From: elise@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com (Elise Wade)
Subject: Re: At what age is day care appropriate?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:29:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr03.234858.952904@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>In article <1992Mar26.235444.11402@informix.com> cathl@odin (Catherine Lyman) writes:
>>           Why do we scorn people who love their children but
>>feel compelled to continue their interests outside the home?
>
>I am certain that this will generate flames, but it is nonetheless how I 
>honestly feel about this topic.
>

Well, this response is not meant to be a flame.  Just a different viewpoint.

[... opinions on developmental needs deleted ...]

>
>So, finances aside, if you cannot take 5 years out of your career and whatever
>personal satisfaction that gives you to devote to the upbringing of another

This is *not* a main point here, but there have been some recent studies
(I read the report in the Business section of the Dallas Morning News)
that a woman who takes more than 6 months off after the birth of a
child will have reduced earnings power up to 20 years later!  (There
wasn't enough data to say what happened to stay-at-home dads.)
So, its *not* just current earnings/career that is sacrificied, but
the woman's future earnings and career as well.

[... other stuff about having to work & education for care givers
       deleted ...]
>
>If you live to be 80, then the 5 years devoted to your very young children
>amounts to less than 7% of your life.  So, many in society scoff at those
>who are unwilling to sacrifice 7% of the fulfillment they get from their
>careers to dedicate that crucial time to their children's lives.  And there
>are some good friends I include in that category.  Fortunately, I can disagree
>with someone's choices and priorities and still value them as people. 
>
>But I disagree with our values and priorities as a society where our children
>are concerned.  Immigrants who first came to this country hundreds of years
>ago sacrificed their ENTIRE lives for their children.  I think that is much more
>noble than the current standard of part time parenting.

Ah, here is my main difficulty with this viewpoint.  I *DO NOT* regard
having children as a sacrifice!  I do not think this is right, good or
fair.  My child (soon to be children) is a wonderful gift which enriches
my life, the life of my husband, and our marriage.  In spite of -- and
sometimes because of -- the little irritations, inconviences, and limitations
Sabrina is really a very wonderful part of our life and family.  Our
family decisions are based on the welfare of *every* family member.

People who sacrifice their ENTIRE lives (or even five years of it) set
themselves up for tremendous disappointment.  Sacrifice creates the
expectation of a future payback -- generally an expectation that *no*
human being can meet.  It is the basis of the attitude you often see
between parents and older children.  The parent: "I've sacrificied 
everything so you (the child) could have the things I did not.  How can
you be so ungrateful?"  The child: "Nothing I do ever satisfies my
mom/dad.  I can never be good enough for them."

I really think that people who believe children will be a sacrifice
for them should carefully rethink having children at all.  To concentrate
so on what you should (or are willing) to *give up* is to miss the
joy that children can, and should, bring.

>
>-- 
>I finally decided what I want on my tombstone...
>
>	"Here lies Judy Leedom Tyrer.  The world will never see another like 
>	 her.  We are undecided on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing."	

Elise.