Daycare Spanking
Kim Bobbitt
discovered that my son was
being spanked at his day care. He was being spanked whenever he made a
"mess" on the floor. I
found out that what was happening was that he was sitting on the potty,
but being a little boy,
the urine went straight and not down. Needless to say, he's been pretty
gun shy when it comes to
the potty, but I think we're overcoming it. My question is what should
I do? I reported it to
the director, showed several other adults the marks on his legs, and
filed a report with
licensing. Now I find out that even though licensing confirmed through
their investigation that
she did in fact spank him, they can't make the day care do anything. My
husband then checked
with the police, only to find out that according to the law, a
baby-sitter, or teacher has the
right to spank a child as a means of discipline. I find all of this
very hard to swallow. Any
help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Anthony J. Mitchell III
I would consult a lawyer. Did you photograph the marks on your
child's legs? I can't believe that a teacher or babysitter has
the right to spank!! Maybe the police don't want to get
involved. Maybe they think this is something small and petty.
I would also write to the editor of my local paper. I'm sure
they wouldn't want any unfavorable publicity. I would be
outraged!!
Did you talk to other parents who have their kids there? There
is strength in numbers.
Good luck!
Mary Ellen
Michael Powell
Kim... don't talk with a lawyer. They are one of the worst evils
in our society. The answer is simple.
Don't take your child to that day care.
Day care is something that I would not recommend *at all*
unless you are literally out of _family_ options.
You may want to assist other parents that use that day care
by letting them know about the problems you have had, which
may help them to decide if that day care is helping them raise
their children in a way consistant with their desires.
Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
is not always in the loving care of his family.
Best wishes.
Michael
naomi pardue
> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
> is not always in the loving care of his family.
Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
hours a day.
Naomi
Mike Powell
: Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
Ahhh.... were it so simple as that... a one-dimentional issue...
but of course, child care has ramifications *far* beyond the
age of individuals that a child is around...
But if we were to discuss the single and rather simple issue of
making sure our children gain experience in socializing with
other children, families need only to plan occasions where they
visit with family and friends or church socials, etc. etc. where
other small kids are also present. Even a trip to the park
accomplishes this goal rather neatly, as children are naturally
drawn to eachother, and socialize easily with children they
have never met as they don't have the same inhibitions that
many adults do.
And as young children enter school, lack of socialization is no
longer an issue (the *types* if interaction become more important).
In short... it's no biggie.
The goal of toddler socialization is *so* simple to accomplish
that it is rather disturbing to me that it is often used as
a justification to drop our kids off at a day care centers
accross the country, in the care of individuals that we don't
usually know very well, and who are often the lowest bidder.
I think that generally, we feel guilty about the practice, and
need to invent "reasons" that justify it. To put this so bluntly
may likely bother a good number of people... It should. After
all, we are talking about our very own flesh-and-blood, and our
responsibilities to them... which, in my mind, constitute the
single most important duty any person can have.
Regards,
Michael Powell
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
very lame it's got to be examined.
In article <4ehp4m$d...@nntp.crl.com> r...@crl.com (Michael Powell) writes:
> Kim... don't talk with a lawyer. They are one of the worst evils
> in our society. The answer is simple.
so that you can use this emotion to shade their dispassionate consideration.
> Don't take your child to that day care.
Dogma: A flat-out statement, unqualified in all particulars, without
any consideration of options or needs. This statement is presented
as though the writer is God and his word inerrent.
> Day care is something that I would not recommend *at all*
> unless you are literally out of _family_ options.
This is a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
> You may want to assist other parents that use that day care
> by letting them know about the problems you have had, which
> may help them to decide if that day care is helping them raise
> their children in a way consistant with their desires.
Perhaps a good bit of advice, and stated conditionally. This eems
to me like "let's look reasonable here so we set them up for the
big panic-mongering finish".
> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
> is not always in the loving care of his family.
Sure enough, there's the big panic-mongering finish. Yeah, right
Michael, day care is bad, it's ruining our country and our way of life.
I suppose it would be better for those parents to be broke and in
poverty?
Day care is a fact now, Michael, and unless you're going to remove
women to slavery at home, and make our economy rich enough to do that
while keeping it sustainable, you're going to have to deal with the
reality of the situation. Instead of mongering panic, how about
doing something constructive?
I won't even go into all the stereotypes that got yanked into your last
paragraph...
> Best wishes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1995, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
N. Standen
writes:
>I could use a little help with a pretty serious situation. I recently
>discovered that my son was
>being spanked at his day care. He was being spanked whenever he made a
>"mess" on the floor. I
>found out that what was happening was that he was sitting on the potty,
>but being a little boy,
>the urine went straight and not down. Needless to say, he's been pretty
>gun shy when it comes to
>the potty, but I think we're overcoming it. My question is what should
>I do? I reported it to
>the director, showed several other adults the marks on his legs, and
>filed a report with
>licensing. Now I find out that even though licensing confirmed through
>their investigation that
>she did in fact spank him, they can't make the day care do anything. My
>husband then checked
>with the police, only to find out that according to the law, a
>baby-sitter, or teacher has the
>right to spank a child as a means of discipline. I find all of this
>very hard to swallow. Any
>help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
I would take my child away forthwith, even though I know how hard it can
be to find another place.
Do you really want to leave your child in the care of someone who clearly
has rather different views on childrearing to yourself? More
significantly, I know I wouldn't want to leave my child in the care of
anyone who believed that a toddler could be *punished* into *learning*
how to do something (especially something that they eventually really
*want* to do anyway, like going to the toilet like a big kid.)
Naomi Standen (mother of Sam (18/07/95))
sta...@fyfield.sjc.ox.ac.uk
==========================================
Person-in-street: Do you want a boy or a girl?
Parent-to-be: Yes!
Mike Powell
[deletionsi...]
: I've just got to xamine the rhetoric in this article, it's so
: very lame it's got to be examined.
...
: Take a currently popular cheap-shot to get the reader on your side,
: so that you can use this emotion to shade their dispassionate consideration.
...
: Dogma: A flat-out statement, unqualified in all particulars, without
: any consideration of options or needs. This statement is presented
: as though the writer is God and his word inerrent.
...
: This is a personal opinion. Nothing wrong with that.
...
: Perhaps a good bit of advice, and stated conditionally. This eems
: to me like "let's look reasonable here so we set them up for the
: big panic-mongering finish".
...
: Sure enough, there's the big panic-mongering finish. Yeah, right
: Michael, day care is bad, it's ruining our country and our way of life.
: I suppose it would be better for those parents to be broke and in
: poverty?
I leave your collections of generally unconstructive criticisms
about me and my apparent motives stand for general viewing. Some
folks call such a reply as yours a "personal attack" but I think
that may be too strong. Some people might be impressed or interested
in such a "discussion" (I'm being generous here, I think) but I
am not such a person.
All I can say is that I just don't see any honest effort on your
part to participate in a serious discussion of important issues.
: Day care is a fact now, Michael, and unless you're going to remove
: women to slavery at home, and make our economy rich enough to do that
: while keeping it sustainable, you're going to have to deal with the
: reality of the situation.
Is there something that I said that indicated that I have not
been dealing with the reality of "the sitation"? How well do
you believe that you know me?
: Instead of mongering panic, how about doing something constructive?
I don't think that any degree of panic has resulted from my
remarks and it certainly was not intended.
As far as taking constructive action (which your comment assumes
that I have not and do not do), one constructive act is to have
the courage to openly discuss important issues as a way to
promote intelligent social change. Another way is to live one's
life in a way that can serve as a positive example.
I'd like to think that I do both to a resonable degree. I wish
that we could engage in an open and honest discussion of the
issues surrounding the increasing practice of "day care", but
at this point I'd have to say I'm quite doubtful of it. Your
apparent desire to talk about _me_ would likely make such a
discussion impossible.
Regards,
-mp-
Cindy Kandolf
Sheila Kimball) writes:
> In article <4eir6b$4...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu says...
> >Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
> >thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
> >healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
> >hours a day.
>
> putting him in daycare? WOW, I only nursed 4 months and he's in
> disposables, what our therapy bills will be.....
Um, would you mind showing the rest of us where you read that?
I believe what Naomi is saying is that children need other children,
not just adults, for company. And at least if we're talking about
children from about age 2 onwards, i agree with her. Yes, i do
believe it's unhealthy for one child and one adult to have just each
other for company all day, every day. And unfortunately i know some
stay-at-home moms who are in just that position. How are the kids
supposed to learn to get along with their peers when they never get a
chance to practice?
But NO, by no means all situations where one parent is at home with
the child are like that. If your son has other friends to play with
and you have other adults to talk to, at least some of the time, then
you're not in that situation and i don't see anyone saying your
situation is unhealthy.
Let's please NOT start up the mommy wars again. They're unproductive
and only get people upset.
- Cindy Kandolf, mamma to Kenneth (12 Feb 1994)
ci...@nvg.unit.no Trondheim, Norway
Susan Greene
child even if I spanked my child myself.
AJM/MEM
>a full-time SAH mom. But if I'm going to impose on my in-laws to limit
>their own lives to care for my child, I can't also ask them to be sure
>to take Shaina to the Y and the park and the library and everything else.
>
>If it is just the two of you at home all day every day, and he is of the
>age to be sociable, then no, it isnt the healthiest of situations.
>
>Naomi
IMO caring for children is HARD WORK. I really think that the
best situation for a baby and child is to have a LOVING
caretaker. Realistically, a stranger is not going to love your
child the way you or a relative loves your child.
I have seen many grandparents taking their grandchildren to the
park, the gym, the pool, etc. where the kids can interact with
other children. The grandparents really enjoy the experience
with their grandchildren. They are willing to take them anywhere
(it's hard for them to entertain the children at home by
themselves). I think they are happy that there are places where
they can take their grandchildren. And what great memories for
them both!!
As far as just the mother and her son home together, what else
could be healthier? The child is secure with himself having been
in a loving and supportive environment. I think that the best
choice for a baby/child is his/her parent at home. That is my
opinion.
I would venture to say that most parents wish that one of them
could be home with their child/baby. Unfortunately it isn't
possible with today's job market and economy.
Therefore we ALL should be responsible for the babies and
children. They are our most precious resource.
Mary Ellen
AJM/MEM
>
> Kim... don't talk with a lawyer. They are one of the worst evils
> in our society. The answer is simple.
But not as evil as cruelty towards helpless children.
> Don't take your child to that day care.
I don't think that is the responsible answer. It would be very
easy to take her child out and let the daycare "get away" with
spanking as a solution for missing the potty and getting urine on
the floor. How would you feel if your child was in that
situation and someone who knew about it didn't tell you? I would
be outraged.
> Day care is something that I would not recommend *at all*
> unless you are literally out of _family_ options.
>
> You may want to assist other parents that use that day care
> by letting them know about the problems you have had, which
> may help them to decide if that day care is helping them raise
> their children in a way consistant with their desires.
>
I have a question (having never used a daycare): Does the
daycare have written guidelines for discipline, problem children,
illnesses, etc.? When you choose a daycare, do you sign some
kind of contract so that both parties agree to types of
discipline and when they are to be executed?
There was a daycare that closed for the day and didn't notice
that a baby was still asleep in a swing. When the mother arrived
to pick up her baby she called the police because the daycare was
locked up with her baby still inside! Luckily the baby was okay.
The daycare is closed down while the case is being investigated.
But those daycare workers could very easily set up "shop"
somewhere else. Something worse could happen to the next baby.
As a society we should be outraged by this. ALL children are OUR
children. I think it is very selfish to only worry about one's
own children and have no regard for the welfare of other
children. The children cannot defend themselves, we should all
be responsible for their well-being.
And to say that we will all pay in the future for sending
children to daycare implies that the blame rests upon the parents
of those children. It does not! If problems do stem from
daycare, it is the fault of how that daycare center treated those
children!!
Mary Ellen
Ron & Sheila Kimball
>
>
>> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
>> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
>> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
>> is not always in the loving care of his family.
>
>thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
>healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
>hours a day.
>
so its unhealthy for me to stay home and take care of Trey instead of
putting him in daycare? WOW, I only nursed 4 months and he's in
disposables, what our therapy bills will be.....
Sheila
Anne Robotti
>Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
>
>
>> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
>> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
>> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
>> is not always in the loving care of his family.
>
>Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
>thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
>healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
>hours a day.
>
>Naomi
I'd put my child in day care in a second before I'd let my in-laws around
her day in and day out! And having worked in one, I'm not a big fan of
day care.
I'm glad that sweeping generalization about family applies to your situation,
Michael. You may have a loving and functional family member close by who can
assist you in caring for your child. I suppose you may also have the resources
to quit your job and stay home (or more accurately I suspect for your wife
to stay home) and raise your children. But for those of us with neither of
those things, who have found great day care situations for our kids and whose
families would be the worst possible choice, your statement does not apply.
And that's even BEFORE Naomi's excellent point about interaction with other
children. When Shannon went to Kindergarten it was a real handicap that she
had never been in pre-school or day care. All the socialization skills her
classmates took for granted, and all the classroom behaviors and routines
they were already familiar with, she had to learn. It was a very difficult time
for her, and I would not repeat it. (It was her Mom's choice that she not go
to pre-school or day care.)
--
\|/
Anne Robotti (. .) "The Only Anne" to Shannon since 12/17/94
_____________________oOOo_(_(_)_)_oOOo_____________________________________
Business: robotti%wi...@cis.att.com Home: experiencing operating probs!
naomi pardue
> >Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
> >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
> >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
> >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
> >
> >Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
> >thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
> >healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
> >hours a day.
> >
> >Naomi
> so its unhealthy for me to stay home and take care of Trey instead of
> putting him in daycare? WOW, I only nursed 4 months and he's in
> disposables, what our therapy bills will be.....
No, it is not unhealthy to be a stay-at-home mom. I am assuming though
that you take Trey places where he can interact with other children. (If
he is old enough. I don't remember his age.) I did the same when I was
Rebecca McQuitty
AJM/MEM <ami...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>As far as just the mother and her son home together, what else
>could be healthier? The child is secure with himself having been
>in a loving and supportive environment. I think that the best
>choice for a baby/child is his/her parent at home. That is my
>opinion.
I disagree. Neither child nor parent deserves the isolation of
a nuclear family with one adult at home. The situation is bad
for the child because the parent's strengths and weaknesses are
both imprinted. When a child has access to a number of adults,
he or she can seek support elsewhere when one adult stumbles.
When a child is alone with one adult, the child has no where
to turn when something goes wrong.
For the adult, being the one at home is a frustrating and lonely
experience. Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
in finding play groups where they can interact with other adults.
The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
Daycare may not be perfect, but a good daycare beats the h*ll out
of one parent at home alone with the kids all day. JMHO. "It takes
a whole village to raise a child."
Rebecca
Mike Powell
: r...@crl.com (Michael Powell) wrote:
: >
: > Kim... don't talk with a lawyer. They are one of the worst evils
: > in our society. The answer is simple.
: But not as evil as cruelty towards helpless children.
Total agreement.
: > Don't take your child to that day care.
: I don't think that is the responsible answer. It would be very
: easy to take her child out and let the daycare "get away" with
: spanking as a solution for missing the potty and getting urine on
: the floor.
Kim stated that her husband checked with the police and
found that it was ok for the day care to use spanking.
: How would you feel if your child was in that
: situation and someone who knew about it didn't tell you? I would
: be outraged.
Sure... but how you and I might feel is irrelevant to Kim's
situation. It's how she and her husband feel about it
(and her son) that are important.
: > Day care is something that I would not recommend *at all*
: > unless you are literally out of _family_ options.
: >
: > You may want to assist other parents that use that day care
: > by letting them know about the problems you have had, which
: > may help them to decide if that day care is helping them raise
: > their children in a way consistant with their desires.
: >
: I have a question (having never used a daycare): Does the
: daycare have written guidelines for discipline, problem children,
: illnesses, etc.? When you choose a daycare, do you sign some
: kind of contract so that both parties agree to types of
: discipline and when they are to be executed?
There are specific laws state-to-state... I have heard that
Kim lives in Texas, and I have no knowledge of regulations
there. Sorry.
: There was a daycare that closed for the day and didn't notice
: that a baby was still asleep in a swing. When the mother arrived
: to pick up her baby she called the police because the daycare was
: locked up with her baby still inside! Luckily the baby was okay.
: The daycare is closed down while the case is being investigated.
: But those daycare workers could very easily set up "shop"
: somewhere else. Something worse could happen to the next baby.
It's shocking... I have posted my personal warning about
how willing that we, as a society, are handing our children
over to day care centers... it is a great concern for me.
: As a society we should be outraged by this. ALL children are OUR
: children.
Well... some more than others :-)
: I think it is very selfish to only worry about one's
: own children and have no regard for the welfare of other
: children. The children cannot defend themselves, we should all
: be responsible for their well-being.
If so, it's your turn to change my son's diaper :-)
: And to say that we will all pay in the future for sending
: children to daycare implies that the blame rests upon the parents
: of those children. It does not! If problems do stem from
: daycare, it is the fault of how that daycare center treated those
: children!!
I must disagree... If we decided to give our kids to
robots to be raised, would you blame the robots? The
people that programmed the robots?
(besides, I have *never* had any interest in assigining
'blame' to anyone. That is something that you are adding
to this discussion.)
There are fundimental differences that can be seen between
between a family raising a child, and a business raising a
child (and 13 other kids at the same time).
Parents are *the* carriers of all primary responsibilty
(and also enjoy the additional rights that go with that
responsibility) for care of a child. Parents are free
to choose day care or not. They cannot be forced to put
their kids in day care, and they cannot be forced to keep
them at home with family.
But this nation, filled with parents, should be prepared to
take a long hard look at the practice of dropping kids off
at day care centers... and as the parents who are free to
make such choices, then yes, we are responsible.
You can worry about blame if you want... I'm more interested
in the consequences to kids.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Mike Powell
: No, it is not unhealthy to be a stay-at-home mom. I am assuming though
: that you take Trey places where he can interact with other children. (If
: he is old enough. I don't remember his age.) I did the same when I was
: a full-time SAH mom. But if I'm going to impose on my in-laws to limit
: their own lives to care for my child, I can't also ask them to be sure
: to take Shaina to the Y and the park and the library and everything else.
I'm just curious as to why you suggest that caring for a
child limits one's life... Most folks that I know suggest that
it *enlarges* their life. I guess it depends on what you
mean by 'limit'. Many in-laws would not pass up the chance to
be with their grand-kids even if you beat them with a stick.
(and left marks :-) So whatever limits go with the job, they
are apparently outweighed by the benefits for many people...
probably most people (otherwise, who would dedide to have
a child these days, let alone their second, or third, or fourth...).
In fact, in-law grandparents have fought battles in court
(and won) in order to have the right to be with their grand
kids when parents divorce...
But perhaps you intended that 'imposed' and 'limited' lives
apply only to the specific case you mentioned...
In which case; please disregard my observations.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Mike Powell
: npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
: >Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
: >
: >
: >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
: >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
: >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
: >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
: >
: >Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
: >thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
: >healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
: >hours a day.
: >
: >Naomi
: I'd put my child in day care in a second before I'd let my in-laws around
: her day in and day out! And having worked in one, I'm not a big fan of
: day care.
Everyone has to make choices wrt their circumstances... I'm
sorry to hear that both in-laws and day care are not a favorite
option for you...
: I'm glad that sweeping generalization about family applies to your situation,
: Michael.
You don't know that it does. The generalization clearly was
applied to society as a whole. I made no mention of my situation
at all. If you read back, you will see that this is true.
: You may have a loving and functional family member close by who can
: assist you in caring for your child.
You may too... and everyone else may as well... and maybe not.
: I suppose you may also have the resources
: to quit your job and stay home (or more accurately I suspect for your wife
: to stay home) and raise your children.
You may too... and everyone else may as well... and maybe not.
The point I'm attempting to make is that what may or may not
be true for my life, or may or may not be true for your life
or may or may not be true for anyone elses life is a trivial
and rather unimportant matter when discussing the overall effects
of child raising standards for an entire society (which is supposedly
what you are responding to).
: But for those of us with neither of
: those things, who have found great day care situations for our kids and whose
: families would be the worst possible choice, your statement does not apply.
