PDA

View Full Version : Feminism and Gender Roles



Meng Bomin
March 14th, 2005, 09:12 PM
This is a topic not often tread upon here. What does everyone think of where men and women "belong" in society, past and present?

emtee10
March 14th, 2005, 10:03 PM
I believe that it is up to each individual to determine his or her role in society. Society ought not to be telling men or women what they ought to do with their lives, simply because they are men or women. Each individual is different, and each person has to find his or her niche in society, regardless of gender.

mustang5
March 14th, 2005, 10:19 PM
Seems like a loaded question. Can anyone really deny that Men and Women were created to be different, to have different roles, and to be unique to their sex. Men will never have the same nurturing instinct that a woman has. Yet still the woman sometimes berates the man for not doing his part in the child rearing. He is wired differently. Still the woman expects him to be like her. When a man is working on his car, does he then go to his wife and complain that she should have changed the spark plugs. No he doesn't. He doesn't even think about such a thing. I'm sure there are women out there that do Yard work, but for the most part the men do it. They don't complain when they come home and the yard is not mowed. The women do complain about the man not pitching in on cleaning the house. and the man usually does pitch in, but if its not half, its not at all. Now you women that are perfect examples and nothing like I'm saying then don't be offended. This is meant for the women that can honestly admit to some of this. However, I don't have a problem with any woman trying to do whatever she wants to do. Women are amazing. They are bone of mans bone. This is what the bible teaches, regardless of what Z thinks. I'm not sure what the intended response was supposed to be, but I hope I have provided some aspect of the question at hand.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 04:00 AM
Neverending, I'd just like to point out that you're a CENSORED for starting this thread while PIBS is on a time-out.

PIBS = hardcore masculist. I haven't gone at it with him about gender roles since the old days when 'pok and I were still both over at df.net.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 04:19 AM
Seems like a loaded question. Can anyone really deny that Men and Women were created to be different, to have different roles, and to be unique to their sex. Men will never have the same nurturing instinct that a woman has. Yet still the woman sometimes berates the man for not doing his part in the child rearing. He is wired differently. Still the woman expects him to be like her. When a man is working on his car, does he then go to his wife and complain that she should have changed the spark plugs. No he doesn't. He doesn't even think about such a thing. I'm sure there are women out there that do Yard work, but for the most part the men do it. They don't complain when they come home and the yard is not mowed. The women do complain about the man not pitching in on cleaning the house. and the man usually does pitch in, but if its not half, its not at all. Now you women that are perfect examples and nothing like I'm saying then don't be offended. This is meant for the women that can honestly admit to some of this. However, I don't have a problem with any woman trying to do whatever she wants to do. Women are amazing. They are bone of mans bone. This is what the bible teaches, regardless of what Z thinks. I'm not sure what the intended response was supposed to be, but I hope I have provided some aspect of the question at hand.

Give us this day, our daily stereotype.

As for feminism?... I'm going to pre-empt PIBs:

Feminism that attempts to give women rights EQUAL to men = good. Example: Feminism designed to give women equal voting rights to men is a good thing.

Feminism that attempts to give women MORE rights than men or portray women as simultaneously being empowered and as victims = bad.

PIBs and I used to argue tooth and nail about this sort of thing and haven't in ages. The thrust of his argument was tha the first category of feminism doesn't exist... that feminists are ALWAYS looking for more rights... that Feminism is linked to communism... and that feminism mis-uses political correctness as a weapon.

See what happens when you go breaking the rules, PIBsy? You miss out on the start of really cool threads.

FruitandNut
March 15th, 2005, 04:24 AM
VIVE LA DIFFERENCE!!!!
Having researched for an assignment titled, 'The genderisation of the Bio Medical Model' (and got top marks.) I feel that women have been (as a group), badly treated by an ignorant patriarchal society. Men (with the exception of dinosaurs - no name mentioned!) seem to be gradually lining up behind this argument, thank goodness, and not before time. We have ignored or sidelined the talents and strengths of half of the world's population for long enough, and done so to the detriment of society.

Sam
March 15th, 2005, 04:45 AM
This is a topic not often tread upon here. What does everyone think of where men and women "belong" in society, past and present?



It has always amazed me to watch little children play. Girls go for the dolls and boys go for the trucks. Who told them to do that?

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 05:01 AM
I don't think gender roles are so cut and dry. For my life, I lean toward the more traditional view. He's the breadwinner, lifts heavy things, carries in groceries, and does dirty work. I take care of the kids, clean most of the house, cook, and let him kill the big bugs.

However, I don't think that means that women HAVE TO give up their entire lives and be submissive to a man. I think women are just as capable as men to be successful in careers, be president, be whatever a man can be. I also think a man is capable of being nurturing.

I think the problem is that society is not designed to provide equality at this juncture. I think, according to nature, that a mother belongs with her children and that children do not belong in daycares, for a great majority of the day. Unfortunately, that means that if a woman wants to work on that career, she does so in her free time (which most mothers don't have) or she waits until her babies aren't babies anymore.

I also think that fathers need to make children a big priority and play with them and guide them often, be a strong male role model. The demands of the workforce make this difficult, as well.

I think the major problem facing society is that so little value is placed on what it means to be home with children. Stay at home moms are *just* stay at home moms, while working moms are mothers AND CEO's. The get rewarded for dumping their kids off on nannies and in daycares. Another major problem is that many of the working moms are working because they HAVE to to feed their kids and pay their rent and have no other options.

It would be nice if we lived in a society that placed a very high priority on Moms being at home with their kids, and made it easier for a woman to pick up where she left off when she is done raising her babies so that she has the opportunity to contribute just as much in the form of a career as a man does. Conversely, it would be nice if we lived in a society that wasn't so demanding of a man's time and acknowledged the importance of a cohesive family unity.

So, in the meantime, until society catches up with this notion of family first and all else second, I think women unfortunately need to continue to do twice as much...raise the babies, clean the whole house, AND work simultaneously on furthering their careers/swallow their aspirations until their babies are old enough and pray their career dreams haven't gone down the drain, while men just continue to do what they have been doing all along.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 06:19 AM
Raising kids isn't easy.

