posted February 20, 2007 06:03 AM            

We are currently witnessing a grand social experiment, the results of which are not fully in - we are allowing an entire generation of young children to be raised by strangers. Robertson shows how people have been convinced that parenting is too important to be left to mere parents, that bureaucrats know better than mom and dad, and that day care centers are in fact good for children. All three of these emphases are incorrect. But the growth of the day care industry is hard to counter. In the US, federal subsidies to the child care market rocketed from $2 billion in 1965 to $15 billion in 2000. And as more and more mothers enter the paid work force (most because of economic necessity, not personal preference) the day care juggernaut races onwards.

These social trends have resulted in a devaluing of motherhood, a weakening of the family unit, and most importantly, negative outcomes for our children. The harmful effects of extended periods of day care include higher rates of illness, greater chance of sexual abuse, higher rates of aggression, and greater risk of antisocial personality disorders. The emotional, psychological and physical harm to children who spend lengthy amounts of time in day care has been well documented for some decades now. Yet the social science evidence is often attacked, covered up or ignored.

Robertson calls for an overhaul of both government and corporate practices, to reflect the desire of most mothers to be at home with their babies. His concluding chapter offers suggestions on how parents can reclaim parenting. Social and taxation policies must be reworked to allow for genuine parental choice. Those parents who wish to look after their own children should be given the financial incentives to do so.

(a book available from www.sunfood.com)

******

Now, you may be wondering why I'm posting this here. I just believe it's relevant to GU because it discusses the power of our government and others over our children.
I'm not trying to start a should-mothers-stay-home debate. I'm wondering what your opinions are about the ideas put forth in the summary I posted. For example, do you believe it is harmful for children to be raised by strangers for the most part? (I say most part because in most cases it is ... babies/children can be dropped off at least at 8 am and many are left in day care until at least 6 pm.) Do you feel mothers (or perhaps fathers) who want to stay at home and raise their children should be able to make that choice without burdening their family financially and should the government take any part in that? Should workplaces make it easier for parents to work from home or should they even go as far as revising work environments so that parents can take their children to work with them (and actually watch them as opposed to dropping them off in corporate daycare)?
I'm not saying these are the best or only options.

My opinion ... I am distressed that so many children grow up away from their parents for so long. I understand that many parents have to do so out of necessity. I also understand many parents prefer it that way. I'm not trying to judge the parents. I'm just wondering about how all this affects the children in the long and short runs.

posted February 20, 2007 06:25 PM              

I just could not imagine someone else
raising them, or loving them
as I would, could, and did...

when the 2nd one, started school
I became a teacher's aide, and substitute
and continued afterschool care
at my home...

the two years we were in canada
I home-schooled..
we were so lucky to have that
time together

now they are in High School
and I am in shock with the
stories their friends share
with me...

what have we allowed to happen...???

I think we are going see
some big changes...

posted February 20, 2007 07:42 PM            

My predisposition would be that the higher rate of illness is incorrent, the higher rate of aggression is incorrent, and the greater risk of antisocial behavior is incorrect. That's what I would assume instinctively.

My reasoning on the illness front is partly that I wouldn't want my kid growing up in a sterile environment. I just think it's a bad idea altogether. The reason being is that childhood is the formative time for the child's immune system, and I'd like my child's body to grow accustomed to fighting off illness, so that they are well-equipped.

My reasoning on the aggression front simply stems from questioning why that would be the case. What is it about the atmosphere that would promote aggressive behavior?

The antisocial disorder is another one that I would just want to know what is it about the atmosphere of the daycare that is actively promoting such a thing. I wouldn't think that being around other people would cause antisocial behavior. I also think that social interaction is one of man's primary modes of gaining maturity.

So, that's my frame of reference, which may be completely wrong. That's why I'd like to see the studies.

On to other questions:

For example, do you believe it is harmful for children to be raised by strangers for the most part?

That would depend entirely on the circumstance. Are adoptive parents better for a child than say the drug addict that bore the child? Most likely yes. Would a child fare better if the child had better synastry with the parents? I think that's a definite possibility. Overall, I think different adults can get different reactions out of children, so it's really tough to discern which are the most desirable interactions.

Do you feel mothers (or perhaps fathers) who want to stay at home and raise their children should be able to make that choice without burdening their family financially and should the government take any part in that?