My statement *always* applies because I specifically stated
that it refered to "day care, when taken as a whole". The
basic problem here is that you are attempting to apply it in a
way that I indicated it didn't apply to.
Bottom line: my statment does not refer to your or any other
specific situation. I wrote the comment the way I did for a
reason.
: And that's even BEFORE Naomi's excellent point about interaction with other
: children. When Shannon went to Kindergarten it was a real handicap that she
: had never been in pre-school or day care. All the socialization skills her
: classmates took for granted, and all the classroom behaviors and routines
: they were already familiar with, she had to learn. It was a very difficult time
: for her, and I would not repeat it. (It was her Mom's choice that she not go
: to pre-school or day care.)
One would be mistaken, I think, if one believed that "socialization
skills" for children come only from day care.
That a particular child goes into a Kindergarten without
"socialization skills" (whatever one might take that to actually
mean) cannot be seen to validate the practice of an entire society
to pay strangers raise their infants and toddlers to an ever
increasing degree. The concepts are not even on the same scale.
That there may be benefits that _can_ come from day care is not
under debate. Nothing is *all* bad, and nothing is *all* good.
The question at hand centers around one concept: net social change.
Example: The question of condom usage should not be decided
based on the fact that men can make the argument that not using
condoms has the benefit of feeling better.
Similarly, the question of the practice of transferring parental
duties to small buisiness enterprises (day care centers) on a
large social scale should not be decided based merely on the
potential that kids might benefit by learning to socialize before
they enter Kindergarten. (besides, I thought that was one of
the thinks that _kindergarten_ was for!)
My position is that the practice is a step backward for our
children (when taken as a whole). Your milage may vary.
Regards,
Michael Powell
AJM/MEM
>In article <4elvi9$a...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
>AJM/MEM <ami...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>As far as just the mother and her son home together, what else
>>could be healthier? The child is secure with himself having been
>>in a loving and supportive environment. I think that the best
>>choice for a baby/child is his/her parent at home. That is my
>>opinion.
>
>I disagree. Neither child nor parent deserves the isolation of
>a nuclear family with one adult at home. The situation is bad
>for the child because the parent's strengths and weaknesses are
>both imprinted. When a child has access to a number of adults,
>he or she can seek support elsewhere when one adult stumbles.
>When a child is alone with one adult, the child has no where
>to turn when something goes wrong.
Wow! What a grim picture you have painted. Beware of the lonely
Psycho-Parent!!
>For the adult, being the one at home is a frustrating and lonely
>experience. Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
So you see the choices as 24hr., 365 days a year single parent
with child. ( No "breaks", no one else existing in their world)
OR daycare. Life is not so limited. And it's a healthy sign
that people do post about their loneliness and frustrations. They
are seeking recognition and suggestions. Once the child starts
pre-school, there are so many opportunities to meet new people.
I think it is so important for the baby/child to be in a loving
environment those first 3 years (or more). The time goes faster
than you think it will. Before you know it, the child is in
first grade and WHAM! they are in high school. I think it so
very important to "be there" for your kids once they are in
school full time. There are so many other influences out there
and less time with our kids because of school, homework and
other activities. When they are 2, you know where they are. As
they get older, you don't always know where they are or who they
are influenced by. It is a tough job! Whoever said it wasn't,
wasn't a parent.
>The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
>sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
Then we have different ideas about family. Yes, one of us
sacrifices earning power for the well being of our children. The
other sacrifices the time spent with our children so that we can
be financially supported. That is what we call a family,
everyone working together, making sacrifices for the good of the
family. We are dependent on each other for love, support and
money. And this co-dependency is risky. It is built on trust. I
know very well what the risks are in being dependent on someone
else. I saw it with my own parents who got divorced after 28
yrs. of marriage. But I am willing to take that risk.
>Daycare may not be perfect, but a good daycare beats the h*ll out
>of one parent at home alone with the kids all day. JMHO.
Then why even bother to have children if it's such hell to have
to stay home with them? They are not always cute and funny! There
is nothing wrong or immoral about admitting that one does not
want to have children because one just doesn't like them. (or
feel that they wouldn't make a good parent, or couldn't handle
the responsibillity, etc). As a matter of fact, that would be the
most noble thing to do, not having children because one realizes
they are not "cut out" for parenthood. Are children "trophies"
that are collected but let someone else take care of them,
especially when it gets tough? If one takes on the responsibility
of having a baby, it is a LIFELONG commitment.
Mary Ellen
Duane
Michael, Just to let you know that you are not writing in Greek, I
totally get what you are saying and I tend to agree with you. I know
that as individual famalies are concerned daycare is a must and can not
be done without due to the need for an income to support the family.
But, that does not change my feeling that so many kids are in less than
desirable situations. I just do not think that strangers can give my
kids the loving attention I want them to have and I do not think
daycare workers on a whole can interpret my value system and pass it on
to my kids. I also agree that kindergarten is used to bring the kids
up to a somewhat even level in socialization skills and school
abilities (letter recognition, numbers, rules Etc...). I believe that
although some kids may be ahead at some things at the beginning of the
school year, by the time their kindergarten year is over they are all
basically in the same place.
I just do not believe that anyone can take care and love my kids more
more or better than I can. I also believe that this is true in most
cases although, I am sure there are some cases to where the parents are
unfit to care for thier kids but, that is not what situation I am
speaking of.
I want to restate that I know that daycare is somewhat necessary in
todays society. I do however believe it is not in the best interest of
society as a whole. I think it is sad. That is my opinion.
Cathy
Michael Powell
: In article <4elvi9$a...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
: AJM/MEM <ami...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >As far as just the mother and her son home together, what else
: >could be healthier? The child is secure with himself having been
: >in a loving and supportive environment. I think that the best
: >choice for a baby/child is his/her parent at home. That is my
: >opinion.
: I disagree. Neither child nor parent deserves the isolation of
: a nuclear family with one adult at home. The situation is bad
: for the child because the parent's strengths and weaknesses are
: both imprinted. When a child has access to a number of adults,
: he or she can seek support elsewhere when one adult stumbles.
: When a child is alone with one adult, the child has no where
: to turn when something goes wrong.
Rebecca, I don't think that the discussion thus far has
weighed "isolation" at home (your word) vs. day care.
That a parent of a child might always maintain a primary
role of, ah, shall we say -parent-, this does not imply
***isolation*** of parent and child from all others.
: For the adult, being the one at home is a frustrating and lonely
: experience.
Except for those parents who feel otherwise...
Of course they could drop their kids off somewhere and
go to work and have a crowded and frustrating experience :-)
: Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
: in finding play groups where they can interact with other adults.
: The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
: sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
: Daycare may not be perfect, but a good daycare beats the h*ll out
: of one parent at home alone with the kids all day. JMHO. "It takes
: a whole village to raise a child."
"It takes a whole villiage to raise a child" is a pretty
sorry excuse if it comes down to: "Drop your kid off in the
villiage and let _them_ raise your child".
The African proverb that this phrase suppposedly comes from
is:
1 - Translated into english. What was lost in the
the translation? Who knows.
2 - I don't know anybody that lives in a villiage.
(Does San Francisco or L.A. count?)
3 - Who knows if Africians think this notion has
any merit themselves?
4 - How well do African notions of raising a child
work in modern western societies?
Eventually, we see that this is little more than a romantic notion
that has little specific meaning (making it _great_ for broad
and varied interpretations, like "it means that day care is
good for kids"!).
Baloney.
It may merely indicate that what goes into a child during
their development is broader and richer than just what
a family setting alone can offer.... the ritual of religion, the
exposure to arts, tradition, and shared history... in short,
the culture and values of a people. To put all of _that_
into a child requires a structure that is larger than a
single family grouping.
That may be all that was ever intended by the phrase.
And it is plainly obvious that even the poor children who
must survive the terrible isolation of being at home with
their parents and siblings (and even then only to school age)
are not obviously deprived of tradition, history or culture
(as opposed to, say, the "worldly" experience of a child in
day care).
Regards,
-mp-
naomi pardue
> : No, it is not unhealthy to be a stay-at-home mom. I am assuming though
> : that you take Trey places where he can interact with other children. (If
> : he is old enough. I don't remember his age.) I did the same when I was
> : a full-time SAH mom. But if I'm going to impose on my in-laws to limit
> : their own lives to care for my child, I can't also ask them to be sure
> : to take Shaina to the Y and the park and the library and everything else.
> I'm just curious as to why you suggest that caring for a
> child limits one's life... Most folks that I know suggest that
> it *enlarges* their life. I guess it depends on what you
> mean by 'limit'.
I mean that my in-laws have other things they would like to do with
their time. They WOULD, if I asked, drop everything to care for Shaina.
However, I would not ask them to do that, and I DO NOT ask it, excpet
in emergencies. If I were going to ask them to do this, it would have to
be on their terms. Maybe they'd be thrilled to take Shaina to the park
everyday, winter and summer. Maybe not. Shaina is in a good preschool
with teachers who take good care of her (and are able to devote at least
as much attention to her as I am able to, since they don't have to do
other things during the day), with friends who she adores. Would she be
happy at home all day with Mommy or with Gramma and Papa? I'm sure she
would. WOuld she necessarily be better off? I think not. Is if fair
for me to expect my in-laws to take over the care of my child to
"Protect" her from a perfectly good daycare situation? I think not.
Many in-laws would not pass up the chance to
> be with their grand-kids even if you beat them with a stick.
> (and left marks :-) So whatever limits go with the job, they
> are apparently outweighed by the benefits for many people...
> probably most people (otherwise, who would dedide to have
> a child these days, let alone their second, or third, or fourth...).
Of course. Many grandparents dote on their grand kids. Shaina's
grandparents (both sets) spoil her rottton and adore her. That doesn't
mean they necessarily want to be forced into the position of caring for
her so I can earn money for us to live on. The fact that SOME
grandparents would be thrilled doesn't mean that all would.
> In fact, in-law grandparents have fought battles in court
> (and won) in order to have the right to be with their grand
> kids when parents divorce...
To see them. TO have visitation. Not necessarily to raise them.
Naomi
Ron & Sheila Kimball
says...
>
>In article <4elvi9$a...@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
>AJM/MEM <ami...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>As far as just the mother and her son home together, what else
>>could be healthier? The child is secure with himself having been
>>in a loving and supportive environment. I think that the best
>>choice for a baby/child is his/her parent at home. That is my
>>opinion.
>
>I disagree. Neither child nor parent deserves the isolation of
>a nuclear family with one adult at home. The situation is bad
>for the child because the parent's strengths and weaknesses are
>both imprinted. When a child has access to a number of adults,
>he or she can seek support elsewhere when one adult stumbles.
>When a child is alone with one adult, the child has no where
>to turn when something goes wrong.
>
having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the adults
there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is very
happy, well adjusted, on his own schedule, plays well by himself, takes 3X
longer naps than he was ever able to in daycare, everyone who knows us says
he's a joy to be around. He's never sick, unlike the constant colds he had
in daycare, hasn't been bitten, kicked, had his hair pulled... If daycare
is the blessed establishment you have deluded yourself into thinking is is,
explain why it is that as each generation puts more kids in daycare, there
is more crime, gang activity, teen (and younger) pregnancies, drugs,
violence... hhhmmmmmm......
>For the adult, being the one at home is a frustrating and lonely
>experience. Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
>in finding play groups where they can interact with other adults.
>The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
>sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
when I worked, I was exhausted and in a horrible mood at the end of the day,
which my son and husband don't deserve to bear the brunt of. Not to mention
that my husband and I sat down and figured out the finances and it is
*cheaper* for me to stay home.
>
>Daycare may not be perfect, but a good daycare beats the h*ll out
>of one parent at home alone with the kids all day. JMHO. "It takes
>a whole village to raise a child."
whatever, they didn't do so hot with their own, why would I let them near
mine?? If I had posted a note similar to yours degrading WOH moms for
forever destroying their kids with their decisions, I'd be blasted off the
net. You have to make the decisions that work for your family, but please
don't blast mine in order to justify yours.
Sheila, mom of Trey 3/17/94 and Jacob due 3/4/96
>
>Rebecca
N. Standen
writes:
> there may be benefits that _can_ come from day care is not
> under debate. Nothing is *all* bad, and nothing is *all* good.
> The question at hand centers around one concept: net social change.
> Similarly, the question of the practice of transferring parental
> duties to small buisiness enterprises (day care centers) on a
> large social scale should not be decided based merely on the
> potential that kids might benefit by learning to socialize before
> they enter Kindergarten. (besides, I thought that was one of
> the thinks that _kindergarten_ was for!)
>
> My position is that the practice is a step backward for our
> children (when taken as a whole). Your milage may vary.
A step backwards from when? And for whom? If you're talking about
middle-class families in the developed world in say, the 1950's to say,
the 1970's, then I think it could be said that most of these families
reared their children at home under the care of a parent, who, at that
time, usually happened to be their mother.
Before this period, and to this day for working-class families and in the
developing world, women - who have usually had the majority of the
child-raising responsibilities - have worked/do work for money. In some
cases this involves work in the home - eg. piecework sewing, cottage
industries, etc - but often it involves work outside the home, whether in
fields or factories or wherever. In some cases the women strap the
children to them and take them with them, but in many others they leave
the children in the care of other adults, or older children, who may or
may not be related to the parent. I think you'll find, for instance, that
there were child-minding services offered for money by people in the
industrialising west in the C19 at least. Furthermore, upper-class
parents, who had the money not to need to work for financial gain, have
always made (and still do make) use of other people - ie. servants,
nannies, etc - to look after their children. I read somewhere that
someone had worked out that a Victorian mother only spent about an hour a
day with her children. (Can you imagine how much less time that implies
the father spent?) Servants and nannies weren't running businesses, to be
sure, but they were doing the job for the money. I think it's probably
fair to say that practices of this kind are found far more widely in
history, and throughout the world, than the practice of raising the
children of one family at home with one parental carer.
I think it is a mistake to build a view of how things *ought* to be on an
image of how things were at some point you don't specify, but which
appears to involve a past of which you appear to have a somewhat
mythologised view.
My bottom line is that there is nothing "unnatural" or retrograde about
letting non-relatives care for one's children, if one so chooses. It's
silly to talk about "leaving your children with strangers"; anyone a
child is around for 8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, quickly ceases to be a
"stranger." SAH if you wish by all means, but don't assume that it's the
*only* or *best* way of caring for a child. It is *a* way, and with good
parents it will work out fine, and with bad parents it might not.
Similarly, with good daycare things will work out fine, and with bad
daycare they might not.
It seems to me that the issue is really the *quality* of the daycare (and
indeed, of parenting), rather than whether it is advisable for children
to be in daycare *at all.*
Ron & Sheila Kimball
npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu says...
>
>Ron & Sheila Kimball (kimb...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>> >Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
>> >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
>> >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
>> >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
>> >
>> >Well, I COULD let my in-laws take care of Shaina. But frankly, I
>> >thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
>> >healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
>> >hours a day.
>> >
>> >Naomi
>
>> putting him in daycare? WOW, I only nursed 4 months and he's in
>> disposables, what our therapy bills will be.....
>
>that you take Trey places where he can interact with other children. (If
>he is old enough. I don't remember his age.) I did the same when I was
>a full-time SAH mom. But if I'm going to impose on my in-laws to limit
>their own lives to care for my child, I can't also ask them to be sure
>to take Shaina to the Y and the park and the library and everything else.
>
>age to be sociable, then no, it isnt the healthiest of situations.
>
>Naomi
let's see, I'm 8 months pregnant, you know that I don't have a car, its
winter,... No, i'm not taking him anywhere except on days Ron is home and
then its to the mall or grocery shopping. I don't know where I'd even take
him!! We've lived here for a year and a half, I don't know a soul or how to
even meet anyone (lived in my hometown all my life, so it wasn't a problem
there).. When the ice clears up and the baby is born, then I'll see.
Hopefully he won't be permanently damaged by then.
Sheila
Andy Barnhart
> I have a question (having never used a daycare): Does the
> daycare have written guidelines for discipline, problem children,
> illnesses, etc.? When you choose a daycare, do you sign some
> kind of contract so that both parties agree to types of
> discipline and when they are to be executed?
Executed ?!? That is a mean daycare ;-]
Most daycares will give you a form that will scare you to death
if you read it carefully. It's more for their legal protection
than anything else.
-Andy dada2Dani
Michael Powell
: In article <4emhrf$g...@canyon.sr.hp.com> Mike Powell, mi...@sr.hp.com
: writes:
[deletions...]
: > large social scale should not be decided based merely on the
: > potential that kids might benefit by learning to socialize before
: > they enter Kindergarten. (besides, I thought that was one of
: > the things that _kindergarten_ was for!)
: >
[descriptions of variations in child raising spanning known history, deleted]
: I think it is a mistake to build a view of how things *ought* to be on an
: image of how things were at some point you don't specify, but which
: appears to involve a past of which you appear to have a somewhat
: mythologised view.
I don't believe that I have ever shared any take at all on
how children have been raised in the past. The 'view' that
you believe you see coming from me, is likely just a projection
of your own mind... in other words: how you _believe_ I regard
the past.
As such, I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion.
: My bottom line is that there is nothing "unnatural" or retrograde about
: letting non-relatives care for one's children, if one so chooses. It's
: silly to talk about "leaving your children with strangers"; anyone a
: child is around for 8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, quickly ceases to be a
: "stranger."
Kinda like how hostages get to know their captors?
(point being: becoming familiar with someone does not
necessarily make a situation better. There are some
folks you wouldn't _want_ your kids to get to know!
[like the spanker at Kim's workplace])
: SAH if you wish by all means, but don't assume that it's the
: *only* or *best* way of caring for a child.
No assumption of that has been made. I have only maintained
that the increasingly widespread use of day care represents
a step backward for us all.
: It is *a* way, and with good
: parents it will work out fine, and with bad parents it might not.
: Similarly, with good daycare things will work out fine, and with bad
: daycare they might not.
Some kids can drop out of school and become rich rock stars.
Some kids can work hard in school, play by the rules, and
still not gain financial security.
Based on the above true statements, what would you advise
a child to do?
Point is: there are exceptions and variations in _all_ rules.
Question is: What is the *total net result*? What is the *best
overall course*?
: It seems to me that the issue is really the *quality* of the daycare (and
: indeed, of parenting), rather than whether it is advisable for children
: to be in daycare *at all.*
Yes, I think that this is very close... but let me offer a
modification that might apply better:
The issue seems to be: Under a wide range of circumstances,
does a family/relative based system better raise children
than a small industry erected for that general purpose?
Family-based systems tend to work out of a sense of duty and
love above the need for profit, while the day care industry
requires profitability, meaning that costs must be controlled,
and that fees collected cover these costs and deliver a profit
that justifies each day care center.
These are fundimental realities of these two basic approaches.
No approach to any situation is perfect in all situations....
but certainly some approaches can be seen to have advantages
over others. So from our earlier discussion:
: > My position is that the practice is a step backward for our
: > children (when taken as a whole). Your milage may vary.
: A step backwards from when? And for whom?
I would say it is a step backward for *any* period, and for
*any* society that decides to trade (to whatever degree) a
family-based system in for a system based on a service industry.
But note that I would favor a private based service indstry
over a government based program that is not directly funded
by the parents!
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: In article <4emhrf$g...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
: >Anne Robotti (rob...@wiser.cis.att.com) wrote:
: >: npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
: >: >Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
: >: >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
: >: >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
: >: >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
: >: >
: > duties to small buisiness enterprises (day care centers) on a
: > large social scale should not be decided based merely on the
: > potential that kids might benefit by learning to socialize before
: > they enter Kindergarten. (besides, I thought that was one of
: > the thinks that _kindergarten_ was for!)
: >
: > My position is that the practice is a step backward for our
: > children (when taken as a whole). Your milage may vary.
[story about why she pulled her child out of day care, deleted]
: My response is actually to Michael and all of those people that think that
: daycare is bad for society.
No one has said that day care is bad for society (as least not
myself, and I don't recall anyone else saying so either).
I've said it's a step backward.
(example to help you understand the distinction: Let's replace
1996 medical practices with 1946 medical practices. Were the
medical practices of 1946 bad for society? No. But it
would represent a step backward from todays medicine.)
: Only in the 20th century have women had the
: "luxury" to take care of their own children.