Being a coroporate CEO isn't easy, either.

If all things parenting are equal (both sets of kids turn out disciplined, healthy, happy, etc), then who's the more accomplished mom? The one who does one not easy task or the one who juggles two not easy tasks?

Snoop
March 15th, 2005, 06:19 AM
You raised many issues - I'll start with this one:
I think the major problem facing society is that so little value is placed on what it means to be home with children. You go on to say:
Another major problem is that many of the working moms are working because they HAVE to to feed their kids and pay their rent and have no other options. -- The first thing that came to my mind was that parents at home with their children could have a down side. They can get on each others nerves and the child would become overly dependent on that situation. If you don't work, you can't pay the bills, and that's a dilemma too.

Dropping off kids at a day care center is ok for the early years of their lives, then it's time to give them some independence. Let the older sibling become the surrogate mom. Find after school activities where the children can interact with each other. Athletics, scouting, drama classes, music classes, etc.

Until stay at home dads becomes fashionable you may have to get creative with your own situation until things change financially. It's a sad part of life that we feel distanced from our children as they grow older. It happened in my family when my parents were alive and it's happening again with my own children. I accept many things in life because it seems practical - it may not be the best thing to do, but a parent's well being and survival are just as important as that of the child.

Sam
March 15th, 2005, 07:39 AM
Raising kids isn't easy.

Being a coroporate CEO isn't easy, either.

If all things parenting are equal (both sets of kids turn out disciplined, healthy, happy, etc), then who's the more accomplished mom? The one who does one not easy task or the one who juggles two not easy tasks?


Sorry, Zhavric, but that was spoken from a man's point of view. The answer is the one who does one(divided into many) not easy tasks. Try staying home with kids for 24 hours day in and day out. When they are sick in the middle of the night you are the one to get up because your spouse must be well rested for work(outside the home).
Although the one who juggles two not easy tasks may seem to have the more difficult job he/she gets away from the kids for a portion of every day and is in a much better frame of mind to encounter them when he/she returns.
I know many working moms who would rather be out working than home everyday. They acknowledge that staying at home is the more difficult job. Any rewards from being home are probably not evident until the kids are older.
It is a sacrifice to stay home and put a career on the sidelines.
It is a sacrifice to get up every day and do the same thing. Change the baby, feed the baby, pick up after the baby, try to get as much housework done while baby is sleeping. Then try to spend some time with baby while fixing dinner. Oh, and don't forget the laundry everyday. Have another kid, then times all that by two!

Snoop
March 15th, 2005, 07:44 AM
Sam makes a valid point for birth control without realizing it! :)

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 08:01 AM
Raising kids isn't easy.

Being a coroporate CEO isn't easy, either.

If all things parenting are equal (both sets of kids turn out disciplined, healthy, happy, etc), then who's the more accomplished mom? The one who does one not easy task or the one who juggles two not easy tasks?

Haha. I guess we're entering into the Working Mom vs. Stayathome Mom debate.

The working Mom isn't doing a majority of that one task (raising kids) because she's putting her kids in other people's care to do her parenting job for a majority of the day. Of course, there can be a balance to this, but that CEO Mom is probably working 60 hours a week of her children's waking hours. The SAHM is spending those 60 hours of the child's waking hours with the child. Just because her kids turn out disciplined, healthy, and happy doesn't mean she had as much to do with it directly as the SAHM did.

Sam
March 15th, 2005, 10:14 AM
Sam makes a valid point for birth control without realizing it! :)


Only if you believe life is supposed to be easy all the time and there is no value in achieving a more difficult task.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 10:29 AM
Sorry, Zhavric, but that was spoken from a man's point of view. The answer is the one who does one(divided into many) not easy tasks. Try staying home with kids for 24 hours day in and day out. When they are sick in the middle of the night you are the one to get up because your spouse must be well rested for work(outside the home).
Although the one who juggles two not easy tasks may seem to have the more difficult job he/she gets away from the kids for a portion of every day and is in a much better frame of mind to encounter them when he/she returns.

Sam, we need to work on your ability to put yourself in the shoes of others. Stating "he/she gets away from the kids for a portion of every day and is in a much better frame of mind to encounter them when he/she returns" may be true for some, but is likely not so true for all. We've been tossing around the term "CEO" which has some fairly glamorous connotations... but most working momes AREN'T CEO's and don't deal with the best and the brightest all day.

The moms that can hold down a job AND raise their kids are more commendable than the ones who are only raising their kids.


I know many working moms who would rather be out working than home everyday.

You know many working moms who would rather be out working??? ;? Did you mean to say that?


They acknowledge that staying at home is the more difficult job. Any rewards from being home are probably not evident until the kids are older.
It is a sacrifice to stay home and put a career on the sidelines.
It is a sacrifice to get up every day and do the same thing. Change the baby, feed the baby, pick up after the baby, try to get as much housework done while baby is sleeping. Then try to spend some time with baby while fixing dinner. Oh, and don't forget the laundry everyday.

It's a bigger sacrifice to do that AND have a career.


Have another kid, then times all that by two!

You better hope Clive doesn't see this. Our local grammar nazi won't have nice things to say regarding "times all that".

CliveStaples
March 15th, 2005, 11:10 AM
Our local grammar nazi won't have nice things to say regarding "times all that".
"Grammar nazi". That's good. I'll put that with "sactimonious muppet". In any case: when "times all that" is used in the place of "multiply all of that", it is a grammatical mistake, albeit an innocuous one. For a second-grader, that is.

For the most part, I agree with HappyLady. I'm not sure that it's purely a result of our society that women are better nurturers in general than men. I can't say. I do think that men and women have biological differences beyond genitalia and secondary sex organs, although the feminists at Harvard seem to be rather opposed to that line of thought.

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 11:26 AM
The moms that can hold down a job AND raise their kids are more commendable than the ones who are only raising their kids.

Are you going to support any of this? Are you going to go digging for some statistics that state that a working mom is actually doing *more* or *better* than a mom who stays home?

