From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Subject: Re: At what age is day care appropriate?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 20:34:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.205632.25925@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> lauraf@notavax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom) writes:
>
>Yes! I was wondering if I had imagined it, but I am sure that the last time
>we had this flame war, Judy was completely on the side of people working, if
>they have that need. (Remember the flame war that started with Jennifer 
>Brindle saying she was thrilled to get back to work, then some scumbag flamed
>her and told her she was to blame for all social ills? everyone on the net
>stood up for Jennifer, and Judy was most vocal).

Two different discussions.  One was the value of work vs. the value of staying
home from a parent's point of view.  The other is what is best for the child.
And in the Jennifer argument, I was standing up for people's right to make
choices, which I still defend.  I was arguing the wisdom of a choice made
by someone who doesn't HAVE to work (see my previous post).  I am also arguing
over which decision should be made, that which is best for the parent or
that which is best for the child IF the two are in conflict with one another.
If you think day-care is best for the child, then you aren't in this situation.

>
>As Judy has told us, Ron's career is little more then an expensive hobby, si
>I assume it was cheaper for him to stay home. Judy has also said, on several
>occasions, how important her job is to her. Ever since she started this thread
>I have wondered if she would have stayed home with her kids, if Ron had a 
>job that payed more then hers, and they needed his to survive. And if she did
>stay home, how would it work out, since she didnt like it for the short time
>she stayed home before.

At the drop of a hat.  We made a purely financial choice.  At first I considered
it "Ron won, I lost".  But then I found that there are a lot of things one
gains in a good, fulfilling job, that just don't come automatically to the
primary caretaking parent.  I work primarily to put food on the table.  Even
when the project sucks, I hate my boss, and there's nothing I'd rather do than
just walk, I work.  I have been lucky to have had good opportunities along 
the way. (Lately my luck has been running low).
>
>In case anyone is wondering, I would love to stay at home with Jeffrey. It
>just isnt possible. I am lucky, my mother takes care of him while I work,
>and is full of love and patience. Next year he will start preschool 2 days a
>week, 2.5 hours, and already my mom is worried that she will miss him. I
>cant think of a better situation for a child, then a loving grandparent, but
>I wont write posts on how everyone should do it, nor will I take credit for
>something that just fell into place. If my mom hadnt decided it was time to
>retire, so she could watch Jeffrey, I am sure I would have found a wonderful
>person to care for him.

Yes, you ARE lucky.  You are choosing to have a family member care for your
child.  This is the equivalent of having a parent care for the child.  Your
mother shares your values, your ethics, and is not going to disappear.  She
will be there for Jeffrey as he grows up.  Since you are his only parent, her
role will even be more important.  Your mother and my husband are fulfilling
the same role in the children's lives.  (And, yes, I am lucky too.  I have
a choice, many people do not - which is why I'd like to see our economy such
that more people DO have a choice).  


-- 
"This is just a test.  Had this been a real life, you would have been given
further instructions on where to go and what to do."
							Judy Leedom Tyrer