Yes, I think it would be better if parents had more opportunity to make that choice. Should the government be involved? I don't know. It could be considered Welfare in that case, because the stay at home parent would claim that their expenses increase with each additional kid, and would want raises (like they would strive in the workplace for) as a result.

Should workplaces make it easier for parents to work from home or should they even go as far as revising work environments so that parents can take their children to work with them (and actually watch them as opposed to dropping them off in corporate daycare)?

I'm not so sure on this one. What would happen if you started bringing your kids to work? You'd want them to go play so you can do your work, so then you'd have to have a facility for the kids to play. More and more it would just look like daycare at the workplace. I grew up mostly with a stay-at-home mom, and thinking about what children come see their parents for it might become quite a nuisance at work. You're in the middle of a meeting, and little Johnny comes in to inform you that he's hungry, or just been hurt. It would be nice if you had someone to handle those issues for you, so that you can get through the important stuff in a professional manner. This brings us back to daycare again, it's just at the office. You're not going to be available for much more child oversight at work than you are with daycare being away from the office.

posted February 20, 2007 09:40 PM              

As for homeschooling there are pros and cons.
Parents should def play a bigger role in educating their children.

Problem is most parents dont have the time and energy for homeschooling and quite frankly cant afford it when living in this society...as many households depend on two incomes to make ends meet.

posted February 21, 2007 06:40 AM            

As many people as you'll ask - that's how many answers you'll get. Not everyone has the option or constitution to be a stay-at-home parent. But experts say - and Safer Child tends to agree - that staying at home for some or all of the first three years is generally better for the child. No matter how lousy a parent you feel you are, your child has a powerful and innate longing to be with you and to know that you want to be with him or her.

Having said that, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development did a study over seven years and concluded that daycare quality and quantity seemed to be more important factors than daycare itself, and other studies have concluded that children in high-quality daycare have better language, memory and social skills. However, a more negative assessment of typical daycare came from the Child Care Bureau (of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services), which listed the conclusions of various studies in this field. And then there's the adamant advice from Doctors T. Berry Brazelton and Stanley Greenspan, who wrote "The Irreducible Needs of Children" (Greenspan also wrote "The Four-Thirds Solution"). They say capable parents should provide "at least a significant part" of child care for their babies and toddlers -- and that even older children and teen-agers shouldn't come home to an empty house.

However you feel about it, Safer Child reminds you of these things: the earlier you leave a child in daycare, the earlier your child will begin to contract viruses. There is some correlation between early daycare and trouble with ear infections and colds. It's also much harder (albeit not impossible) to continue breastfeeding your child while using daycare. And, as NICHD noted in its study, the more hours a day a young child spends in daycare, the more likely the child may be to have certain problems later. A study released in July 2003 (led by University of Minnesota psychologist Megan Gunnar) indicated that shy children show increased levels of stress hormone in daycare settings. Finally, very young children cannot tell you they aren't receiving adequate care - except perhaps to be clingy or whiny or ill. If your child exhibits these symptoms, pay attention and resist the temptation to just brush them off as simple "separation anxiety." There might be more to it.

Some parents stay at home until the child is a toddler or preschooler (and talking) and then begin introducing the child to playgroups and small bits of daycare - gauging how much is too much by the child's reaction."
http://www.saferchild.org/daycarefaq.htm

On that page are the links to the groups that did the studies they are referring to.

I really agree with the first line that everyone will tend to have a different answer.

I know from experience with my nephew that the illness part is true. Once he started daycare he was constantly sick ... colds, ear infections, and sometimes tummy troubles. I don't think it helped his immune system much considering the way his illnesses were treated ("normally" as in drugs). He also has anger management issues and other behavioral problems (not too serious). I understand these things can occur for many reasons ... but I saw him at daycare when I would pick him up sometimes. The children were always fighting or as the provider (1 adult for at least 10 toddlers) said, "rough housing". He was a very shy, sweet kid but became very aggressive out of a real need to defend himself. Yes, a better daycare would have been better. But daycare isn't cheap. My sister was working because she had no choice (divorced single mom). Finances, to put it mildly, were a big problem. And that daycare and those like it that we looked at were packed with children.

I also agree that children have an instinctive need to be with their parents. I know it from experience but I think it's also common sense.