A mom who is out working is not focusing on her children as the numero uno. You can't have a voluntary career AND voluntary motherhood and be giving your children your undivided attention. You'd have to balance them both and the only way to balance is to take something away from one side to give to the other and vice versa.

A mom who works maintains that balance by putting her kids off in daycare to let someone who doesn't even love them "watch" them all day. How, in your view, is that commendable?

I am not talking about school age children. I'm not talking about children who are even 3 or 4 or older. But when they are babies from birth to 3, daycare is not the ideal setting, and the experts will tell you that. (I'll go do digging if I really have to.) Socialization with other children does not become important until they are older than three. From birth to 3 the most important part of their development is bonding to the family as well as brain development (motor skills, speech, etc...)

You seem to be giving credit to working moms for doing the "dirty work" of raising a baby AND holding down the job. But you are failing to acknowledge that they are passing off a whole lot of that "dirty work" to other caregivers to do it for them. If I hire someone to pass my college exam, do I get commended?

I don't know many adults who are glad their mothers worked outside the home while they went to daycare. Most latch key kids don't like being home alone, except that they can get away with murder while the parent isn't there to supervise them. My step-kids are in a daycare program on the weeks their mother has them where they have to go after school. They hate it. While I realize it is subjective, I have met very few children who actually LIKE going to daycare (my 8 year old being one who did enjoy it...and she's a huge behavior problem as a result of me pawning her off onto daycare and them not providing the discipline she desperately needed at the time.)

Sam
March 15th, 2005, 11:49 AM
Sam, we need to work on your ability to put yourself in the shoes of others. Stating "he/she gets away from the kids for a portion of every day and is in a much better frame of mind to encounter them when he/she returns" may be true for some, but is likely not so true for all.

Do you have kids. I love mine dearly but if I had someone to give me a break during the day now and then I think I would have had an easier time. I envy the women who had a little part time job. Just something to get them out of the house for a while, a break. I was home with six kids for so many years. When I was lucky enough to get out I found myself talking baby talk to strangers. Maybe there are some women who don't mind being home with kids day in and day out but I feel most would enjoy a break now and then.



We've been tossing around the term "CEO" which has some fairly glamorous connotations... but most working momes AREN'T CEO's and don't deal with the best and the brightest all day.

To keep that "CEO" job the job MUST come first before the child. That's not good for the child. So, although she may be "doing" both jobs, she can't possibly do both jobs "good". One job must suffer. It would probably be the job raising the child since she would not be able to keep the "CEO" job very long if it was not first in her life.




The moms that can hold down a job AND raise their kids are more commendable than the ones who are only raising their kids


As I mentioned above, they can't do both "good"..




You know many working moms who would rather be out working??? ;? Did you mean to say that?


Yes, many have stayed home for a period of time and did not like it. I had one mom come right out and tell me it's HARDER to stay home that's why she works outside the home.
Her daughter also was one to need her mother who was never there. Never at the school functions, never there to put her on the school bus. Not there when the daughter returned home. Not home to help with homework. In addition, the kids had to do the housework after school because mom and dad were not there. Dinner was fast food or out most nights.




It's a bigger sacrifice to do that AND have a career.


Again, I don't believe both is possible. I think women know this and begin to feel guilty about not being there for the kids. They may try to make up for this by giving material things. And we wonder why our kids don't seem to appreciate things.

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 11:49 AM
They can get on each others nerves and the child would become overly dependent on that situation.

It is healthy for children to be dependent on their parents. It is recommended. A 2 year old is supposed to feel secure and dependent on the parents. We can't deny biology's and psychology's role here. Once children are comfortable in their environment, they usually will branch out on their own to become independent. For example, my 3 year old seems pretty shy. Yet since she has turned 3, the age that children will usually naturally begin to crave socialization, she seeks out playing with other children. Before she was 3, she didn't really do this.

It is mandatory for a child to form a strong attachment to another human being so that they can branch out into the world and become independent. If you watch toddlers, at first they will stay by the mother. THen when they see that the mother trusts the environment, the child will also.

Children who suffer from attachment disorder never form this bond. As a result, they incorrectly interpet social cues, often have difficulty fitting in in social circles, and don't interpret emotions correctly. I'm not saying that ALL daycare kids have this problem, but the less close of a bond a child has to a human being, the less capable they will be of forming appropriate coping skills within their environment.

While there is a possibility that children can become overly dependent on their parents, this can happen in a daycare setting, too, to a child who is traumatized by being forced to go to daycare everyday when they are craving the attention of the parent. This will usually happen during the critical stage of development where "separation anxiety" is present. A child in this situation runs the risk of becoming too dependent on parents also due to the deprivation.


Dropping off kids at a day care center is ok for the early years of their lives,

But the early years of their lives is not really the age they should be immersed in overstimulation of socialization. This shouldn't really begin until they are about 3.


then it's time to give them some independence.

Agreed. A SAHM doesn't necessarily coddle her children and lock them away. They just don't use the daycare system. They still use babysitters and older siblings. At least, I do...lol.


Let the older sibling become the surrogate mom. Find after school activities where the children can interact with each other. Athletics, scouting, drama classes, music classes, etc.

Agreed. However, it is also important not to let your children become over-involved. There is a book by Dr. David Elkind called "The Hurried Child" that addresses the issues concerning kids today being over stimulated and over involved and the negative consequences this can bring. Something I think is also interesting is how detrimental all the organized sports are becoming. I can't remember where I read it, but it is not good for kids to have parents so involved in their "games."

There is value in children figuring things out for themselves, such as rules of the game, social order, leadership, etc. For example, when I was a kid, a bunch of kids in the neighborhood used to get together and play different sports. Basketball, football, and baseball. We'd have to go through the neighborhood and rally enough kids for teams. Then we'd have to pick captains and the captains would pick who they wanted on their teams, etc... Now, we have soccer moms and dads and coaches figure all that stuff out and the kids really miss out on the learning and socializing that comes from those experiences. (Not really debating...it's just something that interests me.)