Simply not true. To say that mothers have not taken care
of their children at any point in history until the 20th
century is so amazingly bogus as to be beyond belief.
[stories about how women prior to the 20th century worked hard making
butter and sewing, and baking, etc. which supposedly prevented mothers
from caring for their babies, deleted]
: Daycare is not bad
: for society, BAD DAYCARE is bad for society. If you have the luxury and desire
: to stay home with your kids, great. But don't badmouth daycare as a whole.
: What we need to work for is making all daycare situations good. Study after
: study has shown that good quality daycare benefits the child.
You are still missing the point, I believe.
Study after study has shown that good quality parenting benefits
the child.
The issus is _not_ and has _never_ been _can_ a daycare center
be "good". The issue has been, and has always been, WHAT FOCUS
IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR OUR CHILDREN AS A WHOLE? Should we
view daycare as the child-raising "norm" or should we view
parenting as the "norm" with daycare a less attractive alternative
to be taken only when other options are exhausted?
: I think you are
: shortchanging a lot of good people who do this work for a living. I'm not
: saying that there aren't lots of bad situations out there but we need to work
: as a society to improve the care not eliminate it.
No one has been talking about eliminating daycare.
: Face it, many women need to
: work to help support their family. And (I'll probably be flamed for this) I
: personally like to work and although I contribute equally to our household
: income, my husband does make a good salary.
Your admission here indicated the real dimension of the problem:
The increasing ACCEPTANCE of daycare as a normal mode of
raising kids is allowing parents like you to abandon a good
hunk of your role as a parent because you want to do other
things. Not that you need to, but because you want to.
: I know that I am lucky because I
: can afford the best quality daycare around.
And, by definition, only the best paid in our society can afford
the best daycare.
Unfortunately, those seeking to use daycare are not always the
best paid.
: If you take away daycare - you also will force women in their 20's and
: 30's to choose a career or children but not both.
Where is this coming from? No one has been talking about
"taking away" daycare... the notion that it is even possible
to do so is quite silly (in a free society). In other words,
it's a non-issue.
But you hint at something here that I think points us toward
a fundimental reason behind the move to daycare in our society.
Women, in huge numbers, have decided to have careers. They found that
it is too difficult to work at a career and raise children.
The modern daycare was implemented to free them from parenting
during the workday. The primary role of family to take care
of children has thus been replaced, and to an ever increasing
degree, leaving the role of the family in our society as
less defined, less important, and less necessary. And like
an unused muscle, the family has begun to atrophy.
What you and many other folks are missing here is that the
use of daycare as we are now doing it represents ***MASSIVE***
cultural change that sends ripples throughout society at
all levels. To think that if children are getting fed, and
are watched by friendly strangers is all this debate is
about simply fails to address the larger issues.
We are approaching a point where extended family relationships
go totally unused ("except in emergencies") in caring for
our children, where kids are in institutional settings almost
from birth and remain there until adulthood, where the home
is quickly becoming a place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v.
*Massive* change folks. Ugly change. Daycare is not the root
of this change, but it is a part as it is a tool that makes these
kinds of changes possible.
Try to think beyond your specific daycare experience. There
are larger issues at hand.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Maryann Mcnamara
>>
>
>having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the
adults
>there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is
very
child than the parents. My children went to daycare and they always
knew who their parents were and what we thought about issues. The
people the wanted to emulate were us not the provider. Yes my children
got to meet people with different lifestyles and different ideas, but
what is wrong with that. if you are secure in your beliefs your
children will pick up your because they love you and identify with you
k
>happy, well adjusted, on his own schedule, plays well by himself,
takes 3X
>longer naps than he was ever able to in daycare, everyone who knows us
says
>he's a joy to be around. He's never sick, unlike the constant colds
he had
>in daycare, hasn't been bitten, kicked, had his hair pulled... If
daycare
these things too.Most kids whatever their backgroung are great to be
around too
is is,
that have enriched all our lives
generation puts more kids in daycare, there
>is more crime, gang activity, teen (and younger) pregnancies, drugs,
>violence... hhhmmmmmm......
for it is in polite terms silly
>>experience. Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
>>in finding play groups where they can interact with other adults.
>>The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
>>sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
>
>when I worked, I was exhausted and in a horrible mood at the end of
the day,
>which my son and husband don't deserve to bear the brunt of. Not to
mention
>that my husband and I sat down and figured out the finances and it is
>*cheaper* for me to stay home.
>>Daycare may not be perfect, but a good daycare beats the h*ll out
>>of one parent at home alone with the kids all day. JMHO. "It takes
>>a whole village to raise a child."
>
>whatever, they didn't do so hot with their own, why would I let them
near
>mine??
>forever destroying their kids with their decisions, I'd be blasted off
the
>net. You have to make the decisions that work for your family, but
please
>don't blast mine in order to justify yours.
blasteing WOH
N. Standen
sidestepping the burgeoning SAH-*or*-WOH debate which has been round
endlessly and which, personally, I don't wish to get involved in - seems
to come down to:
1. All or most daycares are poorly run - the staff don't care about the
kids etc etc.
2. Therefore daycare is having a terrible effect on our kids, and thus on
society.
My immediate response is:
OK, so what do you propose we *do* about it, as a society?
If you have a criticism, you presumably also have suggestions as to what
would rectify the situation?
On a more practical level, and if we first set aside all the people,
including myself, who are very happy with their childcare arrangements,
then the question remains:
How do we ensure the improvement (or closure, I suppose) of the bad
daycares?
Mike Powell
: In article <4emilt$g...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) wrote:
: > I'm just curious as to why you suggest that caring for a
: > child limits one's life... Most folks that I know suggest that
: > it *enlarges* their life. I guess it depends on what you
: > be with their grand-kids even if you beat them with a stick.
: > (and left marks :-) So whatever limits go with the job, they
: > are apparently outweighed by the benefits for many people...
: > a child these days, let alone their second, or third, or fourth...).
: > In fact, in-law grandparents have fought battles in court
: > (and won) in order to have the right to be with their grand
: > kids when parents divorce...
: Those grandparents are not suing to have full-time daycare access to those
: kids, they are suing to have continued access to and relationships with
: their grandchildren even though the living arrangements of the parents has
: changed drastically. Big difference between grandparents wanting to take
: the kids out & about and being responsible for their care 8 hours a day, 5
: days a week.
The point was simply that, far from being a 'limiting imposition'
on a grandparent, very often there is a fierce dedication and
love of a child that can bring grandparents to a point of entering
legal battles to maintain their relationships.
That you would frame this only as an "8 hours a day, 5 days
a week" endevour is far too limited.
Example: My mother watches my son 6 hours, one day a week.
You are not being creative enough in your thinking, IMHO.
: There are many grandparents who do this, out of necessity or even love of
: doing it. But, I think that the majority of grandparents would not be up
: to the task of giving full-time daycare to their grandchildren. I know
: that mine would not and I would never ask it of them.
No one has been talking about having grandparents as full-time
day care centers. Getting a child out of a day care center, and
in the care of loving family can be accomplished in an incredible
number of ways... far to wide to fully described.
Regards,
Michael Powell
naomi pardue
> let's see, I'm 8 months pregnant, you know that I don't have a car, its
> winter,... No, i'm not taking him anywhere except on days Ron is home and
> then its to the mall or grocery shopping. I don't know where I'd even take
> him!! We've lived here for a year and a half, I don't know a soul or how to
> even meet anyone (lived in my hometown all my life, so it wasn't a problem
> there).. When the ice clears up and the baby is born, then I'll see.
> Hopefully he won't be permanently damaged by then.
I maintain that the picture you present (mom and child alone in a home
all day with no friends) is not the healthiest of situations for either of
you. I also
recognize that many families have no choice in the matter. (And I'm
certainly not suggesting that you drag your 8 months pregnant body to
McDonalds to get a job just so you can put your child in day care.) It
does sound like you're lonely. I'm sorry.
Naomi
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>: npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (naomi pardue) wrote:
>: >Michael Powell (r...@crl.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
>: >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
>: >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
>: >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
>: >
> duties to small buisiness enterprises (day care centers) on a
> large social scale should not be decided based merely on the
> potential that kids might benefit by learning to socialize before
> they enter Kindergarten. (besides, I thought that was one of
> the thinks that _kindergarten_ was for!)
>
> My position is that the practice is a step backward for our
> children (when taken as a whole). Your milage may vary.
I wasn't going to get into this but I can't help it. First of all, I
personally would pull my child out of a daycare under the original
circumstances described. This might be temporary or permanent depending on the
outcome of investigations and how it was handled. I have pulled my youngest
out of a room for a similar "alleged" situation with another child in the room.
My daycare is also at my work site and I did go to the administration and voice
my complaints. The accusations were never proven or disproven and the teacher
resigned after I removed my daughter (like I said - it wasn't even my daughter
who was hit). In general I am very happy with my daycare and I left my older
daughter there when I removed the younger. I felt that it was an isolated
incident and to be honest I wasn't even sure anything really happened. But I
wasn't going to expose my child if there was any doubt. My bigest problem was
with how the director handled it etc. Anyway - that is another story.
My response is actually to Michael and all of those people that think that
daycare is bad for society. Only in the 20th century have women had the
"luxury" to take care of their own children. Prior to this time wives were out
helping with farm chores, baking bread, sewing clothes, churning butter and
generally working extremely hard just to take care of and maintain the family.
Under these circumstances, more likely than not, young children were taken care
of by older siblings (often quite young themselves) or grandparents who were
getting to old to help with more strenuous chores (although one could argue
that taking care of a toddler is extremely strenuous :-0). Daycare is not bad
for society, BAD DAYCARE is bad for society. If you have the luxury and desire
to stay home with your kids, great. But don't badmouth daycare as a whole.
What we need to work for is making all daycare situations good. Study after
study has shown that good quality daycare benefits the child. That is not to
say that good quality "mothering" with a SAH mom does not benefit the child.
There are bad mothers and there are bad daycares. I have used 2 daycares and
they have been good quality centers. There has been the ocassional teacher I
have not been super happy with but I am a very vocal advocate for my kids and
have let my wishes be known. Apart from the isolated instance cited above the
only problems I have had have been more personality problems (my kids and I
like one teacher better than another). This could happen anywhere. Not
everyone gets along with their siblings but in the 1800s that may have been
your only caretaker while your mom took care of the chores. As far as a lack
of love - the majority of daycare providers I have known do love their
"students". Yes, they may have favorites but so do the children. Over the
past 5 years my oldest has had 7 fulltime caretakers as well as a number of
parttime caretakers who fill in the last hour or two of the day. Out of those
7 there have been 4 that my daughter adored and they adored her back. We left
her previous daycare 2 1/2 years ago due to a move. I have a friend whose son
attends this center and his teachers still talk about Kate. I think you are
shortchanging a lot of good people who do this work for a living. I'm not
saying that there aren't lots of bad situations out there but we need to work
as a society to improve the care not eliminate it. Face it, many women need to
work to help support their family. And (I'll probably be flamed for this) I
personally like to work and although I contribute equally to our household
income, my husband does make a good salary. I know that I am lucky because I
can afford the best quality daycare around. In fact, now that I have 2 kids I
am actually paying enough to cover the cost of a nanny at home. I decided to
keep my kids at a center rather than have them isolated at home with a nanny.
If you take away daycare - you also will force women in their 20's and
30's to choose a career or children but not both. Society will either miss
their contribution to the genepool or the workforce. As a college professor I
feel that my job does make a significant contribution to society and when my
girls go to college I hope they are exposed to both male and female professors.
Take away daycare and you will greatly diminish the ability of women to
contribute to society other than as "breeding stock"!
Sorry, I know this sounds harsh but this issue can really get me going.
Michelle (mom to Kate 12/24/90 and Maggie 5/23/94)
Tom Rogers
>when I worked, I was exhausted and in a horrible mood at the end of the day,
>which my son and husband don't deserve to bear the brunt of. Not to mention
>that my husband and I sat down and figured out the finances and it is
>*cheaper* for me to stay home.
Exactly, Sheila. Same boat here for me an my wife. I recently saw an
NBC Dateline story on how working parents are bribing their kids and
how they are using presents as a way to help them cope with their
feelings of not being there more for the kids. People use defense
mechanisms to help them overcome the natural feelings they have
that they are doing their children wrong by not giving them more of
their time each day. It happens. I am not saying that those who
see the benefits of daycare are kidding themselves, I am just
stating what was on Dateline.
Furthermore, the economy is not that much different today than it
was in 1950. Sure, you could buy more for the money back then,
people, on average made a little more money. But the differences
are not that staggering. What is VERY, VERY different, is the fact
that during the 70, 80s and 90s, Americans, on average, become
MUCH more materialistic. They wanted more cars, more often,
more TVs, more VCRs, nicer, larger homes, etc. They felt that they
NEEDED, HAD TO HAVE these things. Americans again, deluded
themselves that since they work so hard, they deserve the riches
of the good-life, when in fact, they worked so hard, because they
wanted sooo much. Credit card debt increased, people bought
beyond there means.
My wife and I too started to get into that trap. We looked at nicer
bigger homes when she was working. We talked about buying
yuppie things, like Volvos, and cell phones, etc. Then, a blessed
event happened. Our first son was born. It changed our lives.
She spent several months at home with him, then tried to work
for a little over a year. We were both miserable. Yes, we were
saving a little money, and we did have a little more money to
buy things we really didn't need, or do things we didn't really
need to do. She quit and has been taking care of our son
ever since. We are expecting our 2nd child any day now.
Sure, we still live in a house and drive cars that aren't as good
as the Jone's. Nonetheless, my wife and I are spending the
time with our child(ren), going to playgroups with him once or
twice a week, teaching him his 123s, ABCs, right from wrong,
etc. And, when he grows up, he will have to work each summer,
at a job that pays well to help pay his way through college.
He will have to take out loans. My wife will probably go back
to work part time when both kids are in school. But for now,
we are VERY happy.
Regards,
Tom
Rebecca McQuitty
> I've said it's a step backward.
>
> (example to help you understand the distinction: Let's replace
> 1996 medical practices with 1946 medical practices. Were the
> medical practices of 1946 bad for society? No. But it
> would represent a step backward from todays medicine.)
I think returning to child-rearing norms of 1946 would be an
*enormous* step backwards.
> To say that mothers have not taken care
> of their children at any point in history until the 20th
> century is so amazingly bogus as to be beyond belief.
As is your claim that women in the 20th century are *not* caring
for their children simply because they leave them in daycare to work
outside the house. Even children who spend 40 hours per week in
daycare spend 75% of their week somewhere else--usually in the
care of their parents.
> The increasing ACCEPTANCE of daycare as a normal mode of
> raising kids is allowing parents like you to abandon a good
> hunk of your role as a parent because you want to do other
> things. Not that you need to, but because you want to.
I think that's a good thing. What on earth is so great about
sacrificing a career that means a lot simply to take care of
one's children, now that an alternative exists? My mother did this
for me, and while I'm grateful, I'd have *much* preferred to
see her happy in a career that takes advantage of abilities she
doesn't get to use at home.
> The modern daycare was implemented to free them from parenting
> during the workday. The primary role of family to take care
> of children has thus been replaced, and to an ever increasing
> degree, leaving the role of the family in our society as
> less defined, less important, and less necessary. And like
> an unused muscle, the family has begun to atrophy.
While no one will deny that the family has become a fragile institution,
it still bears the primary responsibility to care for its children, and
it always will. Institutions now exist to help the family with its
enormous responsibility, but they do not relieve the familty of the
responsibility. Furthermore, there are many of us who think that
daycare and working women are *not* to blame for the family's fragility
(but this is a topic for another newsgroup).
> We are approaching a point where extended family relationships
> go totally unused ("except in emergencies") in caring for
> our children, where kids are in institutional settings almost
> from birth and remain there until adulthood, where the home
> is quickly becoming a place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v.
Actually, one could almost define "home" as the place where eating
and sleeping happen. And I continue to fail to understand your
preoccupation with extended family caring for one's children. How
many young adults do you know who even live within an hour's drive
of their parents? I sure don't know many, and I have plenty of
friends who wouldn't leave their children with their parents for
long even if the parents did live nearby.
Rebecca
hope
>
> In article <4eir6b$4...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
> npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu says...
> >
> >
> >
> >> Day care, when taken as a whole, is a sub-standard way to raise
> >> children, and our country will pay a price for it's reliance
> >> on it. It saddens me to hear your story, and that your child
> >> is not always in the loving care of his family.
> >
> >thought that allowing her to interact with other children was far
> >healthier for her than leaving her in the sole company of adults 24
> >hours a day.
> >
> >Naomi
>
> so its unhealthy for me to stay home and take care of Trey instead of
> putting him in daycare? WOW, I only nursed 4 months and he's in
> disposables, what our therapy bills will be.....
>
ou ou ouchhh!!!
it's gotta depend on parental temperment (sp), finances and so on too...
i never heard anyone damning anybody for staying home with their kids!
why are people are so eager to find flamefests where there are none!!?
as for myself, i find that the quality of interaction with my son is
*much* superior if i get out of the house and go to work. not *all*
daycare centres are great, but *not* all are houses of horror either!!
part of my decision to go to work was my son's acceptance into a great
daycare centre. i know that, in *my* case, if *i* stayed home with him,
he would be worse off. i could never provide 8 hours of full on cheerful
interaction, education, story reading, play etc. when he gets home from
there, we are glad to see each other and he is in the company of happy
adults all his waking time, not in the presence of a tired harrassed
mother ( cause that is what *i* would be). not everyone's like me.
isn't it a wonderful old world huh?
best-
hope
--
Hope Nesmith @..@
gl...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au (----)
ho...@geology.newcastle.edu.au ( >__< )
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/gl/hope.html
C. Silvers
Weiss) writes:
>
[debate about daycare as cause of social ills and collapse of
civilization deleted]
>
>IMNSHO, the problem is NOT with "daycare" or "moms who don't work" or
>"moms who do work" or any other catch phrase in the world--it's this
>horrible lack of tolerance for those who are doing the best they can
>for their kid--and the willingness some people have to try and make
>parents feel they are hurting their children when they so clearly are
>not.
>--
>--Beth Weiss
>bwe...@cs.arizona.edu
Beth: Thanks for saying it so well. It really is a shame that the
debate is so often cast as a referendum on how much one's willing to
give up for one's child. It's *all* tradeoffs, and we all come to the
conclusions we do for our own individual and family reasons. It does
make me wonder who gains from all the passion poured into the debate
and all the guilt and anger it produces...certainly not our children!
Catherine
Morgan's Mom (11/27/93)
cecilia_(cbarfiel@unf1vm.cis.unf.edu
Should I leave my children in daycare so I can work or should I become a SAH
Mom? Oh, yeah, if I don't work, I can't be a stay-at-home mom because we won't
have a home. I'll have to be a LIC mom (living in car). That would be the 11
year old car I drive because I chose to take a lower-paying job that offered
more vacation/sick leave, fewer hours and no travel. Of course, it's not doing
my career/resume much good, but it's a *tradeoff* so I can spend more time
with my children.
Tradeoffs... yeah, should I stay married to an unfit man <details omitted, but
believe me he was unfit to live, much less be a decent husband and father> so
that I won't have to work or should I toss his butt out and take care of my
family myself? Yep, it was a tradeoff all right.
Catherine and Beth are absolutely right! It's not always easy (hardly ever is)
to make these decisions. The nature of some of the misc.kids criticism of
other parents who have made the best decisions they could under their own
specific circumstances is appalling.
Cecilia
Shannon Lea Stelly
Distribution:
Ron & Sheila Kimball (kimb...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: In article <4eqej0$p...@cloner3.netcom.com>, mar...@ix.netcom.com says...: >>having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the
: >adults
: >>there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is
: >very
: >Do you really think that a daycareprovider has more influence on a
: >child than the parents. My children went to daycare and they always
: >knew who their parents were and what we thought about issues. The
: >people the wanted to emulate were us not the provider. Yes my children
: >got to meet people with different lifestyles and different ideas, but
: >what is wrong with that. if you are secure in your beliefs your
: >children will pick up your because they love you and identify with you
: let's see, most of the parents at the daycare I worked in dropped their kids
: off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with caregivers, if
: the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with parents!!!!!!!