I really think families should have a choice whether a parent stays home or not. I don't feel that a two-income household should be forced on people. I can just hear the counter-argument ... "don't have kids then". What? Are only the wealthier people supposed to have kids?

I don't like the idea of government being involved financially for stay at home parents. With that would come regulations, pressure and very likely interference into the family circle from government agencies which is something I'd detest (not talking about abuse cases and such).

I also believe in the "separation of school and state." I'll do my darndest to make sure our child(ren) can go to a private school but if not then homeschooling it will be. I don't like the idea of politicians having a say in what my child is taught as "truth". Parents who believe in creationism shouldn't be forced to teach their children evolution and parents who believe in evolution shouldn't be forced to teach their children creationism, for example. I guess that sentiment could create a lot of heat but it's just my opinion. I think private schooling is a better choice, especially for those desiring a religious, spiritual and perhaps even a basic moral air to their kids' education.

And if private school is too expensive then I see homeschooling as the next best option. There are many places where groups of parents homeschool their kids and still bring them together for play or activities, so I don't see socializing to be a problem.

Quality of education? I guess that's what we each consider quality education to be. It just bugs me that education has become so full of propaganda that many parents feel they're too "uneducated" to educate their kids. If you can read, write and do basic arithmetic, you can essentially teach yourself anything. I don't think parents that have the time, opportunities and strong desire to homeschool their children should be made to feel inadequate in their abilities and efforts. Plus, there are many options for curriculums available to parents who are willing to make the effort.

Still, though, I'd prefer a private school for my kid(s) because I personally feel that walking that fine line between teacher and parent is a huge responsibility. I do trust that there are good educators out there. It's just a matter of finding and affording them.

posted February 21, 2007 08:06 AM              

if I could afford it, my children would be in A Waldorf School..in Temple, NH...yes, I looked into it, hehe

Public High School..is a zoo..and the "no child left behind" situation..has them graduating..without even really passing..they are just moved along, processed..through. ...

it does appear the wealthy have an advantage!

the idea "you get what you pay for"
and what is free, is of no value...

like Our Beautiful Planet Earth..in all her Glory!
ravaged, and poisoned...
unappreciated by a majority

posted February 22, 2007 10:36 AM              

what in the world is more important than raising our children? our instincts in raising and protecting our children are what led to the development of civilization. their care and needs should be our highest priority. it's what makes a mother a mother. no authority can ever substitute for that. no matter how well trained. no child says, 'mommy, please may i have a highly trained, highly educated substitute for you?'

posted February 22, 2007 12:25 PM              

Now, Man, had completely different idea's. ...

Society is run by Men
not Women

for many women felt as we do...
How dare they?

posted February 22, 2007 12:49 PM              

quote:

---

I do think that women could make politics irrelevant.
By as a kind of spontaneous cooperative action,
the like of which we have never seen.
Which is so far from people's ideas of state structure
and vital social structure that seems to them like total anarchy.
And what it really is is very subtle forms of interrellation
which do not follow sort of hierachical pattern which is
fundamentally patriarchal.
The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity.
And I think it's women who are going to have to
break this spiral of power
and find the trick of cooperation.

---

posted February 22, 2007 12:59 PM              

of course, our side is way off balance

I guess we have alot of work to do...
and we need man to meet Us half way
for we're all in this together....

LOve to ALL of you...

posted February 22, 2007 08:43 PM              

Same goes for the Indian/Pakistani joint family systems which raise kids in this kind of huge group of family. Wonderful way to raise them.

I agree with AG. I went to Public high schools with the rough n tough and feel much stronger than a lot of private school kids I see who fell apart after high school for instance. Their little private school posse ended up going different ways and some of them are depressed, into drugs, have anxiety issues and other things. But ive always been an independent one (something I learned in high school, to be social and friendly but not dependent on anyone socially), and its helped me through my college and working career.

When I was a kid, my mom was a doctor with her own private clinic. I remember us playing in her clinics empty room after school, ordering in pizza, doing our homework, whatever, and she would come and check on us every five minutes after every patient. She was a working mother but she had so much dedication and energy at the same time.

When I was seven I knew the diagnoses and treatments of most diseases that most adults dont know, because I hung around my moms clinic so much.