Until stay at home dads becomes fashionable you may have to get creative with your own situation until things change financially. It's a sad part of life that we feel distanced from our children as they grow older. It happened in my family when my parents were alive and it's happening again with my own children. I accept many things in life because it seems practical - it may not be the best thing to do, but a parent's well being and survival are just as important as that of the child.

I agree. We're creative with how we spend money so that I can afford to stay home and give the kids what they need. We're creative in that I will pursue my career when my kids are older and in the meantime I just keep current on my skills and information. There was a time when I didn't have that kind of leeway and I had to work full time. I drug my daughter out of bed at 5:30 a.m. so that I could drop her off at daycare by 6:45 and start my day at 7. I'd pick her up at 4, take her home, feed her, play with her a little, then around her bedtime I was taking college courses. I believe I'm still paying for it today...and so is she.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 11:57 AM
Are you going to support any of this? Are you going to go digging for some statistics that state that a working mom is actually doing *more* or *better* than a mom who stays home?

I already did, luv. Which is more impressive:

1.
A) A doctor
B) A lawyer
C) A doctor who is also a lawyer

2.
A) A loan officer
B) A CEO of a mortgage company
C) A loan officer who is also a CEO of a mortgage company

3.
A) A mother
B) A CEO
c) A mother who is also a CEO

All things being equal, my dear, 2 is still greater than 1.


A mom who is out working is not focusing on her children as the numero uno. You can't have a voluntary career AND voluntary motherhood and be giving your children your undivided attention. You'd have to balance them both and the only way to balance is to take something away from one side to give to the other and vice versa.

A mom who works maintains that balance by putting her kids off in daycare to let someone who doesn't even love them "watch" them all day. How, in your view, is that commendable?

Because it acknowledges that children can learn from other sources other than the mother. It acknowledges that not all day cares are created equal and that there are a lot of pre-schools that give kids a good start on their education.

Remember: just because one has a child does not mean one is particularly adept at teaching or, well... mothering.


I am not talking about school age children. I'm not talking about children who are even 3 or 4 or older. But when they are babies from birth to 3, daycare is not the ideal setting, and the experts will tell you that. (I'll go do digging if I really have to.) Socialization with other children does not become important until they are older than three. From birth to 3 the most important part of their development is bonding to the family as well as brain development (motor skills, speech, etc...)

Find all the experts you like, luv. There are millions of kids born to working parents who turn out just fine... wether it's impoverished parents who can barely afford day-care to rich CEO's who hire full-time nannies.


You seem to be giving credit to working moms for doing the "dirty work" of raising a baby AND holding down the job. But you are failing to acknowledge that they are passing off a whole lot of that "dirty work" to other caregivers to do it for them. If I hire someone to pass my college exam, do I get commended?

No, you don't get "commended"... but then, you're analogy is flawed. Consider that you'd probably not pass most college exams without a trained, professional professor to explain the course to you. Likewise, there are decent professional nannies and daycares that can offer positive beginnings for kids.

You seem to be operating under the strange notion that any child sent to day-care before the age of three has uncaring parents / is doomed to failure / has parents who aren't good parents. You may wish to check that...


I don't know many adults who are glad their mothers worked outside the home while they went to daycare. Most latch key kids don't like being home alone, except that they can get away with murder while the parent isn't there to supervise them. My step-kids are in a daycare program on the weeks their mother has them where they have to go after school. They hate it. While I realize it is subjective, I have met very few children who actually LIKE going to daycare (my 8 year old being one who did enjoy it...and she's a huge behavior problem as a result of me pawning her off onto daycare and them not providing the discipline she desperately needed at the time.)

I was wondering when you'd delve into the anecdotal. I owe Clivestaples a buck now. I was betting that it would be much earlier in the thread.

Kids hate lots of stuff and turn out just fine.

Ibelsd
March 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
I already did, luv. Which is more impressive:

1.
A) A doctor
B) A lawyer
C) A doctor who is also a lawyer

2.
A) A loan officer
B) A CEO of a mortgage company
C) A loan officer who is also a CEO of a mortgage company

3.
A) A mother
B) A CEO
c) A mother who is also a CEO



Ok let's play a game. Tell me who is the more impressive person:
1.
A) Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D.
B) Thomas Jefferson

2)
A) Rod Gallagher, Senior Loan Officer and Senior Vice President
B) Lee Iacoca

3.
A) Lisa Kent, local mother and CEO
B) Carly Fiorina

I guess duel roles doesn't always make such an impression. Notice that for choice B, I didn't have to explain who the person was. I don't think whether someone holds one title or many titles make them more or less impressive. What makes someone impressive is what that person has done with the title they have or what they have done to earn their title.

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 12:16 PM
I already did, luv. Which is more impressive:

1.
A) A doctor
B) A lawyer
C) A doctor who is also a lawyer

2.
A) A loan officer
B) A CEO of a mortgage company
C) A loan officer who is also a CEO of a mortgage company

3.
A) A mother
B) A CEO
c) A mother who is also a CEO

All things being equal, my dear, 2 is still greater than 1.

Then we agree that everything in this debate is entirely subjective. My vote would go to people who place their energy fully in the one endeavor instead of trying to spread themselves too thinly between two.


Because it acknowledges that children can learn from other sources other than the mother. It acknowledges that not all day cares are created equal and that there are a lot of pre-schools that give kids a good start on their education.

Well, if childhood is all about learning, then I guess you have a point. Where, in your opinion, does love and nurture come into play. "The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the home"... If you acknowledge that the nanny is the one raising the kids, then all the "mother" is in this scenario is a baby making factory. She's not a "mother". The nanny is the "mother." She's just a CEO.


Remember: just because one has a child does not mean one is particularly adept at teaching or, well... mothering.

I'm a believe in the "It takes a village..." but that village includes the mother to a large degree. If a mother isn't particularly adept at mothering and intends to pawn her child off onto nannies and daycares, then she shouldn't become a mother. Like my Dad once said, "If you're going to do something half-assed, don't do it at all." Children, especially, shouldn't be approached on a whim.