Let's see, if you stay home with your kids that's about 5 years. Then
it's off to school where they spend 6-7 hours a day with other people
(more if they have a long bus ride--here it can be well over an hour each
way). So you get maybe an hour in the morning and then 3-4 at night
before bed, some of which they'll be busy doing homework. Does that mean
you shouldn't send your kids to shool either? (yes, I know homeschooling
is an option that many prefer, and that's fine).
I also have to wonder if it's true that MOST parents left their kids for
that long. Most people work 8-hour days, and not too many people have an
hour and a half commute... I'm sure there are some who had days that
long, but MOST? Most daycares around here close at or earlier than 6,
very few any later, which means many kids are gone well before then. I
drive by a couple of centers on my way home and see quite a few parents
there BEFORE 5 picking kids up.
Obviously, parents should try to spend as much time with kids as
possible, and if they want to stay home with them, that's fine. But
unless your child never leaves the house, he or she will probably end up
spending the majority of his/her time with other people. This does not
mean that parents do not remain the dominant influence.
Shannon
Beth Weiss
>let's see, most of the parents at the daycare I worked in dropped their kids
>off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with caregivers, if
>the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with
>parents!!!!!!!
That doesn't sound ANYTHING like the daycare center Jordan is in now,
the ones I interviewed but didn't use, or the in-home situations he
has been in, or the one Jennica is in now.
In fact, most centers I'm familiar with have a 10 hour maximum period,
and most kids aren't there that long either.
We work sort of irregular hours, so one day, we might drop Jordan off
at 7:15, and pick him up around 3, and another day, he might get
dropped off at 8:30 and picked up at 5:30, if I have a long work day.
The kids who are there at 7:15 are NOT the same kids that are still
there at 5:15, as a general rule.
And, of course, accuracy is very important when one does these sorts
of calcuations--I'd count time with the parents BEFORE daycare, as
well as time after, myself.
>>>is more crime, gang activity, teen (and younger) pregnancies, drugs,
>>>violence... hhhmmmmmm......
>>There are reasons for this to numerous to mention and to blame daycare
>>for it is in polite terms silly
>
>I strongly disagree, which I don't need your approval to do.
You don't, but if you think that "daycare as a whole" is responsbile
for crime, gang activity, teen pregnancy, drugs, and violence, then
some of us will continue to think that you aren't considering the
myriad of issues that factor into those problems. Just to give you a
hint, the economic stability of the family and general supervision of
older children and teens might be a good place to start.
>I just finished talking about crime, pregnancy, etc..... that the children
>do nowdays, these are kids raised by minimum wage earning high school
>girls!
They most absolutely are not--_my_ children are raised by my husband
and myself. Our caregivers, who assist in that role, are not high
school girls--they are adults, and they earn more than minimum
wage--and they deserve it.
The high school girls _I_ know, by the way, are generally in _school
when I'm at work.
Sheila has every right to live her life the way she thinks works best
for her family. Everything she has posted about it (at home with a
small child all day and no ability to go out due to lack of
transportation and the poor weather) sounds like absolute _torture_ to
me, but it seems to work for her, and that's what is important. Based
on my AH parent friends, that's not common--most of them _are_ out and
about and doing things with their kids and other parents/kids.
And for those of us who find paid employment more workable, we're also
doing our best to make choices that are good for our family--and that
includes seeking out the best daycare situations we can find.
There definitely _are_ bad daycare situations out there (the see the
recent thread on spanking a small child for a toileting problem), but
most of us have carefully investigated our situations, and, if they
turn out to be not workable, find alternative arrangements.
IMNSHO, the problem is NOT with "daycare" or "moms who don't work" or
"moms who do work" or any other catch phrase in the world--it's this
horrible lack of tolerance for those who are doing the best they can
for their kid--and the willingness some people have to try and make
parents feel they are hurting their children when they so clearly are
no.
--
--Beth Weiss
bwe...@cs.arizona.edu
Charlotte Chen
Michael> The increasing ACCEPTANCE of daycare as a normal mode
Michael> of raising kids is allowing parents like you to abandon a
Michael> good hunk of your role as a parent because you want to do
Michael> other things. Not that you need to, but because you want
Michael> to.
Michael, do you have children? Do you hold a job? If both answers were yes,
don't you think YOU have "abandon a good hunk of your role as a parent"?
Michael> Women, in huge numbers, have decided to have careers.
Michael> They found that it is too difficult to work at a career
Michael> and raise children. The modern daycare was implemented
Michael> to free them from parenting during the workday. The
Michael> primary role of family to take care of children has thus
Michael> been replaced, and to an ever increasing degree, leaving
Michael> the role of the family in our society as less defined,
Michael> less important, and less necessary. And like an unused
Michael> muscle, the family has begun to atrophy.
Michael, the role of the family in our society has become less defined
when men stopped wearing hats. It's difficult to identify the head of
the household when men no longer wears hats, thus, the role of the family
has become less important, and less nescessary .....
Michael> What you and many other folks are missing here is that
Michael> the use of daycare as we are now doing it represents
Michael> ***MASSIVE*** cultural change that sends ripples
Michael> throughout society at all levels. To think that if
Michael> children are getting fed, and are watched by friendly
Michael> strangers is all this debate is about simply fails to
Michael> address the larger issues.
I only know in my inlaw's, my parents' and in my grandparents' generations,
most of the childcare duty fell on nannies, wet nurses, and maids. Please
excuse me if you don't consider Asian culture and Latin culture as part of
American culture.
Michael> We are approaching a point where extended family
Michael> relationships go totally unused ("except in emergencies")
Michael> in caring for our children, where kids are in
Michael> institutional settings almost from birth and remain there
Michael> until adulthood, where the home is quickly becoming a
Michael> place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v.
Kids are in institutional settings from birth until adulthood?
Can you share with us about which part of the world you live in?
Michael> *Massive* change folks. Ugly change. Daycare is not
Michael> the root of this change, but it is a part as it is a tool
Michael> that makes these kinds of changes possible.
No Micheal. You are a bit thick. Men stop wearing hats is the root of
this change!
Michael> Try to think beyond your specific daycare experience.
Michael> There are larger issues at hand.
Exactly!
Charlotte (Mommy to Rose 1/4/92)
Charlotte Chen
My daughter has been in many childcare situation - nanny, homecare by my
Mom and by me, family daycares, centers. In most cases, when I felt
uncomfortible with the childcare situation, she was removed from the
situation right away. But things are different now. She has been in
this co-op childcare center for the past 2 years. The parents have total
control over the quality of the school. Teachers and the director are hired
by the parents. We have general meetings 8 times a year, and many many
sub-committee meetings as often as we wish to improve the quality of the
school. At times I feel that I have 3 full-time jobs - my regular job,
my job at the school, and being a Mom. Lots of our weekends are spent at
the school fixing stuff, setting up special programs, writing proposals to
alter the policies etc. But I am very glad that the parents in the school
are working together to provide a comfortable environment for our teachers
and our children. I feel extremely fortunate that my daughter spends her
day in the hands of capable professionals from whom I have learned lots of
parenting skills.
What about all the poorly run centers out there? I don't have the answers
as I don't have the answer to what to do with all the unfit parents out
there. Not to side track the topic on hand, just to expand my definition
on "unfit parent", anybody heard about the 6-year-old boy got beating to
death by his Mother in Lowell Mass this week? What should we do, as a
society, to prevent things like this from happening again? I don't know.
Carol Alvin
>
> The issus is _not_ and has _never_ been _can_ a daycare center
> be "good". The issue has been, and has always been, WHAT FOCUS
> IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR OUR CHILDREN AS A WHOLE? Should we
> view daycare as the child-raising "norm" or should we view
> parenting as the "norm" with daycare a less attractive alternative
> to be taken only when other options are exhausted?
Why can't the norm be whatever is right for an individual family?
> We are approaching a point where extended family relationships
> go totally unused ("except in emergencies") in caring for
> our children, where kids are in institutional settings almost
> from birth and remain there until adulthood, where the home
> is quickly becoming a place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v
If you want to change this, you'll have to change the way that
the job market in the US functions. Many people today don't
have their extended families anywhere near.
-Carol, who has been both a work-outside-the-home mom and a stay-at-home
mom, and who has found that both have rewards and frustrations.
Jared's mommy, 4-13-94
Duane
snip
3 kids and we make due with one income for the very same reasons. I do
not want to miss my kids lives 8 to 10 hours a day 5 days a week. They
grow up so fast! I am willing to do without some things for a little
while so that I can be here whenever my kids need me for anything, even
a hug! Every minute I spend with them counts!!!! If they grow up to
look back and say "we did not have a lot of things but, my parents
always put us first,were always there for us and always loved us", well
that is just fine by me.
Truly,
Cathy
Maryann Mcnamara
Kimball) writes:
>
>In article <4eqej0$p...@cloner3.netcom.com>, mar...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>>>having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the
>>adults
>>>there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is
>>very
>>Do you really think that a daycareprovider has more influence on a
>>child than the parents. My children went to daycare and they always
>>knew who their parents were and what we thought about issues. The
>>people the wanted to emulate were us not the provider. Yes my
children
>>got to meet people with different lifestyles and different ideas, but
>>what is wrong with that. if you are secure in your beliefs your
>>children will pick up your because they love you and identify with
you
>
their kids
>off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with
caregivers, if
>the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with parents!!!!!!!
in daycare. Children have long picked up the values of fathers who
work many hours durring the day and only saw their children a few hours
a day. Kids love their parents so much that they know who is important
in their lives.
>>k
>>>happy, well adjusted, on his own schedule, plays well by himself,
>>takes 3X
>>>longer naps than he was ever able to in daycare, everyone who knows
us
>>says
>>>he's a joy to be around. He's never sick, unlike the constant colds
>>he had
>>>in daycare, hasn't been bitten, kicked, had his hair pulled... If
>>daycare
>>My kids and most of the daycare going kids (and SAH kids) I know do
>>these things too.Most kids whatever their backgroung are great to be
>>around too
>
eant most kids I knew were happy well adjusted joy to be around not the
hair pulllling part see how you would have thought that though
>
>> >explain why it is that as each
>>generation puts more kids in daycare, there
>>>is more crime, gang activity, teen (and younger) pregnancies, drugs,
>>>violence... hhhmmmmmm......
>>There are reasons for this to numerous to mention and to blame
daycare
>>for it is in polite terms silly
>
>I strongly disagree, which I don't need your approval to do.
>
>
>>>>For the adult, being the one at home is a frustrating and lonely
>>>>experience. Many parents have posted here about their difficulties
>>>>in finding play groups where they can interact with other adults.
>>>>The adult at home also sacrifices at least some earning potential,
>>>>sometimes becoming financially dependent on the other adult.
>
>>HUH???
>
>I just finished talking about crime, pregnancy, etc..... that the
children
>do nowdays, these are kids raised by minimum wage earning high school
girls!
>
>>If I had posted a note similar to yours degrading WOH moms for
>>>forever destroying their kids with their decisions, I'd be blasted
off
>>the
>>>net. You have to make the decisions that work for your family, but
>>please
>>>don't blast mine in order to justify yours.
>>If I recall this thread after the initial question) started with a
male
>>blasteing WOH
>
>maybe they need blasting, but I don't think Mike's endless notes even
>deserve notice, he's a bit off the beam.
>
Ron & Sheila Kimball
>>having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the
>adults
>>there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is
>very
>Do you really think that a daycareprovider has more influence on a
>child than the parents. My children went to daycare and they always
>knew who their parents were and what we thought about issues. The
>people the wanted to emulate were us not the provider. Yes my children
>got to meet people with different lifestyles and different ideas, but
>what is wrong with that. if you are secure in your beliefs your
>children will pick up your because they love you and identify with you
let's see, most of the parents at the daycare I worked in dropped their kids
off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with caregivers, if
the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with parents!!!!!!!
>k
>>happy, well adjusted, on his own schedule, plays well by himself,
>takes 3X
>>longer naps than he was ever able to in daycare, everyone who knows us
>says
>>he's a joy to be around. He's never sick, unlike the constant colds
>he had
>>in daycare, hasn't been bitten, kicked, had his hair pulled... If
>daycare
>My kids and most of the daycare going kids (and SAH kids) I know do
>these things too.Most kids whatever their backgroung are great to be
>around too
you have GOT to be kidding!!!!!!!
Mike Powell
: >>>>> "Michael" == Michael Powell <r...@crl.com> writes:
: Michael> The increasing ACCEPTANCE of daycare as a normal mode
: Michael> of raising kids is allowing parents like you to abandon a
: Michael> good hunk of your role as a parent because you want to do
: Michael> other things. Not that you need to, but because you want
: Michael> to.
: Michael, do you have children? Do you hold a job? If both answers were yes,
: don't you think YOU have "abandon a good hunk of your role as a parent"?
Do I travel the world alone in search of exotic vacationing spots?
Do I roam from woman to woman having kids and then leaving them
behind?
*That* is abandonment of a parenting role.
The person I was responding to above made it clear that she
was not forced into a corner, and had to use daycare so that
she could be a provider... She decided that her desire for a
career and income outweighed any perceived negatives of putting
her child in daycare.
I take her at her word here.
: Michael> Women, in huge numbers, have decided to have careers.
: Michael> They found that it is too difficult to work at a career
: Michael> and raise children. The modern daycare was implemented
: Michael> to free them from parenting during the workday. The
: Michael> primary role of family to take care of children has thus
: Michael> been replaced, and to an ever increasing degree, leaving
: Michael> the role of the family in our society as less defined,
: Michael> less important, and less necessary. And like an unused
: Michael> muscle, the family has begun to atrophy.
: Michael, the role of the family in our society has become less defined
: when men stopped wearing hats. It's difficult to identify the head of
: the household when men no longer wears hats, thus, the role of the family
: has become less important, and less nescessary .....
From this answer, I take it that you have no real response
to present. (unless there is some hidden significant meaning
there, in which case I would ask you to expand upon it).
What I wrote above is basically historical fact.
Some people find it difficult to face historical reality, I
suppose.
: Michael> What you and many other folks are missing here is that
: Michael> the use of daycare as we are now doing it represents
: Michael> ***MASSIVE*** cultural change that sends ripples
: Michael> throughout society at all levels. To think that if
: Michael> children are getting fed, and are watched by friendly
: Michael> strangers is all this debate is about simply fails to
: Michael> address the larger issues.
: I only know in my inlaw's, my parents' and in my grandparents' generations,
: most of the childcare duty fell on nannies, wet nurses, and maids. Please
: excuse me if you don't consider Asian culture and Latin culture as part of
: American culture.
I'm not sure what you are saying here... that your parents and
grandparents used non-family care primarily? Or are you saying
that Asian and Latin cultures during the time represented by your
parents' and grandparents' generations used non-family care? Or
are you saying all Americans during the time represented by your
parents' and grandparents' generations used non-family care?
(or perhaps another meaning?)
: Michael> We are approaching a point where extended family
: Michael> relationships go totally unused ("except in emergencies")
: Michael> in caring for our children, where kids are in
: Michael> institutional settings almost from birth and remain there
: Michael> until adulthood, where the home is quickly becoming a
: Michael> place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v.
: Kids are in institutional settings from birth until adulthood?
: Can you share with us about which part of the world you live in?
:
From a few months of age at a daycare facility, into a
school system to adulthood. And to an increasing extent,
when children do come home, the home is empty.
Do you live in a part of the country where this is
different?
: Michael> *Massive* change folks. Ugly change. Daycare is not
: Michael> the root of this change, but it is a part as it is a tool
: Michael> that makes these kinds of changes possible.
: No Micheal. You are a bit thick. Men stop wearing hats is the root of
: this change!
Thanks the the personal jab. It lends credibility to your
'remarks'.
-mp-
Mike Powell
: Obviously, parents should try to spend as much time with kids as
: possible,
This is a fundimental truth, IMHO.
: and if they want to stay home with them, that's fine. But
: unless your child never leaves the house, he or she will probably end up
: spending the majority of his/her time with other people. This does not
: mean that parents do not remain the dominant influence.
Yes.
Although you are converting it into questions of 'dominant influence'
or 'not dominant influence'.
Black or white.
Kids don't really work that way. They are influenced. Period.
Correctly identifying a single dominant influence is certainly
important, but that does not change the fact that other influences
are at work on our children at all times.
As different influences slide in and out of their lives, and at
different periods in their lives, profound effects can and will
occurr, regardless of the existance of any dominant influence.
So the question to me is: How can one maintain a maximum of family
based care, supervision, and influence above all other forms?
And lastly, the extent to which we exchange one type of influence
to another depends on our assessment of each type compared to
eachother.
My view is that daycare is over-assessed, and family care is
under-assessed, even to the point where some people are convinced
that they are fundimentally equal, or even that daycare is
better than being with family.
These attitudes are fairly new, and represent a continuing shift.
Time will tell where this experiment will lead.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: Beth: Thanks for saying it so well. It really is a shame that the
: debate is so often cast as a referendum on how much one's willing to
: give up for one's child. It's *all* tradeoffs, and we all come to the
: conclusions we do for our own individual and family reasons.
Not fully. We alter our conclusions based also on what is
considered to be socially acceptable or not, legal or not,
etc. We are not islands.
But yes, typically, our conclusions are based primarily on
individual and family reasons.
: It does
: make me wonder who gains from all the passion poured into the debate
: and all the guilt and anger it produces...certainly not our children!
That human beings have the capacity to examine, debate, and advance
ideas that result in a future that is better than our past
*by definition* is a gain for our children.
Perhaps we should live in caves again...
The day that we abandon debate because we are afraid that
someone might get angry will be a sad day indeed. But if
it proves to be a problem, I would suggest that people keep
their anger in check, and failing that, to gracefully exit
debate.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: In article <4er2p9$p...@nntp.crl.com>, Michael Powell <r...@crl.com> wrote:
: >mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu wrote:
: > The issus is _not_ and has _never_ been _can_ a daycare center
: > be "good". The issue has been, and has always been, WHAT FOCUS
: > IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR OUR CHILDREN AS A WHOLE? Should we
: > view daycare as the child-raising "norm" or should we view
: > parenting as the "norm" with daycare a less attractive alternative
: > to be taken only when other options are exhausted?
: Why can't the norm be whatever is right for an individual family?
I know exactly what you mean, although in essence, you are
proposing that the norm be that there is no norm. But in
reality, what is "right" for an individual family is exactly
what we have now.... where families make their own decidions,
but influenced by social conventions.
Look at what social pressures have done to the practice
of smoking... or the advancement of the notion of the "designated
driver".
Lets look at things from a purely hypothetical standpoint.
Pretend for a moment that there are serious consequences
to an unborn child when a pregnant woman smokes or drinks...
but that few people believed that there was any problem with
it, so most women would continue to smoke and drink as they
had before pregnancy.
Then, let's pretend that someone voiced a concern. That their
concern was based on the simple premise that if one would
not let a 5-yr old smoke and drink, then obviously one would
not want an even younger, or even unborn, child to either...
and because the unborn is so closely associated with the
mother, it might be valid to believe that, at least to some
degree, whenever she smokes, the baby smokes. Whenever she
drinks, the baby drinks.
Now, of course many women would be outraged that they are
being "criticized" for their own personal choice, and some
might even suggest that "why not let whatever the mother
decides be the norm?". Perhaps there would be cries of
"intolerence", and justifications like "My smoking and
drinking has never hurt me... so it's clear it would never
hurt my baby". etc. etc. etc.
But that's how social change works, doesn't it?
: > We are approaching a point where extended family relationships
: > go totally unused ("except in emergencies") in caring for
: > our children, where kids are in institutional settings almost
: > from birth and remain there until adulthood, where the home
: > is quickly becoming a place only to eat, sleep, and watch t.v
: If you want to change this, you'll have to change the way that
: the job market in the US functions. Many people today don't
: have their extended families anywhere near.
Your point is taken, but I submit to you that you have the
cart before the horse in some ways.
Our decisions to breakup extended families (families collectivly
decide this) is _suppported_ by the notion that the support that
one would normally expect to mutually get within extended family
relationships is *fully replacable* anywhere in this country
because society has accepted the concept that one can pay for
a similar service.
You know how it works....
"Gee Hon... there is this job in Montana that looks like it
might be pretty good. The pay is better, and we might like
a break from city life... you should be able to find another
sales position... whaddyathink?"