Sometimes when my mom had to do hospital rounds and couldnt take us with her we'd stay with our live-in maid (a hispanic woman) who was kind and wonderful. Another side effect of this was that by the time I was five I was quadralingual (Arabic-the language my dad spoke, Urdu--the language my mom spoke, English--the language my friends at school and my elder siblings spoke, and Spanish--the language our maid spoke with us). And I am fluent in ALL without the least bit of accent. I have a full on american, urdu, arabic and spanish accent.

Those are the PROS of being raised by different people. I dont see any cons. I love my mom shes always been there for me. And when she wasnt it was nice too because we needed a breather from her and she from us. Diversity is the spice of life. But then Im a Gemini and I simply do not have those emotional needs/dependency from my parents.

Linda says in Sun Signs that a Gemini mother will always say its teh quality of time and not quantity thats most important (with the kids). And that is SO right. I totally believe that. My mom raised intelligent, independent children who knew about stuff like Dimeatap and Chernobyl to village life in Pakistan and how to say 'May I sit here?' in spanish.

And if I had been raised by my mom being a housewife all the time, without a nanny, without my dad being around, without being in her office and out and about, I Would be a totally different and much boringer (yeah i know that isnt a word) person.

posted February 22, 2007 09:53 PM              

raising children is obviously a job worth getting paid for...else why pay nannies and daycare?

most mothers are multitaskers, no doubt!! the idea of mothers working at another job while at the same time tending their children is not new...it's something most families continue to do in third world countries -- and first world countries as well, albeit in different ways. lots of women run first-class home businesses while caring for their children...

of course there are trade-offs, perhaps they don't do their own housework, or their own home-cooking...but they've made the decision to make their children their priority. perhaps it's just a question of flexibility and cooperation.

posted February 22, 2007 10:12 PM              

I dont know if Id agree with the 'raising children is obviously a job worth getting paid for...otherwise why pay nannies and daycare?' Dont get me wrong I think raising kids is the ULTIMATELY important thing to do, BUT I dont agree with your logic of getting there because salaries are simply determined on a supply demand basis (otherwise, would playing basketball and slamdunking be the job thats obviously the most important, because it pays the best in NBA?) Salary structures particularly in America are VERY Weird. Teachers and firefighters dont get paid half as much as what their job is 'worth' in the moral sense so I dont think gauging that raising a child is worth getting paid for, by the nannies and daycare, argument, is very valid, but thats just me, and maybe Im missing a point of yours.

I just see that Multi tasking is the way to go for a woman who is truly driven to excellence in both career and family and doesnt want to compromise either.

the trade offs are actually better imo than worse (If I am highly educated and work six hours a day, for instance, and spend teh rest of the time with my kids, two hours salary from that six hours can easily pay for the maids and nannies to clean the house when Im not here!). So not only did I work and I was productive for the economy, but I was also a good mother, I also have my house cleaned and good food, AND I have four hours salary on TOP of that to do whatever I want with That is economic multitasking at its best.

I am a very worldly/economic pov person so maybe this sounds really cut and dry but to me making money is also important. Im not comparing it to having kids in a ranking method at all. But many women want to return to work after raising kids and they complain about their absence leading to less pay. While that is true, what is the company to do about it? Their perspective is also valid--a person who has not worked for so long, may have well forgotten the skills and duties or not be up to par with a fresh graduate with all the new and up to date knowledge. Thats one reason I believe at least part tiem work is beneficial--it is also beneficial for the mom (it gives her a whole other life besides kids and home that is also very fulfilling in its own way, justl ike home and kids are fulfilling in their own way, without a substitute).

I just hate to see one part of my life eat up the other, when there can be room for everything.

posted February 23, 2007 10:24 PM            

quote:

---

Public High School..is a zoo.

---

Some...the one I went to was amazing. It was a specialized high school and the kids were brilliant, the work was harder than in most universities (college is a break now). I am very for educating kids in public schools. They get an experience that will better prepare them for the real world. As long as the school is relatively good if they are smart they will be in a gifted program and the environment will be no worse than in a private.

I am somewhat against my kids being home schooled because I feel it would limit their socialization. I know a few people who were home schooled and all feel that it would have been better if they werent, that way they would be better prepared for college life. But to each his own I guess.