Find all the experts you like, luv. There are millions of kids born to working parents who turn out just fine... wether it's impoverished parents who can barely afford day-care to rich CEO's who hire full-time nannies.

So what exactly is "just fine." There is a difference between giving a child an optimal and ideal chance at life and giving them something that is "just fine." In your opinion, is it *best* for a baby to be in daycare, or to be with their mother full time? Please support your opinion with some kind of intelligent reason.


Likewise, there are decent professional nannies and daycares that can offer positive beginnings for kids.

Agreed. But with your line of thinking why not just put your kid up for adoption then and give it to someone better qualified to raise it.


You seem to be operating under the strange notion that any child sent to day-care before the age of three has uncaring parents / is doomed to failure / has parents who aren't good parents. You may wish to check that...

Give us this day, Zhavric's daily assumption. I think any child put into daycare before the age of three is not experiencing an ideal situation. I've worked in daycares, I had my child in daycare, and daycare workers spend a lot of time "tisk tisking" moms who choose their careers over their kids. You can read any basic child psychology textbook and it will tell you that daycare is not an ideal environment for wee ones.


I was wondering when you'd delve into the anecdotal. I owe Clivestaples a buck now. I was betting that it would be much earlier in the thread.

Whoopee do. I wasn't using it as "evidence." I don't know about you, but I like reading about personal experiences and I enjoy sharing them. I don't offer it as "evidence", only as visual imagery.


Kids hate lots of stuff and turn out just fine.

Kids get molested and turn out "just fine," too. Resiliency doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to offer children an ideal upbringing.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 12:18 PM
Ok let's play a game. Tell me who is the more impressive person:
1.
A) Attorney Nancy Lord, M.D.
B) Thomas Jefferson

2)
A) Rod Gallagher, Senior Loan Officer and Senior Vice President
B) Lee Iacoca

3.
A) Lisa Kent, local mother and CEO
B) Carly Fiorina

I guess duel roles doesn't always make such an impression. Notice that for choice B, I didn't have to explain who the person was. I don't think whether someone holds one title or many titles make them more or less impressive. What makes someone impressive is what that person has done with the title they have or what they have done to earn their title.

Thank you for bringing specific exmaples to a hypothetical argument involving abstractions. What do you plan on doing for an encore? A few straw men? A red herring? An appeal to authority, perhaps?

P.S. Which part of ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL are you grappling with?

Ibelsd
March 15th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Thank you for bringing specific exmaples to a hypothetical argument involving abstractions. What do you plan on doing for an encore? A few straw men? A red herring? An appeal to authority, perhaps?

P.S. Which part of ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL are you grappling with?

Let me get this straight. Your hypothetical is blown to pieces by showing how it has no relationship to the real world, and you criticize my logic? What the hell does ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL mean? You mean if someone just like Fiorina was the CEO of a company just as big as HP and had children, and was as good a parent as... (I don't even know how you can qualify that one)? Your hypothetical doesn't make sense. In fact, it is your hypothetical that is the red herring here, not my counter.

Zhavric
March 15th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Let me get this straight. Your hypothetical is blown to pieces by showing how it has no relationship to the real world, and you criticize my logic? What the hell does ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL mean? You mean if someone just like Fiorina was the CEO of a company just as big as HP and had children, and was as good a parent as... (I don't even know how you can qualify that one)? Your hypothetical doesn't make sense. In fact, it is your hypothetical that is the red herring here, not my counter.

*rolls eyes*

If you're going to add in real world examples, you have to make them EQUAL examples. Wanda who works at wal-mart and raises a little brat who's a drop-out-to-be on her spare time is not equal to Pamela who's the CEO of a multi-national corporation and mother of one national merit scholar. Yes, they're both "working moms", but would you consider their accomplishments equal?

HappyLady
March 15th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Pamela who's the CEO of a multi-national corporation and mother of one national merit scholar.

Not to mention that her little merit scholar is an obsessive compulsive over achiever who falls apart at any sign of a grade lower than an A+ who grows up to be alone because she never learned what love is...you know...with all that studying and lack of nurturing, how could she possibly have time for that.

There is more to life than appearances. National merit scholar doesn't mean crappola if the kid isn't happy.

Ibelsd
March 16th, 2005, 07:45 AM
*rolls eyes*

If you're going to add in real world examples, you have to make them EQUAL examples. Wanda who works at wal-mart and raises a little brat who's a drop-out-to-be on her spare time is not equal to Pamela who's the CEO of a multi-national corporation and mother of one national merit scholar. Yes, they're both "working moms", but would you consider their accomplishments equal?


The point NOT, the point! Watch the beat. If you are going to use hypothetical examples, they should mirror wordly realities. Yours don't. What if my green dragon could slay your purple dragon? No man. I mean hypothetically. If we both had dragons and all things being equal. First, all things are NOT equal. Second, the hypothesis only works if we are playing D&D or if dragons suddenly appeared in the real world. As such, your hypothetical attempts to measure the worth of an individual by the number of titles they possess without taking into consideration the skill with which they utilize their titles are flawed. A single working mom probably cannot do the equal job in both childcare and as CEO as a woman who was either a mom or a CEO. My real world examples demonstrate this little caveat of life.

Harrison383
March 16th, 2005, 08:31 AM
My mother was a working mom while I was growing up. My dad works in pest control, my mom worked as an inventory specialist (still don't know what that means), and both worked throughout my childhood. They scrimped and saved to make sure that I get a good life along with my sisters. Now I'm going to break down the end result for you.

I'm 22 and currently run my own marketing business with 2 collegues. I scored a 32 on the ACT and nearly got a free ride to a ERAU to learn Aerospace Engineering(long story on how that fell apart). I am madly in love with a girl who is studying to be a nurse, and plans on getting a degree earlier than her peers. My friends are all successful, and one even plans on actually buying out a business. (proving that i have healthy personal connections to good people)

My first youngest sister is engaged with a meat manager at a steak house. He's well on his way to running the place, and he's only been there about 5 months. She is currently on disability (long story involving her back) and is raising her own child. She is one of the most good-hearted and wholesome people I know. She would stop her car in the middle of the highway, leap out, run through 3 lanes of traffic, if it would mean moving a bunny to a safer place.