"I'd hate to be so far away from family... Mom and John & Wendy
are always such a help with Ryan..."
"I'm sure there's good daycare in Montana..."
"I suppose so..."
etc. etc. etc.
Now this is only one of an infinite number of scenarios that
are played out each and every day in our society. So not
only does the availability of daycare assist those who
simply do not have family around.... it's also a mechanism
by which family links are broken.
Even in this thread we have heard stories about how relatives
who are available and who would be willing to help are
'spared the imposition' of what *used* to be a standard
family function simply because daycare is viewed as a
perfectly good substitute.
Daycare protects us from having to ask our families for help...
that way we don't feel we owe them anything... after all, they
have lives of their own, right? Lives that to a lesser and
lesser degree include intimate connections with the next generation.
How nice.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
[discussion about does daycare cause all manner of teen problems, deleted]
: IMNSHO, the problem is NOT with "daycare" or "moms who don't work" or
: "moms who do work" or any other catch phrase in the world--it's this
: horrible lack of tolerance for those who are doing the best they can
: for their kid--and the willingness some people have to try and make
: parents feel they are hurting their children when they so clearly are
: no[t].
I'm not sure where you see a "horrible lack of tolerance"...
That someone would take a different position than you do on
a subject does not constitute a "horrible lack of tolerance".
It constitutes general disagreement. Nothing more.
And if you know of someone who is trying to make "parents feel
they are hurting their children", I have to wonder how you
feel you know that? And by "hurt" I assume you are referring
to parenting decisions that are felt by some to have negative
consequences for their kids (as opposed to hitting them or
something). It seems strange to me that you claim that parents
are "clearly" not making such parenting decisions in the midst
of a sizable debate on exactly that kind of topic. (meaning
that if it was clear, then there would be no debate).
And that our children are experiencing a whole host of ever-
worsening problems from substance abuse, to poor academic achievement
to violence and other criminal activities (youth crime is one of
the few kinds of crime on the increase today) suggests that
even though you present a glowing picture of "parents doing their
best", the reality is that if anything is becoming clear, it
is that "our best" is simply not good enough.
Not happy and cherry words, I know, but labeling people
who have honest opinions that come into conflict with yours
as intolerant, is not likely to solve anything.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Ron & Sheila Kimball
says...
kids
>>off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with caregivers,
if
>>the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with
>>parents!!!!!!!
>
>the ones I interviewed but didn't use, or the in-home situations he
>has been in, or the one Jennica is in now.
>
>In fact, most centers I'm familiar with have a 10 hour maximum period,
>and most kids aren't there that long either.
if you work 8-5 and have an hour commute, which our parents often did, that
means the kids are in there from 7-6.
>
>And, of course, accuracy is very important when one does these sorts
>of calcuations--I'd count time with the parents BEFORE daycare, as
>well as time after, myself.
OK, how many hours do you get up before you have to be out the door? I
worked the infant room and most were brought inasleep and in need of a
diaper change and a bottle, meaning they hadn't been up at all. trey was in
the same daycare and I'd get him up, change his diaper and clothes and we'd
be out the door. Nice quality time.
>
>They most absolutely are not--_my_ children are raised by my husband
>and myself. Our caregivers, who assist in that role, are not high
>school girls--they are adults, and they earn more than minimum
>wage--and they deserve it.
>
>The high school girls _I_ know, by the way, are generally in _school
>when I'm at work.
the daycares I"ve dealt with had girls with half day school who worked there
and some that had just graduated, they started at $5/hour in an area where
even Kinko's starts at $6.50, the turnover is HUGE. Since I left the baby
room, there have been at least 7 girls who have rotated through in my spot.
Trey had a wonderful teacher and he'd be back in there a day or 2 a week if
he hadn't gotten too old for her class.
>
>Sheila has every right to live her life the way she thinks works best
>for her family. Everything she has posted about it (at home with a
>small child all day and no ability to go out due to lack of
>transportation and the poor weather) sounds like absolute _torture_ to
>me, but it seems to work for her, and that's what is important. Based
>on my AH parent friends, that's not common--most of them _are_ out and
>about and doing things with their kids and other parents/kids.
>
their husbands must make a lot more money than mine does, we can barely
afford one car, let alone another!!!! We're also in our mid-20s, so we
dont' have alot of time invested in the work force, which is why it would
cost me more to have a job than to stay home. We don't have a mortgage to
pay, etc... I don't know any other parents/kids nor do I know how/where I'd
meet them, I'm from the South and now living near Seattle and haven't really
figured out the people up here yet. I don't consider my life torture at
all, I'd die if I had to leave Trey for 8-10 hours a day with someone else,
I love him very dearly, he's a joy to be around and we have a great time all
day. He plays well by himself, I can sew, bake, watch TV, play on the
computer, whatever I want to do. I no longer have to come in the house at
5-6 to a tired toddler and two hungry parents, cook dinner after being on my
feet all day, get some playtime in, bath, bedtime, some time to my own...
I'm a thousand times happier this way, yes, its lonely, but this is the
choice we conciously made, I have another son on the way in March and it
will be at least a year before I'd put him in daycare. With a 2 year old
and infant, I also don't see alot of time for running around to playgroups,
etc... As for the crummy weather, I'd rather have a few weeks of cold/ice
and snow and have the rest of the year just gorgeous than the hot humid crap
we used to live in.
Sheila, not really miserable stay at home mom
Dwayne May
this question that a friend brought up...
When you were growing up,if you were given a choice, would you have rather been
"at home" or "at daycare"? Why?
I have fond memories of being at home with my family. We lived on a lake and my
Mom spent most of our "growing up" years at home. We could swim, fish, ice
skate, play with our friends, read our books in bed, etc. when ever we were not
at school. I loved it!
I know that I will not be able to afford that (I'll be going back to work full
time as soon as the girls start school), but I really wish they could have what
my sisters and I had.
I was a child care provider for 4 years, so I know that (at least in my state),
children in daycare can not have "private time" to just read in peace or play
with friends in a closed room because they can not be out of the providers
sight. I obviously could not let them swim or play in the water (except when I
planned way ahead and had plenty of adults around).
I am not against childcare, and I feel that it can be good for children...but, I
wish I could live in a society where children could be raised in their homes
under their parents rules rather than state regulations.
Marie
MLS Online-17 gigs, (31) 28.8 lines 716.454.5555
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>..halcyon.com>>: In article <4eqej0$p...@cloner3.netcom.com>, mar...@ix.netcom.com says...: >>having worked in daycare and had Trey in one, I would say that the
>: >adults
>: >>there are people I don't WANT imprinting on my child!!! My child is
>: >very
>: >Do you really think that a daycareprovider has more influence on a
>: >child than the parents. My children went to daycare and they always
>: >knew who their parents were and what we thought about issues. The
>: >people the wanted to emulate were us not the provider. Yes my children
>: >got to meet people with different lifestyles and different ideas, but
>: >what is wrong with that. if you are secure in your beliefs your
>: >children will pick up your because they love you and identify with you
>
>: the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with parents!!!!!!!
>
>
>it's off to school where they spend 6-7 hours a day with other people
>(more if they have a long bus ride--here it can be well over an hour each
>way). So you get maybe an hour in the morning and then 3-4 at night
>before bed, some of which they'll be busy doing homework. Does that mean
>you shouldn't send your kids to shool either? (yes, I know homeschooling
>is an option that many prefer, and that's fine).
>
>I also have to wonder if it's true that MOST parents left their kids for
>that long. Most people work 8-hour days, and not too many people have an
>hour and a half commute... I'm sure there are some who had days that
>long, but MOST? Most daycares around here close at or earlier than 6,
>very few any later, which means many kids are gone well before then. I
>drive by a couple of centers on my way home and see quite a few parents
>there BEFORE 5 picking kids up.
>
>spending the majority of his/her time with other people. This does not
>mean that parents do not remain the dominant influence.
>
I would second this. Not only that, I'm not totally positive about this but I
thought that you had to have some type of special permission to register a
child for more than 9 1/2 hours per day (maybe social services needs to be
notified?). Where my children go (more than 120 kids) when I pick up my kids
at 6 PM usually only 6 kids are left. Most parents pick up between 4 and 5 PM.
My kids stay late because they are one of the last to arrive in the morning
(unless the kindergarten is in session). And I complain all the time that the
kindergarten starts at 8:30 AM. I'd just as soon have it satrt at 9 AM. My
kids are not morning people and I can't imagine having them at the daycare by 7
AM!! :-)
Michelle (mom to Kate 12/24/90 and Maggie 5/23/94)
PS Boy has this gotten nasty - why are other parents so quick to judge what
another does? I think the fact that we subscribe to this group shows that we
are all dedicated parents - some at home and some at work but all dedicated and
trying to do their best. We need to respect each others's decisions and be
aware of the difficulties of each. No one makes the decision to stay at home
or to continue working lightly without a lot of deliberation!!
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
Sorry Michael but I haven't lived near my parents since I was 17 and didn't
have my first kid until 29. I moved around a bunch to acquire the best
education. My husband hasn't lived near his folks since he was 24 (12 years
ago). In his case, he followed me around :-). I'm an academic and thus more
difficult to employ. Besides my inlaws have grandchildren in NY, Colorado, New
Mexico, Wisconsin and they have lived in NY all of their lives. So, who are
they supposed to help? The set of grandchildren in NY live too far for a daily
trip to take care of them.
Lori L. Grzybowski
have been left out of this debate regarding the
extended family's role in childcare.
Yes, I would be reluctant to impose on my parents
or in-laws and ask them to care for my children
for extended periods of time. It's not a question
of them giving up bridge club or golf games, but
income that is used to pay for health care, heat,
food and other essentials.
My widowed grandmother was able to retire while
young and healthy enough to watch my sisters and
me had my mother needed it. Many of us today
don't have that option; the economic reality is
that many people must work until an older age.
Furthermore, there are several retirement
planning guides that counsel retirees that
living near family may be an unaffordable
luxury; that their dollars stretch further in
certain areas of the country. (not advice I
necessarily agree with, but that's what
our parents are being told by some planners.)
As to the scenario that young parents would move
their children away from extended family
merely to get out of the city, and would
blithely replace the help extended family members
give with child care, I am a bit perplexed.
The members of my family have usually gone
where the jobs are offered. Offers aren't
usually so plentiful that we can pick and
choose. If we *did* get a choice, I'd prefer
to stay close to extended family for plenty of
reasons other than help with child care.
For what it's worth, I am able to work from
home now, and don't need to find child care.
But I can easily envision having to, given
the possibility of layoffs, company buyouts,
plant closings or illness.
Lori Grzybowski
Michael Powell
: >
: > Family-based systems tend to work out of a sense of duty and
: > love above the need for profit, while the day care industry
: > requires profitability, meaning that costs must be controlled,
: > and that fees collected cover these costs and deliver a profit
: > that justifies each day care center.
: >
: > These are fundimental realities of these two basic approaches.
: >
: The non-profit daycare I send my sons to is run by a
: parent committee who employ trained childcare workers
: and make all the financial (and many other) decisions.
: Recently the committee decided to raise the fees rather
: than skimp on quality of care. (Only one family
: disagreed). In this situation, the financial decisions
: are being made by people with a real interest in the
: children, as the children are their own.
Hi Hilary....
that situation sounds better than the average daycare, but still
the kids are watched by employees as labor (rather than a labor of
love), and the daycare must control costs and bring in enough
to keep the place open. (break even).
So while it's certainly better, it's not all that different in
it's basic structure.
Regards,
Michael Powel
H & M Rodley + P & P Macdiarmid
>
> Family-based systems tend to work out of a sense of duty and
> love above the need for profit, while the day care industry
> requires profitability, meaning that costs must be controlled,
> and that fees collected cover these costs and deliver a profit
> that justifies each day care center.
>
> These are fundimental realities of these two basic approaches.
>
Just a note to ponder...
The non-profit daycare I send my sons to is run by a
parent committee who employ trained childcare workers
and make all the financial (and many other) decisions.
Recently the committee decided to raise the fees rather
than skimp on quality of care. (Only one family
disagreed). In this situation, the financial decisions
are being made by people with a real interest in the
children, as the children are their own.
So your "fundamental reality" is not fundamental nor a
reality in my case! :-)
Hilary (New Zealand)
Christos S. Christoforou
Rebecca McQuitty <rm...@astro.as.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>As is your claim that women in the 20th century are *not* caring
>for their children simply because they leave them in daycare to work
>outside the house. Even children who spend 40 hours per week in
>daycare spend 75% of their week somewhere else--usually in the
>care of their parents.
I also find it funny that some tend to think that women who stayed
at home with their children in the past (pre 1950) really spent
time with their children. I think we get a romantic view of the past
without really examining the conditions. For instance, I had a recent
conversation with my grandfather. I told him I was going insane staying
at home (I am at home NOT by choice- long story) and I wondered
how my grandmother and great grandmother did it. He laughed and pointed
out to me that in one day, my grandmother (who had ten children) managed
to make meals, feed the cattle and other animals, keep the house clean,
help bring in the crops during harvest, and change a few diapers. How is
the care that she gave her children during the day any different from
a mother who works away from home other than the fact that the children
stayed at home? I realise that this is an extreme example but I think
that people tend to think that women of the past did nothing but watch
their children while at home and possibly bake a batch of cookies while
they napped.
Erika
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>N. Standen (sta...@fyfield.sjc.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
>: OK, various people have now stated their view of the problem, which -
>: sidestepping the burgeoning SAH-*or*-WOH debate which has been round
>: endlessly and which, personally, I don't wish to get involved in - seems
>: to come down to:
>
>: 1. All or most daycares are poorly run - the staff don't care about the
>: kids etc etc.
>: 2. Therefore daycare is having a terrible effect on our kids, and thus on
>: society.
>
>: My immediate response is:
>
>: OK, so what do you propose we *do* about it, as a society?
>
> I think it's great that you are asking!
>
> This requires a recognition that the use of daycare
> represents an unfortunate, but sometimes necessary
> practice. (at which point finding the best possible
> daycare is important).
>
> The *last* thing we want to do is raise our kids to
> believe that it is fully normal for people to have kids
> and then not be able to raise them in a family setting
> (including extended family, etc.).
> FIrst, the most obvious: Finish school. Get married and
> *stay* married. Don't have children out of wedlock.
Michael,
Sorry but I don't think your posting gives any solutions to the
problems with daycare. My personal opinion is (and I know it is just an
opinion) that babies under a year would greatly benefit from being at home with
a parent full time but once they reach a year and become more social the
interactions at a good quality daycare are great for a kid.
Your first suggestion - finish school. Why bother if I'm just going to
stay home with the kids? You don't need a Ph.D. to be a caring, loving,
interacting mom with kids. But in fact I did finish school. I even went on to
get my Ph.D. which I guess is part of the problem. Although financially we are
finally in a position that maybe I could quit for a while (my husband's income
has doubled since Kate was born - before this year it would not have been a
financial possibility) my field is extremely competitive. Taking time off
would mean never recovering. This is not an uncommon situation for many women
or men who might want to stay at home with the kids. As far as a stable
marriage - well I started dating my husband at 18 and we got married when I was
23, didn't have our first kid until I was 29. Stability doesn't necessarily
mean it is ok to take a few years off from your career.
>
> The gen-x'ers and younger are a good group of kids (and young
> adults). They seem to know where previous generations have
> screwed up. To help them as they are geting their lives under
> full-steam, I would suggest that we redefine what "family planning"
> means... from birth control methods to a focus of marriage
> with a lifelong comittment and occupational and financial
> preperation for children.
Good point, except for the part about previous generations screwing up.
I didn't realize us "boomers" had done such a bad job. No parent is perfect
and it is easy to find fault. Whereas you may not repeat mistakes your parents
made because you are aware of them you will probably have a few of your own.
> We need to put to rest the notion of "supermom". Raising
> kids is a team effort... no one person should be in a position
> where they are 'doing it all'. And let's not criticize
> women who decide to stay home with their kids... while at
> the same time, recognize the SAH dads out there...
What is a "supermom"? A mom who works or a mom who stays at home?
Both? This sharing issue is a biggie. Dads are doing more than they ever did
but there is on average still some improvements to be made :-)!! But I am not
sure how this sharing thing makes daycares better. In fact this sharing thing
is a bigger necessity when a mom works and uses daycare because the hours at
the end of the day are few.
> Stay close to extended family... be prepared to help your
> sibs with their kids. If mom and dad are working, try to work
> complimentary shifts, or at least shifts with minimal overlap,
> so that requests for help by friends and family is minimal,
> or that if daycare must be used, the period is very short.
Enough people (including me) have explained to you how unrealistic the
extended family thing is for many families so I won't rehash it. The shift
idea is great for a limited amount of time. I was reluctant to put a newborn
in daycare full time so with my first I worked Wed. through Sun. and my husband
cared for our daughter on the weekend for the first 6 months. With number 2 I
did this for 3 months. I did it for my babies because I felt that such young
children shouldn't be in fulltime. I was able to do this because I had
advanced my education and career!! Someone in a lesser position would probably
not have this type of flexibility. The more advanced your career the easier it
is to do this type of thing (well, most of the time, I'm sure there are
exceptions) yet you are telling women to totally sacrifice their career for
their children if the grandparents aren't available. I said that this is a
good idea for a limited amount of time because having done this I would not
recommend it as a long term solution. You stated that a stable marriage is
important but if you never see your spouse the marriage doesn't get any
attention. After 6 months of not having a weekend with my husband I was ready
to spend some time with him!!! Mileage may differ on this issue.
> Re-evaluate the notion that "these days, both parents _have_
> to work". This is _far_ too absolute. It is often simply
> untrue. You might have to let go of some of your materialism,
> but many are discovering that a one career family is ok.
> Ends still don't meet? Try working out of your home, or
> working part-time, again, with the goal of minimizing
> the need for non-family help.
When we had our first child (29 and 33 yo, after 5 years of marriage -
not something we rushed into) it was a necessity. I was a poorly paid post-doc
and my husbands career was just barely getting of the ground (it is soaring
now:-)!). We don't eat out, we don't dress up etc. Work at home? I know some
people do it but have you ever tried to work at home with a toddler underfoot?
I do it occassionally when my kids are sick or deadlines are coming up so I
have to work on Sat. or Sun. but not that much gets done unless my husband is
around to help out. I'd like to know how I could do experiments and teach
college students from home? This option may work for some but I would guess
not for the vast majority.
> Don't promote daycare as "just fine" unless you think it is
> as good or better than parenting and family care. If it's
> "o.k. if you can find a good one, and all your other options
> are limited." then say so. Let people know that you think
> that it's generally better for children to under the care
> and supervision of parents and other family.
Sorry, I don't agree. The daycare I use isn't just fine. My kids get
quality care and love playing with the other kids all day. They go on field
trips etc. I have already stated that for babies I think that being at home
with mom or dad for the first year would be great (if impractical for most) but
beyond that I don't think good daycare is "second best". When my oldest was 3
1/2 and I was home for 6 weeks maternity leave she got bored! I took her and
the baby to the lake, pool, outings to the store etc. (it was summer) but she
missed her friends and teachers. It was for this reason I didn't hire a nanny
to come to the house after I went back to work the second time. Now she is in
kindergarten at the daycare and loves it. She will be entering first grade
this fall early (just turned 5) because she is very bright and reads at about
the second grade level. She is very socialable and happy. She adores her
parents and teachers. Daycare has not been just fine for her, it has been a
great experience! All of my spare time is spent with my kids, I read to them,
play with them and take care of them. Right now I don't do anything away from
the family because I know that I work for "me". The house is a bit of a mess,
but hey, we can clean it when they go to college :-)!
>
> I'd better stop.... I'll run out of ink :-) but you get
> the picture I'm sure...
>
>: On a more practical level, and if we first set aside all the people,
>: including myself, who are very happy with their childcare arrangements,
>: then the question remains:
>
>: How do we ensure the improvement (or closure, I suppose) of the bad
>: daycares?
>
> It depends on "how bad" you mean... I mean if the facility
> is in a building that should be condemmed then normal regulators
> can shut it down. But as far as any legally operated facility
> goes, we can't, and should not, attempt to shut them down.
>
> They are opened for one reason only: demand.
>
> If we can reduce the demand, they will close down naturally.
