by one dot on a grid:
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.
and a parental questionnaire:
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.
(this is a copy and paste job, the spelling mistakes are all original)
Really Evensong, if you're going to play the referencing game, start with papers that are at least peer reviewed and have had some quality control. It makes it harder work to rip them to shreds.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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..
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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:
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?
FFS which fucking University are you at? And do I remember correctly that you're doing a Masters??!!? Un-fucking-believable.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
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.
Hello, count me in! And you put it far better than me.
I was awake pretty much hourly with ChildC last night, and for a sustained period of 2-3 hours to boot. Child A woke up too. Mr Jt9 was working until 1am. This is pretty normal for our family.
Work is my little tiny oasis of sanity among the chaos. In addition, I don't have to answer phone calls from the Difficult Relative, I can do them when I get home.
I'm knackered, but I'm happy. And I don't want a pony. Just fewer of the worried phone calls from Health Visitors who didn't know quite how to handle my mood.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I can't find the paper on-line - I suspect the quotation comes from this book, but looking at attachment theory, this has been quoted repeatedly:
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)
The other thing that I found looking for this quotation is this paper discussing family law and the implications of the Tender Years Theory (what the law calls the attachment theory that's being suggested by Evensong and Twilight) for fathers' access to children after divorce.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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? .
I don't think I was misquoting it. But I bow to your superior judgement because it's really irrelevant to what I think. 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 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?
FFS which fucking University are you at? And do I remember correctly that you're doing a Masters??!!? Un-fucking-believable. [/QUOTE]
It's a Phd in theoretical physics. Very mainstream. You have to take so much on faith.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
( I lied. I'm doing a postgrad Diploma in Secondary Education. )
[ 20. August 2014, 14:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
You know there's this thing called "science" that acts as a corrective to personal experience and common sense. It has a far better track record.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
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?
No, it's been great for both families. I see it as a job-share and a family-share running alongside each other. And I didn't have family or support network nearby, so it's enabled me to sort of adopt one. I think it's a bit like the idea of it taking a village...
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
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!
And yet, more dismissal than that particular source needed or deserved. Doctoral dissertations are considered proper sources only in extraordinary circumstances; masters theses, almost never—especially not when the sparks are flying from the giant axe being ground.
Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
And was this disparity present at the end of the reception year as well as the beginning? It seems obvious that children who are used to doing X will cope better with X than children who have never done X before.
If you want to ask whether being in childcare is good or bad for the development of children, you need to look later in time. Does the effect persist into year 2, say?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Honestly. All that schooling, and yet nobody has taught you how to evaluate sources?
We already know how Evensong evaluates sources. She checks which view most people have, and then chooses the opposite view to provide 'balance'.
Someone once told her about "counterculture" and she became its unthinking disciple.
[ 20. August 2014, 15:08: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