My youngest sister just started highschool. She's is currently taking honors sophmore level classes and is on her way to break the school records in cross country and hopefully long distance track. She has received numerous commendations from teachers in middle school and is actively participating in the local VFW.

My mom was a working mom. No day care. No help from anyone. She did it. And she did it damn well.


Not to mention that her little merit scholar is an obsessive compulsive over achiever who falls apart at any sign of a grade lower than an A+ who grows up to be alone because she never learned what love is...you know...with all that studying and lack of nurturing, how could she possibly have time for that

That is a fallacy and I find it insulting.

Ibelsd
March 16th, 2005, 10:54 AM
My mother was a working mom while I was growing up. My dad works in pest control, my mom worked as an inventory specialist (still don't know what that means), and both worked throughout my childhood. They scrimped and saved to make sure that I get a good life along with my sisters. Now I'm going to break down the end result for you.

I'm 22 and currently run my own marketing business with 2 collegues. I scored a 32 on the ACT and nearly got a free ride to a ERAU to learn Aerospace Engineering(long story on how that fell apart). I am madly in love with a girl who is studying to be a nurse, and plans on getting a degree earlier than her peers. My friends are all successful, and one even plans on actually buying out a business. (proving that i have healthy personal connections to good people)

My first youngest sister is engaged with a meat manager at a steak house. He's well on his way to running the place, and he's only been there about 5 months. She is currently on disability (long story involving her back) and is raising her own child. She is one of the most good-hearted and wholesome people I know. She would stop her car in the middle of the highway, leap out, run through 3 lanes of traffic, if it would mean moving a bunny to a safer place.

My youngest sister just started highschool. She's is currently taking honors sophmore level classes and is on her way to break the school records in cross country and hopefully long distance track. She has received numerous commendations from teachers in middle school and is actively participating in the local VFW.

My mom was a working mom. No day care. No help from anyone. She did it. And she did it damn well.



That is a fallacy and I find it insulting.

It is really a touching and heartwarming story.. But what you find insulting is totally irrelevant. You have not shown that your mom wouldn't be a better mom had she not held a job nor that she wouldn't have been a better employee had she not been a mom.

One common thread in your story is how close you all are to success (or perceived success). How this fell apart and why one sister is on disability raising her own child gets glossed over. Your other sister is on her way... Has anyone actually comleted anything in your family? Have you witnessed success? Perhaps if your mom stayed home to raise you, she could have shown you first hand how to complete something one has started. Namely the raising of her own children.

I am speaking with a little vitriol and a bit of hyperbole not to insult you, but to make a point. The argument is not that single moms or working parents can't do both, or even do both pretty well. The point is that parents make better parents when one can stay home and be a full time parent. When a company hires a part time employee, they expect less production than they would from a full time employee. I am sure you and your sisters will turn out fine. I am sure you would have had a better chance to do even better if your mom could have stayed home with you. The alternative is that you can argue that kids don't really need their parents. Hey, isn't this the argument supporters of gay marriage make all the time?

Iluvatar
March 16th, 2005, 12:07 PM
You have not shown that your mom wouldn't be a better mom had she not held a job
The point is that parents make better parents when one can stay home and be a full time parent.I've been searching this thread, and still cannot find where anyone has shown this point.

I grew up in a daycare and later as a latchkey kid. I made the following observations when comparing the kids who were also in daycare to those who were not.

A)Those who were in daycare were consistently more socially well developed when they reached school age. They were far better able to relate to other children, and had a good deal more experience at making friends.

B)EVERY kid who I knew, without exception, preferred being home alone after school than having their parents there. Those who were home alone enjoyed having time to relax, and those who had parents voiced their desire to be at home. This is true of any situation where there is a controlling figure and a controlled figure. In the military, for example; a commander would not be wise to spend all his time with his troops, sharing the same sleeping quarters, meals, etc. People need time to be by themselves; solitude is far too often ignored when decisions such as this are made.

C)Academically, the latchkey/daycare kids did exactly as well as those kids with stay at home mothers.

D)The kids with the sense of being pushed too far, who were the overachievers, and had trouble because of it later in life, were 75% SAH Parented kids.

Ok, time for a quick bit of Anecdotal argument:
My mother grew up under a stay-at-home mom, and specifically stuck with her career later on when I was a child, so that I could enjoy the benefits of being at home without a constant parental eye watching me. My parents were at work until 4 or 5, so I usually had several hours of time to do what I wished. This time was invaluable. I believe that it has helped me more than any other single act in their entire time as parents.
[/anecdotal argument]

HL referred to the 0-3 age group for daycare. I would agree to some extent with this. I would say about half that time is an acceptable age to let your child go to a daycare center. Beyond that, your child begins to want to do things, be with others, play, etc. A SAHM can provide these, but a good daycare center can do it equally well. Such a center can do a superior job providing potential social interactions. The kids I met at age 2 in a daycare center have become life-long friends, and we still get together quite often. This is the case with many children I have seen coming from such centers.

There are some dangers, though, in sending your kid to a DCC. It should never be done as a solution to a behavioral problem. I recall a few kids who were sent there for such reasons. Imagine a 2 year old who could swear worse than most high school kids.

Harrison383
March 16th, 2005, 12:27 PM
One common thread in your story is how close you all are to success (or perceived success). How this fell apart and why one sister is on disability raising her own child gets glossed over. Your other sister is on her way... Has anyone actually comleted anything in your family? Have you witnessed success? Perhaps if your mom stayed home to raise you, she could have shown you first hand how to complete something one has started. Namely the raising of her own children.

I left the program because I realized being one of 100 autonomous drones pumping out wing flaps on the new 777 wasn't something I wanted to achieve.

My sister is on disability because she was in a car accident and has back problems. She has a surgery coming up that could correct it, but it was too risky with the baby. It's been postponed.