>
> -Michael Powell-
As I said, this is not a solution. Bad daycares exist all over and
just saying that we can only shut them down due to condemned buildings is **.
In general I am not a big fan of government regulation but in this case we need
more inspections etc. The laws are on the books and there are guidelines for
simple things like - providing verbal stimulation for babies, appropriate and
sufficient numbers of toys etc. I am not talking about blatant child abuse
here such as hitting etc but even where this doesn't go on there are mediocre
daycares and good daycares. Child teacher ratios need to be strictly enforced.
Of course cleanliness. Teachers are usually required in licensed centers to
have continuing education in childcare and development. Wages need to get
better and benefits should be provided. I realize that this is a problem since
many parents can't afford higher fees. I pay a lot because the teachers do get
paid more than $5/hr (I think it might be $7 or $8) and they get full benefits
(including tuition remission on campus). Get involved with your daycare -
don't just drop your kids off and pick them up. Spend some time there. There
need to be sliding fees at good centers so that people with lower incomes can
use them. Michael, you are so worried about the ills of society. The first
five years of a child's life are the most important in determining their
future. The crime and drugs are the biggest problems in low income areas where
the mom is often home with the kids while on welfare (I am certainly not
pointing any fingers here to SAH moms in this group - if you are on the net
looking for information on child rearing - you don't fall into this category).
Some news show last year showed how poorly some low income kids were doing in
many of these situations, living in trailer homes etc. They had kids entering
kindergarten not knowing which way to hold a book!!! That is what the head
start program is all about. These kids tend to do better when exposed to a
preschool (i.e. daycare) rather than just left at home with few books and toys.
Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. We need solutions how to make
daycares better and to make good ones more accessible to all of the people.
Part of the solution is unfortunately money. Tax dollars are stretched thin
but this is a form of education. How much money do public schools get per
pupil per year? At this point it has to be a grass roots effort costing no
money. Stop by your daycare unannounced. Any violations or even just mild
concerns should be discussed with the center's director. Encourage your center
to go for accredidation by NYAEC, etc.
Michelle
Mom to Kate 12/24/90 and Maggie 5/23/94
Mike Powell
[deletions]
: As to the scenario that young parents would move
: their children away from extended family
: merely to get out of the city,
The example _did not_ center around leaving
'the city'. It centered around a pay increase.
: and would
: blithely replace the help extended family members
: give with child care, I am a bit perplexed.
: The members of my family have usually gone
: where the jobs are offered.
And where would that be? (Answer: everywhere, basically.)
And since 'jobs' are to be found 'all over' then what determines
how far one decides to go?
: Offers aren't
: usually so plentiful that we can pick and
: choose. If we *did* get a choice, I'd prefer
: to stay close to extended family for plenty of
: reasons other than help with child care.
So you are saying that your situation is the same situation
of everyone else?
If not, then you are only relating _your_ personal situation,
which has little bearing on society as a whole.
The example you mention was merely provided to convey a general
concept. It was not designed to mirror the experience of every
American family in a one-size-fits-all manner.
: For what it's worth, I am able to work from
: home now, and don't need to find child care.
Bingo. Good answer. Was work-at-home forced upon
you, or did you choose? If you chose, then was your choice
influenced by what it would mean for your relationship with
your child? (my guess, is that the answer is 'yes')
And this is all that I've been talking about. Keeping
your contact with your own children as a very high priority
in your decision-making process... to put your kids in the
care of strangers only as a last resort, or only for very brief
periods of time.
But what do we see today? We see government giving tax incentives
to do just that! Why don't we have tax incentives for keeping
kids with family instead? What are our priorities?
: But I can easily envision having to, given
: the possibility of layoffs, company buyouts,
: plant closings or illness.
That things change in life are a given. What influences
our responses is what is important here.
If we think our kids matter, and if we think our kids benefit
by us being with them (as opposed to a woman we don't really know,
but has a 'license', and who may or may not decide to spank
our kids for potty accidents... for example), then our
responses to the shifting currents of life will likely
be influenced by a strong desire to keep them in our care
or that care of trusted and devoted family as much as possible.
Regards, and "good show" on your work at home approach.
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: Michael,
GOOD! It wasn't supposed to!
"The problem", as I have approached it, is not _in_ daycare, it
*is* daycare! The only solution being: stop using it.
In short: Raise your kids.
: My personal opinion is (and I know it is just an
: opinion) that babies under a year would greatly benefit from being at home with
: a parent full time but once they reach a year and become more social the
: interactions at a good quality daycare are great for a kid.
So how does a kid go from "great benetit" of parenting at 11 months
and 30 days, then in the next few days, it's 'great' that a kid is
in day care?
The answer is obvious. There is a long period of transition.
Yet what do we see? Babies as young as a month or two, dropped off
at day care for *full working days*... which continue year after year,
and even after pre-school supplements it (if they are in different
locations), and then as a supplement in the grade school years.
Everyone that thinks that's perfectly good... as good as being at
at home with mom or dad or Aunt Tracy or gramma... raise your hand.
Are there people that avoid this kind of situation? Youbetcha.
Hats off to 'em.
But that doesn't change the fact that it is happening a lot... and
from every indication, will continue to increase.
[when I got my PhD, when we got married, when we had kids, deleted]
: >
: > The gen-x'ers and younger are a good group of kids (and young
: > adults). They seem to know where previous generations have
: > screwed up. To help them as they are geting their lives under
: > full-steam, I would suggest that we redefine what "family planning"
: > means... from birth control methods to a focus of marriage
: > with a lifelong comittment and occupational and financial
: > preperation for children.
: Good point, except for the part about previous generations screwing up.
: I didn't realize us "boomers" had done such a bad job. No parent is perfect
: and it is easy to find fault. Whereas you may not repeat mistakes your parents
: made because you are aware of them you will probably have a few of your own.
Pretty irrelevant... are our kids safer today then they were one
generation ago? Less likely to commit a crime or have one
committed against them? Are they better or less well educated?
How much time do they spend with family and relatives constructing
bonds that will serve them a lifetime? etc. etc. etc.
All parents make mistakes... common sense, without any need
to even make the point. What *is* relevant, is what is happening
to our kids. Either we, as parents, are doing a better job, or
we are doing a worse job. *That's* what's worth looking at.
[discussion on definition of 'supermom', deleted]
: > Stay close to extended family... be prepared to help your
: > sibs with their kids. If mom and dad are working, try to work
: > complimentary shifts, or at least shifts with minimal overlap,
: > so that requests for help by friends and family is minimal,
: > or that if daycare must be used, the period is very short.
: Enough people (including me) have explained to you how unrealistic the
: extended family thing is for many families so I won't rehash it.
It is only unrealistic by our mutual failure to maintain such
relationships. Again, it falls right back on our shoulders.
Fix them. When it comes time to move away, don't. Or move
together. But if you do separate, know what you are potentially
giving up.
: The shift
: idea is great for a limited amount of time. I was reluctant to put a newborn
: in daycare full time
Many don't have such reluctance... or if they do, they put their
newborns in daycare anyway. (you knew that, right?)
: so with my first I worked Wed. through Sun. and my husband
: cared for our daughter on the weekend for the first 6 months. With number 2 I
: did this for 3 months. I did it for my babies because I felt that such young
: children shouldn't be in fulltime.
Good for you! (good for your kids!)
You are my kind of mom...
But has your concern for your newborn kids had a chance to
go beyond the confines of your own family? Do you have any
concern for all of the other newborns out there that *are*
in full time?
I do.
: I was able to do this because I had
: advanced my education and career!! Someone in a lesser position would probably
: not have this type of flexibility. The more advanced your career the easier it
: is to do this type of thing (well, most of the time, I'm sure there are
: exceptions) yet you are telling women to totally sacrifice their career for
: their children if the grandparents aren't available.
I am? It might help if you directed me back to where I said that.
(which, of course, I didn't, so don't bother :-)
What I can say is that:
For those coupples who have:
1 both gotten into a full-time career, and...
2 allowed themselves to become isolated from extended family...
I would *strongly* question a decision to have kids.
It basically comes down to this... They don't have the time or
flexability or family support to raise kids... but they _do_
have money. Standard answer: Buy flexability. Buy support.
Problem: Money can't buy me love.
: I said that this is a
: good idea for a limited amount of time because having done this I would not
: recommend it as a long term solution. You stated that a stable marriage is
: important but if you never see your spouse the marriage doesn't get any
: attention. After 6 months of not having a weekend with my husband I was ready
: to spend some time with him!!! Mileage may differ on this issue.
My wife and I have done this for well over a year. No problem.
I've talked to some people who say that "If I saw him more often,
we'd probably get a divorce :-). And of course, this does not result
in "never" seeing your spouse. It only reduces the time.
But with the adults, suddenly not being together becomes an
important issue... but when it comes down to little children,
no biggie... put them in day care year after year. It's the
adults that need to be together, right? (wrong.)
[discussion of work-at-home and such, deleted]
:
: >
: > I'd better stop.... I'll run out of ink :-) but you get
: > the picture I'm sure...
: >
: >: On a more practical level, and if we first set aside all the people,
: >: including myself, who are very happy with their childcare arrangements,
: >: then the question remains:
: >
: >: How do we ensure the improvement (or closure, I suppose) of the bad
: >: daycares?
: >
: > It depends on "how bad" you mean... I mean if the facility
: > is in a building that should be condemmed then normal regulators
: > can shut it down. But as far as any legally operated facility
: > goes, we can't, and should not, attempt to shut them down.
: >
: > They are opened for one reason only: demand.
: >
: > If we can reduce the demand, they will close down naturally.
: >
: > -Michael Powell-
: As I said, this is not a solution. Bad daycares exist all over and
: just saying that we can only shut them down due to condemned buildings is **.
That's not what was said.
I have never argued the merits of one daycare over another.
There will always be greater and lesser daycares.
: In general I am not a big fan of government regulation but in this case we need
: more inspections etc.
Why, if daycare is so good? (it serves to make my point)
[a long series of items that on whole represent a huge government-
run and/or monitored effort, along with calls to pay day care
providers more, while costing less and becoming more available
to more people, representing yet another intrusion of government
agencies into American life, this time right into the heart
of the family... the parenting of small children, deleted.]
: Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent. We need solutions how to make
: daycares better and to make good ones more accessible to all of the people.
: Part of the solution is unfortunately money. Tax dollars are stretched thin
: but this is a form of education.
So now its down to the allmighty dollar is it?
Don't you realize that you are calling for government to step
in and basically put an end to parents raising their own children
in their formative years?
This, moms and dads, is *exactly* the kind of reason I have
been concerned with this glowing notion of 'total appropriateness'
that we have granted this thing called 'daycare'. Not in it's
earliest forms... and not all that much the way it is today...
but with an eye on tomorrow I see where we are going... I hear
the calls for expanded usage... I hear the tax code changing in
yet another effort to engineer changes in social behavior... I
hear "child care is a fundimental right" coming just around the
corner...
All so we can have our careers... or not have to be bothered
with marriage, and not maintain servicable family ties... it's just
to hard to raise kids anymore. We need another agency. We need
more inspectors, we need more laws, all to protect our kids while
they are no longer under our personal protection. Right?
Folks, it's not so much where we are at... it's where we are
*going*.
Do we *really* want to work harder and longer so that we can
pay other people to "be there" for our kids?
God help us. (and forgive us)
-mp-
naomi pardue
> Lori L. Grzybowski (lo...@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote:
> [deletions]
> : As to the scenario that young parents would move
> : their children away from extended family
> : merely to get out of the city,
> The example _did not_ center around leaving
> 'the city'. It centered around a pay increase.
> : and would
> : blithely replace the help extended family members
> : give with child care, I am a bit perplexed.
> : The members of my family have usually gone
> : where the jobs are offered.
> And where would that be? (Answer: everywhere, basically.)
> And since 'jobs' are to be found 'all over' then what determines
> how far one decides to go?
I am utterly thrilled that you are happy and content to work for minimum
wage at your local McDonalds so you can stay close to your extended
family. Other people consider job satisfaction (and yes, gasp! money)
to be important considerations.
Naomi
Lise Mendel
>
> But what do we see today? We see government giving tax incentives
> to do just that! Why don't we have tax incentives for keeping
> kids with family instead? What are our priorities?
>
'Government Tax Incentives?' Where?! The money spent on daycare is
deducted from income. If it drops you down a bracket it might be worth
something, but for most of us it's hardly enough to be an incentive.
What you're saying is that it's not a valid business expense to have
children that need caring for. I know a lot of business that think that
the employees on children should not exist at all, if there is _any_
chance they could interfere with work. At a guess, I'd say you come
from the other side of the issue, but agree -- business should not exist
when it might interfere with children?
A nice idea, and I think that society should be focused on children much
more than it is, but until the 'family wage' is re-instated daycare is a
reality.
Lise Mendel
Mommy to Abigail (5/9/93) and Dorothy (10/19/95)
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
Lots of stuff deleted.
>
> All so we can have our careers... or not have to be bothered
> with marriage, and not maintain servicable family ties... it's just
> to hard to raise kids anymore. We need another agency. We need
> more inspectors, we need more laws, all to protect our kids while
> they are no longer under our personal protection. Right?
>
> Folks, it's not so much where we are at... it's where we are
> *going*.
>
> Do we *really* want to work harder and longer so that we can
> pay other people to "be there" for our kids?
>
> God help us. (and forgive us)
>
> -mp-
Ok Michael, I give up. I'm not going to get anything across to you and you are
certainly not convincing me of the "evils" of daycare. This is all just a
waste of time, I guess. I am confidant and happy with the choices I have made
for my kids. They mean the world to me and I have not compromised them by my
choices. You will not convince me otherwise. So I am signing off from this
debate. You know my views.
Michelle (mom to Kate 12/24/90 and Maggie 5/23/94)
John R. Potter
the over all quality of childcare.
Ten years ago I looked for afordable quality childcare and found not one
that met my standards. The work was hard and pay was low. Many workers
were using the position as just a job till they could find something
better or till they finished training for another job. To them it was
just a job. I wanted a childcare provider who thought it was more than a
job. I wanted someone who would really care for my children; like they
would care for their own.
Well to make a long story short, I didn't go back to my profession. My
husband is still, and I was a geophysicist. Although my husband makes
good money I sill needed additional income. I opened and still operate a
register home childcare. I offer the quality of childcare that I couldn't
find. I take continuing education classes in childdevelopment and
childcare. I stay involved in children's issues. I have made children my
profession. The children that I care for are like a part of my family.
Most people don't have tha option of staying home with their children. I
concider myself extreamy lucky!!
Now that I have been in childcare for some years, I have met other
childcare providers like myself. Poeple who really care for the
children. There is quality care avaliable and parents must be educated
about the needs of young children and learn how to seek out and even
demand quality childcare.
What ever childcare situation your child is in, make it a point to get to
know your provider. Request information about the day's activities. How
much TV, what books did the provider read each day, and is the day
structured around the child's needs or are the child's needs forced to
conform to the days structure?
Parents are responsible for daycare. After you choose what you believe
to be the best situation for your child, don't stop checking and working
to improve the situation. A parent must be vidulent and not become so
comfortable that all you do is drop off and pick up you child at daycare.
Karen Potter
http://www.NeoSoft.com/~jrpotter/karen.html
Mike Powell
Your response is something that my grandma would have
called a 'smart remark'.
If I was to follow in step your your tone, I might pretend that
you were suggesting that parents should up-root and go as far as
they need to to be most satified with their job and to get the
maximum possible pay. To heck with family. They can visit us
every couple of years at Christmas. The children don't need to
know them anyway....
Is that *really* the kind of discussion you want to have?
That 'job satisfaction' and 'money' are important considerations
has *never* been in debate.
It all comes down to issues of what is *more* important.
Our kids? Our careers? Our 'job satisfaction'? A general
lust for money? etc. etc. etc.
They sometimes weigh against eachother. No one disputes this.
Should one dive headlong into poverty so they can be with their
children? Let's try to use common sense here! I make assumptions
that such absurd notions are well below the caliber of this
group, and we need not waste our time on the obvious.
Regards,
Michael Powell
N. Standen
refutation of the idea that daycare is somehow at the root of all
society's evils, except for two things:
1. I notice that Michael has yet to respond to the historical arguments
presented by myself and others to point out that non-familial care has
been a commonplace throughout the world for a great deal of history.
Presumably *all* the evils that have ever befallen societies throughout
history could thus be attributed to the extensive use of this type of
care?
2. I note, yet again, the extraordinary association of the possession of
a marriage certificate with stable family life. Marriage is just fine if
it's your choice, but it is possible to have a stable, and indeed a
moral, family life without the piece of paper, if *that* is your choice.
Similarly, it need hardly be reiterated that possession of a marriage
certificate is no guarantee, by itself, of the continuity (or the health,
as some posters have pointed out) of a relationship, any more than the
lack of a marriage certificate, by itself, is any guarantee that the
relationship will *not* last. The insistence on formal wedlock is a red
herring because it ignores the fact that what *really* matters between
two people - particularly if they have children - is their commitment (I
never know if it has one "t" or two) to each other and their child/ren.
How that commitment is expressed is irrelevant.
Arguments based upon notions of a mythical and idealised past
unfortunately founder upon the hard rocks (and wither before the
delightful flowers, if I may extend the metaphor) of real life.
Naomi Standen (mother of Sam (18/07/95))
sta...@fyfield.sjc.ox.ac.uk
==========================================
Person-in-street: Do you want a boy or a girl?
Parent-to-be: Yes!
Mike Powell
: mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) wrote:
: >
: > But what do we see today? We see government giving tax incentives
: > to do just that! Why don't we have tax incentives for keeping
: > kids with family instead? What are our priorities?
: >
: 'Government Tax Incentives?' Where?! The money spent on daycare is
: deducted from income. If it drops you down a bracket it might be worth
: something, but for most of us it's hardly enough to be an incentive.
On the contrary.. tax incentives, tight here, right now,
are available as a direct _tax credit_. Meaning... take a
certain percentage of your child care expenses and just
subtract it from your total tax due!
But for families that do the hard work of finding a way to
keep their children at home or with other family???
So sorry... you pay the full tax bill.
What's wrong with this picture?
Regards,
Michael Powell
L_MERTZMAN
c...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Christos S. Christoforou) writes:
> >As is your claim that women in the 20th century are *not* caring
> >for their children simply because they leave them in daycare to work
> >outside the house. Even children who spend 40 hours per week in
> >daycare spend 75% of their week somewhere else--usually in the
> >care of their parents.
>
> I also find it funny that some tend to think that women who stayed
> at home with their children in the past (pre 1950) really spent
> time with their children. I think we get a romantic view of the past
> without really examining the conditions.
<snip>
I have to agree here. My great grandparents had a farm and she always
spoke of how hard life was with keeping up with laundry (manual),
cooking, preserving, growing a kitchen garden, milking, feeding the
animals and helping with planting and harvesting. Sounds like there
wasn't alot of "quality time" :-) And my grandfather (and his three
sibs) started helping with the farm work very early. Another set of
greatgrandparents were very wealthy and my grandmother had a nanny and
then governess- again not a lot of "quality time" with mom and dad. I
find it hard to believe that these are atypical examples. So, I don't
find anything "abnormal" about not spending the day having "quality
time" with my children. If anything the 50's and later example of
"profession: mother" are an aberration- before that people were too
busy with subsistence.
L_MERTZMAN
r...@crl.com (Michael Powell) writes:
> All so we can have our careers... or not have to be bothered
> with marriage, and not maintain servicable family ties... it's just
> to hard to raise kids anymore. We need another agency. We need
> more inspectors, we need more laws, all to protect our kids while
> they are no longer under our personal protection. Right?
I still fail to see what marriage has to do with raising children well.
Perhaps you can elaborate on that.
Mike Powell
...[deletions]
: Parents are responsible for daycare. After you choose what you believe
: to be the best situation for your child, don't stop checking and working
: to improve the situation. A parent must be vidulent and not become so
: comfortable that all you do is drop off and pick up you child at daycare.
Great posting...
That you made a full assessment of daycare some years
ago, and decided that it did not meet your standards, and
then actually *doing* something about it is very impressive.
And that you also know enough to hope that parents will
be activly and regularly involved with the daycare provider
and maintaining an intimate knowledge of daily activities that
a child is engaged in is very very commendable and wise MHO.