Neither of these are relevant to my arguement. Hence they were left out.


Has anyone actually comleted anything in your family? Have you witnessed success?

I run my own company. At 22. I have loving and successful friends. And a beautiful and successful girlfriend whom I love.

My sister is madly in love with a very intelligent and sweet guy. She has the love of her child now.

My youngest sister is well on her way to outshining us all.

Run me through how that's not successful. We have health, wealth, and happiness. All signs of success, I believe.


But what you find insulting is totally irrelevant.

HL implied that a working mom will have messed up children. My mother is a working mom. I found her implication insulting. I stated why.

I'm not saying HL intentionally wanted to be insulting. I felt the arguement was. I've only been here a little while and I know she's one of those people who wouldn't do that. (That and she has "happy" in her name for crying out loud). (HappyLady, I'm sorry, but i'm an idiot and can't abbreviate correctly :))

I felt stating a personal experience that working mothers can raise children that are every bit as successful as SAHM would prove a good point. I still feel that working moms and SAHM both have it rough, and both are equally capable of raising healthy, successful children.

Whether my mom had it easier; I doubt it. I once sprayed the entire inside of our living room with a hose.

Sam
March 16th, 2005, 12:49 PM
I'm not saying HP intentionally wanted to be insulting. I felt the arguement was. I've only been here a little while and I know she's one of those people who wouldn't do that. (That and she has "happy" in her name for crying out loud).



You are correct about HL. I think the point is of coarse it can be done. Moms can work and raise kids but is it the BEST for the kids all around. I know families where mom and dad work and the kids appear to have turned out fine. I also know families whose moms and dads work and the kids have problems. There are other factors that come into play. Some kids need a mom around more than others. There are also some women who truly would rather work than be home. Maybe they don't feel that they are cut out to be a stay at home mom. If they are not happy being home then how good of a mother can they actually be.
These are all exceptions to the general rule that moms do best at home with the kids and kids do best being home with mom.
Years ago when moms stayed home we did not see a lot of the problems with kids that we see today. Kids left alone in a house to do as they please may not be a good thing. Kids are not allowed to stay in school after hours without supervision yet the parents allow them to go home by themselves. I can think of a lot more that can happen at home alone then unsupervised in school.
To say that you turned out fine even though both parents worked doesn't prove that you had the BEST possible upbringing.

Iluvatar
March 16th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Years ago when moms stayed home we did not see a lot of the problems with kids that we see today.Years ago, society was vastly different as a whole. Kids had far less exposure to popular culture, to information, to just about everything. With almost nothing being constant between then and now, pointing to SAHM's and saying their fall in numbers is the cause is rather fallacious.

In general, form my experiences, working mothers are able to provide a better childhood than SAHM. Not by a large amount, but they are certainly not raising Worse children than SAHM's.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little concrete evidence or support that can be offered for either viewpoint.

HappyLady
March 16th, 2005, 01:32 PM
My mom was a working mom. No day care. No help from anyone. She did it. And she did it damn well.

You say "no daycare", "no help from anyone." Who watched all you kids while she was working?


That is a fallacy and I find it insulting.

WHile I think it's been cleared up, this is not what I implied at all. Zhavric was seeming to equate intelligence with happiness. Just because a working Mom (or any Mom for that matter) has a merit scholar doesn't mean she has a happy well-adjusted child.

The point that I have asserted in this thread is that a child who spends a large amount of their waking hours in a daycare or in someone else's care other than a parent is not being exposed to an ideal situation. I think a mother's choice to work should coincide with the independence of their child. For example, when they are babies to 3, stay home with them. WHen they are 3 to 5, enroll them in preschool for social interaction only a couple hours a day and Mom can get a part-time job, take classes, whatever. When the child starts school, the child is away from the Mom anyway.

However, while children are in school, I don't think it is a good idea for them to be "latch key kids", etc... A parent should be home for them when they get home. When they become teenagers, I think giving them less of your time is acceptable because teenagers don't really need their parents so much at that time. But I still don't think it's a good idea to let kids run around willy nilly after school. It's important to keep tabs on them.

(That's just a scenario so my point is clearer. I'm not advocating locking children away until they are 18 so that they are ONLY ever in Mom's care.)

For the record, I was the child of a working mother, too. My Dad drank and gambled his paychecks away, so she had no choice. I turned out "fine." But I also know she was largely missing from my childhood and I missed her.


EVERY kid who I knew, without exception, preferred being home alone after school than having their parents there.

You do realize that you are the exception to the rule of finding that to be your most productive time. Statistics indicate that the timeframe that kids are most likely to do drugs or cause trouble is in the hours after school. The reason is because parents aren't there to supervise. Sure, kids like being alone. But most laws don't recommend leaving a child under the age of 10 to 12 (it varies from state to state) home alone.

Ibelsd
March 16th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Now that everyone has made their personal stories public and shown, anecdotally, how wonderful latchkey kids CAN be, let's look at the evidence.
http://www.northbay.com/lifestyle/general/07teenessay_d6.html
http://www.demauro.com/marv3.html
http://www.nlu.edu/education/hhp/417Su2000latchkey.html

I can go on and on, but it all just gets redundant. Not one expert I read, NOT ONE, recommnded that parents leave their children home alone. The practice was rationalized and excuses were made, but all agreed it was safer to come home to mom, rather than come home to an empty house, or even go to some intermediate day care.

An exception to the rule does not make the rule. No offense, but claiming one is the modern model of success is not exactly proof of said success. The argument is that a mom can be equally good performing two jobs as she could be at performing a single job. This is factually and theoretically incorrect. It is a rationalization that feminists have perpetuated so they don't feel so bad working while their child is home alone. I understand that today, two income households are hardly a choice. Thank you feminists! I wish they would admit they have royally screwed the next umpteen generations of children due to their selfishness. Look, I just became a father. My wife and I both work. I will not claim it is better for my child. What would be better would be if either her or I could stay home with him. We both work to pay the bills. Pretending it will have no side effects is living in fantasy land.

HappyLady
March 16th, 2005, 01:43 PM
It is a rationalization that feminists have perpetuated so they don't feel so bad working while their child is home alone. I understand that today, two income households are hardly a choice. Thank you feminists! I wish they would admit they have royally screwed the next umpteen generations of children due to their selfishness.

Haha. I was a feminist...until I became a mother. When I was in college, I was the first to say women should have the right to pursue the same endeavors that a man can. And I still feel that way. But if a woman chooses to pursue the endeavor of childbirth, then she should realize that she has chosen a career path in doing so.

One of my biggest regrets to this day is all the time my first child spent in daycare when I had to work. I had no choice, I had to feed her. But I was also taking college courses at the time and pawned her off on my Mom a few nights a week to babysit so I could go to school. That was selfish. I saw her maybe 2 to 3 hours a day, if that. While it is anectdotal, I don't have as strong of a relationship with her as I do my 3 year old who I have been home with since birth.

I know there are working mothers who are "all about the kids" when they aren't working, but I also know most of them are exhausted, and that their schedules for the kids are very hectic. They have to pack in so much in just a couple hours (homework, dinner, baths, extracurricular activities) while a stay-at-home Mom can provide a more liesurely pace for the kids.

Harrison383
March 16th, 2005, 02:00 PM
An exception to the rule does not make the rule.

I wasn't debating the rule. I was debating your argument. And an exception to the rule does prove it's fallibility.


No offense, but claiming one is the modern model of success is not exactly proof of said success.

Provide me with a better way to tell if your successful than by looking around and realizing you have everything you need.


You say "no daycare", "no help from anyone." Who watched all you kids while she was working?

Mom and Dad juggled schedules. I think we were baby sat for a couple of hours from my grandmother or something. But that was only a couple of hours a week. And when I got older, I helped out...and so on. So I guess I kinda reached too far on that one. Sorry.

Iluvatar
March 16th, 2005, 02:20 PM
http://www.northbay.com/lifestyle/g...enessay_d6.htmlUmm...Ibs, that's just a highshooler presenting HIS opinions. How does that support your arguement?

http://www.nlu.edu/education/hhp/417Su2000latchkey.html
This one never seems to say that latchkeyism is detrimental; it just touts the benefits of extra curricular activities.


Statistics indicate that the timeframe that kids are most likely to do drugs or cause trouble is in the hours after school.Obviosuly. No statistic is needed to tell us that.That is not going to change by having less latchkey children. When I was in high-school, the majority of kids who were into drugs were the children of SAHM's. I don't think it had anything to do with whether the mother worked or not, it was the quality of the parenting that was the deciding factor.

I think I will continue to watch this thread, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of progress that can be made. This is just subjective opinion. There is no way to prove it definitively wither way.

HappyLady
March 16th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Mom and Dad juggled schedules. I think we were baby sat for a couple of hours from my grandmother or something. But that was only a couple of hours a week. And when I got older, I helped out...and so on. So I guess I kinda reached too far on that one. Sorry.

As far back as civilization goes family helped out family to raise their children. If Dad is working third shift so he can get kids off to school and Mom is working first shift so she can get them off the bus, and Grandma helps out once in a while, then it is still your family raising you. My problem is with working Moms who do the 9-5 (or 8 to 6 as is often the case), and rely heavily on the daycare system, latchkey programs, or worse leave kids home alone to fend for themselves unsupervised at too young of an age.

I guess there is a hierarchy. Best case scenario would be to have Mom there most of the time when you are young, then one parent (Mom or Dad) there as you get a little older, and then when you are independent enough (teenager) a little unsupervised time, or Grandma or whatever, won't be detrimental. Next best case scenario would be something like you are describing where Mom and Dad utilize near family, but Mom and Dad are still the ones spending the majority of time with you. Worst case scenario are children who rarely see either parent because they are working all the time and the child is being cared for by people who don't really love him. They're just getting paid to babysit him many hours a day.

Ibelsd
March 17th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Umm...Ibs, that's just a highshooler presenting HIS opinions. How does that support your arguement?
This one never seems to say that latchkeyism is detrimental; it just touts the benefits of extra curricular activities.

Obviosuly. No statistic is needed to tell us that.That is not going to change by having less latchkey children. When I was in high-school, the majority of kids who were into drugs were the children of SAHM's. I don't think it had anything to do with whether the mother worked or not, it was the quality of the parenting that was the deciding factor.

I think I will continue to watch this thread, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of progress that can be made. This is just subjective opinion. There is no way to prove it definitively wither way.
Quite honestly, I was just searching through the internet and picked seveal links pretty much at random. The point is that not one website noted that being a latchkey kid was a positive thing. Every website either explicitly noted problems associated with latchkey kids or discussed solutions for dealing with latchkey kids (we can make an inference that if it weren't a problem, then there wouldn't need to be a solution).

HappyLady
March 17th, 2005, 08:43 AM
I think I will continue to watch this thread, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of progress that can be made. This is just subjective opinion. There is no way to prove it definitively wither way.

It isn't really subjective, though. The trend is that what experts debate about is whether daycare is detrimental to a child or not. There isn't unanimous agreement. They don't debate if it is actually healthy and good for them. They don't debate whether mothers staying home with their children is best for them over being in daycare. Unless the mother is totally dysfunctional, it is accepted by experts that this is best.

All the way through to latch key kids, experts don't debate if it is BETTER to have a latch key kid or a parent at home. It is a given that parental supervision is almost always best. What is debated is just how detrimental it is or can potentially be to leave a child unsupervised.

While the long term effects of daycare or latch key may not be blatently apparent, it doesn't mean there aren't immediate negative effects from it or that there is more potential for negatives through this system than there are having a parent at home with the children. The fact is, the potential for children to get into trouble after school if unsupervised is very high. The fact is, babies don't thrive as well in daycare as they do in their mother's care.

There are several studies linking ADD to daycare, but I can't find them on the Internet. The problem is, political correctness prevents many experts from stating that daycare is detrimental and that having a mom at home with the kids is statistically better for the child.