That you also warn that parents not get comfortable and just
'drop off and pick up' their children at daycare along with
a reminder that it is still _they_ who are responsible, is
fantastically wonderful advice...
There is a need for such advice... for we must admit that as
a society we are becoming more and more 'comfortable' with
the notion of putting our children in all-day daycare, even at
the youngest of ages... and as you warn, (and I agree) that as
we become fully comfortable with daycare and our apprehension
drops, more and more people will do exactly as you warn against...
and will simply 'drop off' and 'pick up' their kids.
Moreover, the pressures that _used_ to cause us to prompt
family involvement will diminish eventually to the point where
it will be quite unusual to ask aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers,
and grandparents to help us with our kids for even the briefest of
periods... and that the 8-9 hours a child will spend with the
adults at day care will represent the single largest involvement
with adults that the child has during the day... week after week,
stretching into years.
That there could be _no_ consequences for this level and type
of fundimental social change is totally unthinkable. What the
full and final effect will be is anyones guess.
It is the eagerness and blind trust that we are investing in
this process that is one of my greatest concerns... why am I
such a lone voice saying "hey gang, this might not be such a good
idea...."?
Karen, you are the kind of person that I have _no_ concerns
about. But not everyone is like you ... with the same concerns
and insights that you have, nor the desire to act in the
way or degree that you have. I fear that you are the exception
and not the rule.
Daycare is a seductive 'fix' for us... and I don't mind a 'fix'
when it involves a kitchen appliance or a leaky roof, but we are
talking about our kids here...
Regards,
Mike Powell
naomi pardue
> naomi pardue (npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
> : I am utterly thrilled that you are happy and content to work for minimum
> : wage at your local McDonalds so you can stay close to your extended
> : family. Other people consider job satisfaction (and yes, gasp! money)
> : to be important considerations.
> Your response is something that my grandma would have
> called a 'smart remark'.
Yes, it was intended as sarcasm. However, you seemed to have little
understanding for people who might choose to leave the town they were
born so as to actually get a good job in which they could get good pay
for doing work they enjoy and are trained for.
>
If I was to follow in step your your tone, I might pretend that
> you were suggesting that parents should up-root and go as far as
> they need to to be most satified with their job and to get the
> maximum possible pay. To heck with family. They can visit us
> every couple of years at Christmas. The children don't need to
> know them anyway....
I live 400 miles away from my parents. I visit them once a year and
they visit us once a year. If I did NOT live 400 miles away from my
parents, I would not have met my husband. We all make choices. I don't
believe that remaining in the same city with one's parents, after one is
grown, is, or should be, a primary consideration.
> That 'job satisfaction' and 'money' are important considerations
> has *never* been in debate.
> It all comes down to issues of what is *more* important.
> Our kids? Our careers? Our 'job satisfaction'? A general
> lust for money? etc. etc. etc.
Of course our kids are important. I don't quite grasp though how you
feel that it demonstrates a lack of caring for our children if we live
in a place where we must use professional child care, rather than
depending on grandparents so we may work for a living. It need not be a
choice between our children and everything else in our lives.
I assure you that if my daughter's health and well being depended on it,
I would quit my job, work at McDonalds, move back to Rochester, move to
Timbuktu; whatever it would take! However, since her health and
well-being are in no way compromised by the situation she is in, that is
the situation that will remain.
Naomi
naomi pardue
Well, parents who keep their children at home don't have to pay
childcare, so they need no tax credit to help defray it. Parents who
depend on free-care from relatives also don't have to pay for childcare,
and STILL come out ahead in the long run? (Have actually LOOKED at the
tax credit? It's 20-30% of your child care bill ... provided your total
child care bill is no more than $2400 a year per child. Ok. I'm lucky.
My kid is in half-day care, so that $2400 ALMOST covers the total fee.
But figure a typical daycare charges $80-$100 per week. Taking the lower
fee, that's 4,160 per year. The tax credit is (for most of us) $480 per
year. Wow! [Oh, and I believe that if your income is very high, the
credit is smaller.]
> What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing. SInce for a great many parents, there is no option but to
work, and no child-care option but to pay for it.
Naomi
KGranju
month old has suddenly developed a huge interest in solid food. She is
breastfed and I have not offered her any baby food or purees. Now she
grabs at, whines for and generally is demanding bites of whatever I eat.
Obviously, much of what I eat is unsuitable, but her small motor skills
are excellent and I am wondering what foods she might be able to enjoy
trying to eat with her own little hands off of her high chair tray?
Any thoughts?
naomi pardue
Cheerios may be a little small for her to grasp at this point, but if
she can get them to her mouth, she can try them. You can also try any
other non-allergenic, fairly soft food that will dissolve without too
much work. (Or firm things that she can gnaw on) How about cubes of soft
cooked veggies or fruit? Crackers? Bits of ground meat? A bagel? I'm
sure other folks will have other ideas.
Naomi
Thomas A. McGlynn
...
> (Have [you] actually LOOKED at the
> tax credit? It's 20-30% of your child care bill ... provided your total
> child care bill is no more than $2400 a year per child. Ok. I'm lucky.
> My kid is in half-day care, so that $2400 ALMOST covers the total fee.
> But figure a typical daycare charges $80-$100 per week. Taking the lower
> fee, that's 4,160 per year. The tax credit is (for most of us) $480 per
> year.
> Naomi
I believe that Naomi is right that the tax credit tops out at
about $500. If your employer offers it there is also the possibility
of paying up to $5000 dollars of day care expenses using
pre-tax dollars. Since this means that you pay neither
federal nor state (I think) income tax on the money this
can be equivalent to a credir of up to about $2,000 -- depending
on what your state tax is. I think you still get the SS
and Medicare deduction. There are some catches to this
but it can be a good deal.
Tom McGlynn
Mike Powell
: In article <4f79df$r...@nntp.crl.com>
: r...@crl.com (Michael Powell) writes:
Marriage is the institution where an open and public
committments can be entered into by the human 'mating pair'.
This committment serves as the centerpiece to the care of children
from that pair. This structure is a time-tested and proven
structure that serves to protect children and thereby secure
future generations.
(Which is why the concept of marriage is so ancient, and so
universal...)
-mp-
Michelle Finney
<Dwayn...@mlstand.com> writes
>I am not for or against childcare, however, I would love to hear the answer to
>this question that a friend brought up...
>
>When you were growing up,if you were given a choice, would you have rather been
>"at home" or "at daycare"? Why?
>
>I have fond memories of being at home with my family. We lived on a lake and my
>Mom spent most of our "growing up" years at home. We could swim, fish, ice
>skate, play with our friends, read our books in bed, etc. when ever we were not
>at school. I loved it!
I notice you use the word 'we' - I take it you had siblings. As an
only child who lived in an out-of-the-way place, I loved the experience.
Being an only child often means being bombarded with parental attention
and, at daycare, the attention received is, as you say, constant, but
a lot more diffuse. Parents are great (aren't we just!) but it is
often a revelatory experience when only children are let loose into
the world of their contemporaries.
My two year old daughter also loves it: she's at the college creche
2 to 3 days a week while I study. Presently an only child, she relishes
the chance for some serious playing - I guess I'm okay, but just don't
run about enough for her liking...
I don't know what the US laws are, but here(UK) no child in daycare is
allowed to be physically punished. It's generally agreed that it's
a bad thing, for the appalling example of adult conduct it sets up.
Michelle Finney
Turnpike evaluation. For information, email: in...@turnpike.com
N. Standen
In article <4f79df$r...@nntp.crl.com> Michael Powell, r...@crl.com writes:
>> I hear "child care is a fundimental right" coming just around the
> corner...
Well, many of us in Europe already think it is.... But of course, it's
well known that we're a bunch of liberals/socialists, so we would think
that wouldn't we?
Of course, we also have far lower levels of violent crime than does the
States, but I don't expect it would suit you to connect that to our
attitude to childcare, would it?
I wonder if Michael also believes in the inalienable right of every
American to own a firearm, and whether he would connect *that* to the
number of violent-crimes-involving-firearms you have over there every
year?
And what is the correlation between use of childcare and use of firearms
within, say, the first 5 years of the child's life (by child, parent, or
daycarer)? Answers on a postcard please. There will be a prize of a
year's childcare vouchers and a Winchester rifle for the first correct
answer to be picked out of a hat.
Lori L. Grzybowski
>Lori L. Grzybowski (lo...@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote:
>[deletions]
>
>: As to the scenario that young parents would move
>: their children away from extended family
>: merely to get out of the city,
>
> The example _did not_ center around leaving
> 'the city'. It centered around a pay increase.
>
>: and would
>: blithely replace the help extended family members
>: give with child care, I am a bit perplexed.
>: The members of my family have usually gone
>: where the jobs are offered.
>
> And where would that be? (Answer: everywhere, basically.)
>
> And since 'jobs' are to be found 'all over' then what determines
> how far one decides to go?
Yes, there are "jobs" everywhere. Whether they are jobs that
can support a family, for which one is qualified, and available
is another thing. My family's experiences in the job market
bear out a lot of media reports: the market is tight and
people are having tough times finding such jobs.
Of course, I suppose you could argue that one should aim
for only the type of jobs that exist wherever your extended
family live. No marine biology for you if you grow up in
Nebraska, regardless of interest or aptitude!
>
>: Offers aren't
>: usually so plentiful that we can pick and
>: choose. If we *did* get a choice, I'd prefer
>: to stay close to extended family for plenty of
>: reasons other than help with child care.
>
> So you are saying that your situation is the same situation
> of everyone else?
>
> If not, then you are only relating _your_ personal situation,
> which has little bearing on society as a whole.
>
> The example you mention was merely provided to convey a general
> concept. It was not designed to mirror the experience of every
> American family in a one-size-fits-all manner.
Well, *my* example, though it may have little bearing on society
as a whole, is based in fact. It is an opinion shared by most
other people I know who live away from their extended family.
People who have missed grandparents at family birthdays and
holiday celebrations, bemoaned the difficulty in arranging for
care of aging parents at a distance, have trouble choosing
appropriate gifts for far-flung family members or just
plain miss impromptu get-togethers and conversations about
everything and nothing. Not people who figure that "good
day care" is the major benefit of living close to family.
>: For what it's worth, I am able to work from
>: home now, and don't need to find child care.
>
> Bingo. Good answer. Was work-at-home forced upon
> you, or did you choose? If you chose, then was your choice
> influenced by what it would mean for your relationship with
> your child? (my guess, is that the answer is 'yes')
Good answer? Lucky answer. My company was among the first
I know of to institute telecommuting, more than 10 years ago.
It's still not an option for many people.
>[snip]
>
>: But I can easily envision having to, given
>: the possibility of layoffs, company buyouts,
>: plant closings or illness.
>
> That things change in life are a given. What influences
> our responses is what is important here.
>
> If we think our kids matter, and if we think our kids benefit
> by us being with them (as opposed to a woman we don't really know,
> but has a 'license', and who may or may not decide to spank
> our kids for potty accidents... for example), then our
> responses to the shifting currents of life will likely
> be influenced by a strong desire to keep them in our care
> or that care of trusted and devoted family as much as possible.
It's not so simple as you make it sound. If we think our kids
matter, we will also be influenced by a strong desire to keep
them fed, clothed and able to visit the doctor as necessary.
We may also want to keep them in a smoke-free environment,
which many child-care providers offer and many relatives
do not. We may find otherwise trusted and devoted family
members have outdated notions of child-rearing ("Hmmph!
I raised 4 kids without car seats, started them on solids
at 6 weeks, never needed any of these fancy outlet plugs,
and let them `cry it out' -- and all of them turned out
just fine -- you read this stuff in a book and think you
know more than an experienced parent?") or styles of
parenting that differ sharply from our own -- there
may well be *more* spanking of relatives than goes on
in day care situations ("Didn't I spank *you* as a
child? *You* turned out fine -- I did it because I loved
you, and it's still the best way to teach right from
wrong."
Lori Grzybowski
Glenn Johnson (KB5VQI)
>When is a baby old enough to eat cheerios and other finger foods? My 6
>month old has suddenly developed a huge interest in solid food. She is
>breastfed and I have not offered her any baby food or purees. Now she
>grabs at, whines for and generally is demanding bites of whatever I eat.
>Obviously, much of what I eat is unsuitable, but her small motor skills
>are excellent and I am wondering what foods she might be able to enjoy
>trying to eat with her own little hands off of her high chair tray?
>Any thoughts?
We started giving Alex cheerios around 6 1/2 months. We started
him on bananas, applesauce, and cereal around 5 months. We now
give him peas, arrowroot cookies, vanilla wafers (which I JUST found
bite size ones at the store - yea!!!) potatoes, etc. I pretty much
let him try my food if it's soft and not spicey. He's had mac and
cheese and fish sticks but enjoyed playing with them more than
eating them.
Amy (mommy to Alex 5/12/95 and Lil One 8/1/96)
*********************************************************************
Amy Johnson "A spirit with a vision
Fort Worth,Texas USA is a dream with a mission"
ra...@metronet.com
http://www.metronet.com/~raki/alex.html
Ron & Sheila Kimball
>
>In article <4esdd5$h...@news.halcyon.com>,
>Ron & Sheila Kimball <kimb...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>let's see, most of the parents at the daycare I worked in dropped their
kids
>>off at 7 and picked them up around 6, so that's 11 hours with caregivers,
if
>>the kids go to sleep at 8, that's 2 whopping hours with parents!!!!!!!
>
>This doesn't sound like my day or the day of anyone I know who
>uses daycare. You must have had either parents with very
>long commutes, or workaholics.
>
I live about 45minutes to an hour from downtown Seattle, so by the time they
bring the kids in and get to work, then work 9 hours (pretty standard, 8
hours plus lunch) and get back out here, not to mention running by the
store, getting gas, any other errands, that's a great deal of time, and I
think its very normal.
>The workers at my son's daycare are mostly moms, with their
>children in the center. None of them are high school girls.
>(Although during the summer they do hire some college students
>working on their degrees in education.)
>
well, it must be nice to live in Utopia.
Sheila
Carol Alvin
>
> And that you also know enough to hope that parents will
> be activly and regularly involved with the daycare provider
> and maintaining an intimate knowledge of daily activities that
> a child is engaged in is very very commendable and wise MHO.
Michael, I think you're preaching to the choir. After reading
misc.kids for four years, I have found the people here to be
by and large very concerned and thoughtful parents.
...
>
> It is the eagerness and blind trust that we are investing in
> this process that is one of my greatest concerns... why am I
> such a lone voice saying "hey gang, this might not be such a good
> idea...."?
What makes you think that we use daycare with "eagerness and
blind trust"?? I think most of us who use it have spent a lot
of time considering our options and have decided that daycare is
the best option for us at the present time. I know my defense
of my daycare situation stems from the fact that we have done
a lot of thought and research and come to the conclusion that
our son is in a good situation at this time. Maybe it won't be
in the future, but we'll keep evaluating that. Only I and my
husband are in a position to judge that.
Really, your assumption that we are simpletons is insulting.
-Carol
Jared's mommy, 4-13-94
Mike Powell
: I have very little to add to what Michelle and others have said in
: refutation of the idea that daycare is somehow at the root of all
: society's evils, except for two things:
: 1. I notice that Michael has yet to respond to the historical arguments
: presented by myself and others to point out that non-familial care has
: been a commonplace throughout the world for a great deal of history.
I think that you simply didn't notice the response.
Some of the claims have been so amazingly crazy as to not
deserve a serious response... like saying that mothers have
never cared for their children untill the 20th century...
That really needs no response... it's clearly goofy.
But as far as non-familial care as being commonplace...
Never disputed. Of course other kinds have been used...
and it made the world a perfect place, right? Of course
it didn't. We all know that. So what possible point does
such a discussion make? That 'non-familial care' has
been commonplace, along with war, disease, hatred, violence
slavery, etc. etc. etc.
The point is: It makes no significant point.
But I think that you basically understand this because of
the extreme twist you decided to put on your charactorization
of my position in your next sentence:
: Presumably *all* the evils that have ever befallen societies throughout
: history could thus be attributed to the extensive use of this type of
: care?
Why would you pretend to expand my concern for how children are
raised to now include 'all evils' throughout history?
Could it be because the 'point' that 'non-familial care' has
been used to some unspecified degree throughout history really
doesn't address the issues I have brought up? Like I point
out... the world has always had evils, and neither you nor
I know which evils and to what extent they have been influenced
by how children are raised. Again, it means that it's a non-point.
: 2. I note, yet again, the extraordinary association of the possession of
: a marriage certificate with stable family life.
There is no association with the posession of a marriage
certificate.
You might be interested to know that marriage is older than paper.
: Marriage is just fine if
: it's your choice, but it is possible to have a stable, and indeed a
: moral, family life without the piece of paper, if *that* is your choice.
This has never been debated. (like a lot of other things that
you and others have brought up).
But I should point out that you are talking about what is
_possible_... what _can_ happen. Not what _WILL_ happen.
I _CAN_ win the lottery. I will _probably_ loose.
Civilization advances not based on what is possible, but by
what actually happens. Out ability to predict what is most
likely to occur in a given set of circumstances is the key
to our success.
For example, we know that those who finish high school & get married
before having kids and stay married are among the least likely
to become impoverished.
(it's my understanding that ~97% of America's poor failed to
achieve one or more of the above conditions... but that's
another topic, I guess).
Point is: Anything _can_ happen, yet we know that marriage does
make a substantial difference on the whole.
: Similarly, it need hardly be reiterated that possession of a marriage
: certificate is no guarantee, by itself, of the continuity (or the health,
: as some posters have pointed out) of a relationship, any more than the
: lack of a marriage certificate, by itself, is any guarantee that the
: relationship will *not* last. The insistence on formal wedlock is a red
: herring because it ignores the fact that what *really* matters between
: two people - particularly if they have children - is their commitment (I
: never know if it has one "t" or two) to each other and their child/ren.
: How that commitment is expressed is irrelevant.
Correct. Yet you are still talking about what is _possible_ and
not what works. Eventually your notions would have to be put
to the the test of the real world... and the final question
will be: Does marriage make a difference.
If it does (and we know it does) then it is by no means a
"red herring".
That you may not understand _why_ it does, or be able to predict
when it will make a difference and when it won't, changes
nothing.
: Arguments based upon notions of a mythical and idealised past
: unfortunately founder upon the hard rocks (and wither before the
: delightful flowers, if I may extend the metaphor) of real life.
Perhaps that is true, except that it does not apply here
at all because my arguments are not based on "notions of
a mythical and idealised past". I wonder what assumptions
you have been making in order to come up with such an
interesting response to my 'arguments'.
My arguments are based on one single assumption:
Parents, on the whole, raise their children better than
anyone else does.
The extent to which parents divorce themselves from this
task is the extent to which it represents a 'step backward'
for our society... be it replacing dad with a child support
check, or replacing parenting with day care.
It's just not all that complicated.
-mp-
Mike Powell
: Mike Powell (mi...@sr.hp.com) wrote:
: > naomi pardue (npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: > : I am utterly thrilled that you are happy and content to work for minimum
: > : wage at your local McDonalds so you can stay close to your extended
: > : family. Other people consider job satisfaction (and yes, gasp! money)
: > : to be important considerations.
: > Your response is something that my grandma would have
: > called a 'smart remark'.
: Yes, it was intended as sarcasm. However, you seemed to have little
: understanding for people who might choose to leave the town they were
: born so as to actually get a good job in which they could get good pay
: for doing work they enjoy and are trained for.
Since I am discussing realities that are either factual
or not, how can 'having understanding' for a certain
group of people change reality?
Answer: it can't.
If you are here hoping that I will type a five page posting
overflowing with sympathy and 'understanding' about the
difficult decisions of parenting and life in general, perhaps
I could send one to you in e-mail.
Obviously it would not change one single point I have made.
Yet again.... it's a non-issue here.
But if it will make you happy in some way, know that I have
understanding for people that are faced with decisions that
pit their career against other considerations in life, including
children.
O.K. now?
: >
: If I was to follow in step your your tone, I might pretend that
: > you were suggesting that parents should up-root and go as far as
: > they need to to be most satified with their job and to get the
: > maximum possible pay. To heck with family. They can visit us
: > every couple of years at Christmas. The children don't need to
: > know them anyway....
: I live 400 miles away from my parents. I visit them once a year and
: they visit us once a year. If I did NOT live 400 miles away from my
: parents, I would not have met my husband.
Sure you would have! (it just would have been someone else)
: We all make choices. I don't
: believe that remaining in the same city with one's parents, after one is
: grown, is, or should be, a primary consideration.
But should it be a consideration?
: > That 'job satisfaction' and 'money' are important considerations
: > has *never* been in debate.
: > It all comes down to issues of what is *more* important.
: > Our kids? Our careers? Our 'job satisfaction'? A general
: > lust for money? etc. etc. etc.
: Of course our kids are important. I don't quite grasp though how you
: feel that it demonstrates a lack of caring for our children if we live
: in a place where we must use professional child care, rather than
: depending on grandparents so we may work for a living.
I never indicated that using day care represented a "lack of
caring" of one's kids. If I had a dollar for every position
that you've _said_ I have taken, but in fact have not....
: It need not be a
: choice between our children and everything else in our lives.
: I assure you that if my daughter's health and well being depended on it,
: I would quit my job, work at McDonalds, move back to Rochester, move to
: Timbuktu; whatever it would take! However, since her health and
: well-being are in no way compromised by the situation she is in, that is
: the situation that will remain.
Let's hope so...
But, seriously, how do you know?
Is it merely that you believe it to be true? Or that you
simply _hope_ that it's true?
Even people that spank kids believe that they are
tending to the well being of their kids.
(while others feel that they are doing significant damage)
The question is: Who is right?
Regards,
Michael Powell
Mike Powell
: > : mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) wrote:
: > : 'Government Tax Incentives?' Where?! The money spent on daycare is
: > : deducted from income. If it drops you down a bracket it might be worth
: > : something, but for most of us it's hardly enough to be an incentive.
: > On the contrary.. tax incentives, tight here, right now,
: > are available as a direct _tax credit_. Meaning... take a
: > certain percentage of your child care expenses and just
: > subtract it from your total tax due!
: > But for families that do the hard work of finding a way to
: > keep their children at home or with other family???
: > So sorry... you pay the full tax bill.
: Well, parents who keep their children at home don't have to pay
: childcare, so they need no tax credit to help defray it.
So after all this talk about giving up careers, or declining
better jobs elsewhere to stay close to family in no way
have costs associated to them? Were you not one of those
that pointed out the fact that not using daycare could
represent diminished career opportunities/achievements?
How quickly we forget!
I submit to you that people who choose to give up their
career to stay home with the kids result in a much
greater wage loss than that used to buy daycare.
Our government is willing to help offset the wages lost
to the family that decided to use daycare, but is not willing to
help offset the wages lost to a family that decides to
care for a child at home.
Uncle Sam's national priorities strike again!
-mp-
C. Silvers
>
>naomi pardue (npa...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Mike Powell (mi...@sr.hp.com) wrote:
> I never indicated that using day care represented a "lack of
> caring" of one's kids. If I had a dollar for every position
> that you've _said_ I have taken, but in fact have not....
>
Excuse me, Mr. Powell, but I do seem to remember at least one post
wherein you likened the (alleged) trend toward the use of day care and
away from extended family care of children, to smoking, drinking by
pregnant women, and, if I'm not mistaken, something about the
acceptability of designated drivers. While you may not have used the
exact words, "lack of caring," I think you've made your position quite
clear.
My apologies if I'm confusing you with someone else who's posted on
this topic.
Catherine
Michael Powell
: In article <4f8rq4$a...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Mike Powell <mi...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
: >
: > And that you also know enough to hope that parents will
: > be activly and regularly involved with the daycare provider
: > and maintaining an intimate knowledge of daily activities that
: > a child is engaged in is very very commendable and wise MHO.
: Michael, I think you're preaching to the choir. After reading
: misc.kids for four years, I have found the people here to be
: by and large very concerned and thoughtful parents.
And I can appriciate that assessment... noting of course
that it is necessarily subjective..
: >
: > It is the eagerness and blind trust that we are investing in
: > this process that is one of my greatest concerns... why am I
: > such a lone voice saying "hey gang, this might not be such a good
: > idea...."?
: What makes you think that we use daycare with "eagerness and
: blind trust"?? I think most of us who use it have spent a lot
: of time considering our options and have decided that daycare is
: the best option for us at the present time. I know my defense
: of my daycare situation stems from the fact that we have done
: a lot of thought and research and come to the conclusion that
: our son is in a good situation at this time. Maybe it won't be
: in the future, but we'll keep evaluating that. Only I and my
: husband are in a position to judge that.
A miscommunication, for which I apologize. When I refered to
"the eagerness and blind trust that we are investing in this
process", I was refering to "we" as a society in the whole, and
the 'process' as being the large-scale and increasing usage
of daycare for a huge segment of society.
Example: Divorce happens one couple at a time, based on what
individuals think is best, and hopfully under careful consideration.
Yet we know that there are clear effects that surround the
increased practice of divorce *by society as a whole* that can
be seen and studied (and have been to great extent).
No one *knew* what the overall effects would be of a rising
divorce rate that has now surpassed 1/2 of all marriages
failing. There were predictions from all sides, yet no one really
knew.
That is the type of 'blindness' that I refer to.
For we are increasing our usage of daycare and in a manner
that we (again, society as a whole) have never before attempted.
I have tried to make it clear from my first post on this
subject that my comments relate to a society-wide concern.
: Really, your assumption that we are simpletons is insulting.
I hope I have answered your concerns in a satisfactory way
as the prediction of large-scale social change is very difficult,
even for the most concerned and enlightened.
BTW, as an experiment, consider the proposition that we could
could put all children in what would basically
be a 'full-time' child care facility... 24 hours a day,
7 days a week, every month, all year long. (basically never
seeing the child again until adulthood)
Would you not agree that this would have *huge* and unpredictable
social consequences? (and probably bad ones?)
Assuming that you do, let's work backward... and reduce the time
the children spend in the childcare facility by one hour per
day (meaning one hour with mom/dad/family).
That should inprove things a little bit, right?
So let's reduce time in the childcare facility by two hours
per day and check again... then three, then four, etc. etc.
My question is: Which are the maximum hours that the children
can be at the childcare facility per day before the negative
consequences seen in the 'full-time' childcare begin to appear in
our society? (kinda like asking "how much 'childcare' can
society tolerate before things start to sour?)
And what would these problems be, and where do they show up?
This should help you understand the scope of what I have
been considering, and the nature of our 'blindness' to the
consequences.
Again, forgive me for letting you think that I was speaking
about individual families.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: I just had to pick up on this.
: In article <4f79df$r...@nntp.crl.com> Michael Powell, r...@crl.com writes:
: >> I hear "child care is a fundimental right" coming just around the
: > corner...
: Well, many of us in Europe already think it is.... But of course, it's
: well known that we're a bunch of liberals/socialists, so we would think
: that wouldn't we?
Correct... Europe is the 'corner' 'round where I have heard
this.
: Of course, we also have far lower levels of violent crime than does the
: States, but I don't expect it would suit you to connect that to our
: attitude to childcare, would it?
Are you including genocide and major wars?
: I wonder if Michael also believes in the inalienable right of every
: American to own a firearm, and whether he would connect *that* to the
: number of violent-crimes-involving-firearms you have over there every
: year?
No... there is a constitutional right to that. Those rights that
are inalienable are a different set. Being from Europe, I forgive
you for not being fully aware of the difference.
I wonder, how many violent crimes have been comitted in Europe
over the the last several decades against individuals who did not
have any right to a firearm?
(I seem to recall from history that a lot of American boys
went to Europe to put an end to such violence...)
And to all of the readers of misc.kids, this is all clearly
off-topic, for which I am apologize, and I will not continue
along these off-topic lines, regardless of Naomi's desire
to do so.
-mp-
Michael Powell
: >Lori L. Grzybowski (lo...@omnifest.uwm.edu) wrote:
: >[deletions]
: >
: >: As to the scenario that young parents would move
: >: their children away from extended family
: >: merely to get out of the city,
: >
: > The example _did not_ center around leaving
: > 'the city'. It centered around a pay increase.
: >
: >: and would
: >: blithely replace the help extended family members
: >: give with child care, I am a bit perplexed.
: >: The members of my family have usually gone
: >: where the jobs are offered.
: >
: > And where would that be? (Answer: everywhere, basically.)
: >
: > And since 'jobs' are to be found 'all over' then what determines
: > how far one decides to go?
: Yes, there are "jobs" everywhere. Whether they are jobs that
: can support a family, for which one is qualified, and available
: is another thing. My family's experiences in the job market
: bear out a lot of media reports: the market is tight and
: people are having tough times finding such jobs.
Totally irrelevant to the discussion. I have found that
most people are having a very hard time following the
points made, why they were made, and in what order.
To assist, I will summarize for you the path that
has led here, which will indicate why your 'response'
simply does not address what was being considered.
1 - I make the point that social acceptance of childcare
may contribute to the breakup of important family
relationships.
2 - To illustrate this, I offer a hypothetical example
of a couple addressing a decision to move
away from family, (for a job with better pay) and how
the notion of childcare can be incorporated into such a
decision-making process in a way that convinces them
to pick up and leave.
3 - To which you responded with how hard it is to find
good jobs.
As you can see... there is almost a total disconnect between
2 and 3 above.
That good jobs are hard to find is yet *another* item that
has never been in dispute. That one might have to relocate
a great distance to obtain such a job has also never been
in dispute.
What *is* in dispute is the negative effects of childcare on
society, and my example that illustrates _just one_ possible
case of such an effect has yet to be addressed by anyone.
The point was simply that: "Childcare makes it easier to leave
family." I think that the point is pretty open-and-shut.
If you don't care to adderss this simple point, ok... but I
really can't see how entering a discussion on how hard it
can be to get the job you want (especially considering that
I do not, and have not disputed it) will be relevant to
the specific issue at hand.
Regards,
Michael Powell
Michael Powell
: In <4fbkp3$4...@canyon.sr.hp.com> mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) writes:
: >: >: {deleted}>
: > I never indicated that using day care represented a "lack of
: > caring" of one's kids. If I had a dollar for every position
: > that you've _said_ I have taken, but in fact have not....
: >
: Excuse me, Mr. Powell, but I do seem to remember at least one post
: wherein you likened the (alleged) trend toward the use of day care and
: away from extended family care of children, to smoking, drinking by
: pregnant women, and, if I'm not mistaken, something about the
: acceptability of designated drivers. While you may not have used the
: exact words, "lack of caring," I think you've made your position quite
: clear.
You remember incorrectly. I have touched on all of the areas
that you note above, which is a credit to your memory. Where
your memory has failed you is that the remarks were in relation
to a short discussion on how social 'norms' form and influence
people in their most personal decision-making.
From the relevant message:
[begin]...............
In reality, what is "right" for an individual family is exactly
what we have now.... where families make their own decisions,
but influenced by social conventions.
Look at what social pressures have done to the practice
of smoking... or the advancement of the notion of the "designated
driver".
[end].................
(hypothetical story of how social attitudes started to encroach
upon the personal decisions of women to drink and smoke during
pregnancy, deleted).
: While you may not have used the
: exact words, "lack of caring," I think you've made your position quite
: clear.
So as you can see, you have connected two unrelated topics.
Let's be careful not to judge Mike on what we *think* his
"feelings" or "attutudes" are... and stick to judging
Mike on what he says. (otherwise, one would be pretending
to be a mind-reader).
I hope you agree.
Regards,
Michael Powell
naomi pardue
> : I live 400 miles away from my parents. I visit them once a year and
> : they visit us once a year. If I did NOT live 400 miles away from my
> : parents, I would not have met my husband.
> Sure you would have! (it just would have been someone else)
Ah, then you are suggesting that even leaving one's place of birth to
attend college is unacceptable? I COULD have gone to college where I was
born, (there are several universities there). But suppose I was living
in some small town without a college? I should forgo higher education
for fear that I might actually fall in love with someone I meet while
going to school?
> : We all make choices. I don't
> : believe that remaining in the same city with one's parents, after one is
> : grown, is, or should be, a primary consideration.
> But should it be a consideration?
Certainly. Along with many others. In my personal situation, I didn't
particularly like the city where I grew up, when I graduated from
college I was ready for a change, none of the local schools offered my
particular fields of interest. All that as given, I could find no
strong reason to remain there. Once I'd graduated college and married,
it was no longer a reasonable option. (Even if the city had improved!)
> : Of course our kids are important. I don't quite grasp though how you
> : feel that it demonstrates a lack of caring for our children if we live
> : in a place where we must use professional child care, rather than
> : depending on grandparents so we may work for a living.
> I never indicated that using day care represented a "lack of
> caring" of one's kids. If I had a dollar for every position
> that you've _said_ I have taken, but in fact have not....
Your whole position on this threaed is that daycare is not good for
kids and is harmful to society. SInce, rationally, no parent would choose
to do something that is not good for their children, it seems clear that
a parent who would choose to use daycare does not, by definition,
demonstrate much caring for her kids.
> : I assure you that if my daughter's health and well being depended on it,
> : I would quit my job, work at McDonalds, move back to Rochester, move to
> : Timbuktu; whatever it would take! However, since her health and
> : well-being are in no way compromised by the situation she is in, that is
> : the situation that will remain.
> Let's hope so...
> But, seriously, how do you know?
> Is it merely that you believe it to be true? Or that you
> simply _hope_ that it's true?
I have seen no evidence that she is not healthy and happy. She adores
her school. Her teachers are kind and caring. She has a few more
illnesses than she did when she was home full-time, but she will get
those illnesses eventually anyway, so there's no problem with her
getting them now. We have a bit more money so we can do things like
look forward to buying a different house in a better school district in
a few years. (When she enters public school.) Her mother is a happier
person because she isn't spending all day everyday with a bored,
restless 4 year-old.
> Even people that spank kids believe that they are
> tending to the well being of their kids.
> (while others feel that they are doing significant damage)
> The question is: Who is right?
>
We don't know. But parents who spank their children don't generally
argue that parents who don't spank their children are doing harm to the
child or society. If you want to stay home with your children, or the
grandparents are willing and able to care for them, fine, that's your
choice. Other parents make other choices. (Or HAVE no other choices.)
Naomi
naomi pardue
> : childcare, so they need no tax credit to help defray it.
> So after all this talk about giving up careers, or declining
> better jobs elsewhere to stay close to family in no way
> have costs associated to them? Were you not one of those
> that pointed out the fact that not using daycare could
> represent diminished career opportunities/achievements?
> I submit to you that people who choose to give up their
> career to stay home with the kids result in a much
> greater wage loss than that used to buy daycare.
> Our government is willing to help offset the wages lost
> to the family that decided to use daycare, but is not willing to
> help offset the wages lost to a family that decides to
> care for a child at home.
> Uncle Sam's national priorities strike again!
I'm sure Uncle Sam would be thrilled if all the mothers would quit their
jobs and stay home. It would go a long way towards reducing
unemployment. However, Uncle Sam is practical. He knows that in many
families, 2 working parents is NOT a choice, but a necessity. And I'm
afraid I'm at a loss to figure out how the folks at the IRS would be
able to determine if Mom's job is really a necessity, or just something
she wants to do... or if the family would be happy living on rice and
beans ... or if there is available free daycare.
Families where there is only one employed parents tend to pay fewer
taxes already, becuase they tend to have less imcome and be in lower tax
brackets. But since (Schedule A), one is already permitted to deduct
certain expenses related to one's job (and if one is self-employed, one
can deduct ALL expenses on Schedule B), I don't quite grasp the problem
with permitting parents to deduct a portion of the cost of working.
Again, I assure you that there isn't a family in this country who is
going to decide to put the child in daycare, or to forgo a good, free,
family arrrangement SOLELY so they can save 10-20% of their daycare
bill.
I spent 3 years staying home with my child. I am well aware of the wage
loss I incurred. I was willing to do it, and, thankfully, I was able to
do it without finding ourselves out on the street. (THough, from a
practical standpoint, for the first year or so, I didn't really lose
anything. To pay a full-time babysitter for care for my newborn would
have used up about 80% of my takehome salary.)
Naomi
Anne Robotti
I think there are alot of us in this debate who would find your personal
situation relevant. Do you have children? What kind of day care are they
in? Do they stay with your family? Does you work? Does your spouse?
I think most of the posters/readers on this thread have a sense of that
about each other (I almost feel like I *know* Shaina, for example) and
it gives us a good idea of each other's perspective and where the remarks
are coming from. This has come up several times and you haven't really
answered, so now I'm coming straight out with it. Are you speaking from
experience, or from theoretically formed beliefs about child care,
family care, tax credits, spouses staying home, etc?
--
\|/
Anne Robotti (. .) "The Only Anne" to Shannon since 12/17/94
_____________________oOOo_(_(_)_)_oOOo_____________________________________
Business: robotti%wi...@cis.att.com Home: experiencing operating probs!
Lynda Seehusen
: When is a baby old enough to eat cheerios and other finger foods? My 6
: month old has suddenly developed a huge interest in solid food. She is
That sounds like about the right age to start some food. Emma started
off with small bites of bread, mashed bananas and applesauce plus
some jarred baby food veggies too. She really liked the sweet potatoes
and peas.
She didn't do Cheerios until she was 11 months as she had no teeth
at all until 10 months.
Shannon at 4 months *really* wants our food but I think she's a little
young yet!
Lynda, mom to Emma, 3.4 and Shannon "toss a cracker my way, will ya mom?",
18 weeks.
*******************************************************************************
"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's
life, she will choose to save the infant without even considering if there
are men on base." Dave Barry.
*******************************************************************************
Lori L. Grzybowski
Michael,
I believe you have the issue backward. I don't believe child
care exists so that parents can skip off to what they'd rather
be doing without a backward glance as to how their kids are
being raised.
By and large, I think most people use child care *because*
they feel they *need* the job to provide for their family,
either immediately or as a hedge against a spouse's illness,
divorce, death or extended unemployment. If good jobs are
hard to find, it makes sense for many to keep the ones they
have. It's a question of weighing all the considerations,
as you mentioned earlier in a different context.
The availability of child care is in response to the
demand created by the economic climate. IMO,
the changing nature of the economy and its demands for
a more specialized, skilled workforce (from farm-based to
industrial through technological) has far more to do
with people moving away from their extended families than
the availability of child care.
Lori Grzybowski
Carol Alvin
Thomas A. McGlynn <t...@silk.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>I believe that Naomi is right that the tax credit tops out at
>about $500. If your employer offers it there is also the possibility
>of paying up to $5000 dollars of day care expenses using
>pre-tax dollars.
The problem with this one is that it's *per* *family*. So,
you top out at $5000 no matter if you have triplets in
infant daycare. :-) The $5000 doesn't cover our daycare
costs for one toddler. (Yes, our daycare is very expensive,
but it's also the best daycare to be had in our city.)
mynl...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>naomi pardue wrote:
>....
>> (Have [you] actually LOOKED at the
>> tax credit? It's 20-30% of your child care bill ... provided your total
>> child care bill is no more than $2400 a year per child. Ok. I'm lucky.
>> My kid is in half-day care, so that $2400 ALMOST covers the total fee.
>> But figure a typical daycare charges $80-$100 per week. Taking the lower
>> fee, that's 4,160 per year. The tax credit is (for most of us) $480 per
>> year.
>> Naomi
>
>I believe that Naomi is right that the tax credit tops out at
>about $500. If your employer offers it there is also the possibility
>of paying up to $5000 dollars of day care expenses using
>federal nor state (I think) income tax on the money this
>can be equivalent to a credir of up to about $2,000 -- depending
>on what your state tax is. I think you still get the SS
>and Medicare deduction. There are some catches to this
>but it can be a good deal.
> Tom McGlynn
Yes, for us it is a good deal. We take the full $5000. However, this is not
quite the incentive Michael Powell thinks it is. With the approximately $2000
in savings we still pay $12,000/year for 2 kids giving a net of $10,000 out the
door. Michael, are you saying I would go to work just to get $2000 tax savings
while paying out $12,000? This has absolutely no bearing on my decision to
work outside the home.
Michelle (mom to Kate 12/24/90 and Maggie 5/23/94)