From: davem@mcs213k.cs.umr.edu (Dave Mentis)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: At what age is day care appropriate?
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:09:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

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.
>
>Children are not "possessions" to be enjoyed at the whim of the parent
>  [ excelent points about children's needs deleted by Dave for brevity ]

agreed!


> [ deletions for brevity ... ]
>And it is especially sad to see the job
>of caring for these precious beings put on someone who often doesn't speak the
>native language and makes less than minimum wage.  Not that these might not be
>wonderful, loving people.  But it says something very sad about our society 
>that we don't value our children enough to pay PHD's in child development to
>care for them if we can't.



I'm not sure speaking fluent English is a prerequisite for good child care.
As for minimum wage vs. PHD's in child development, I've (actually Doyla)
has 2 aunts that care for Dava. We don't pay them more than minimum wage
and neither has a PHD in anything. No slight is intended against PHD's
in child development, but I'd put their care up against anybody's!



>>Why do we scorn women who go outside the home for fulfullment,
>>but we don't feel the same way towards men?

Women are "supposed" to want to spend all day long with children.
Men are "supposed" to work all day long....

And that's all we're "supposed" to do. Just one monolithic definition
for each of us.

The men's side of this seems to be open to change these days.
The women's, imho, isn't. It needs to be.


>
>This, I think, is wrong.  Someone in the family needs to work to support the 
>family.  But they are going outside the home not for fulfillment, but to put
>food on the table.  There is all the difference in the world.  If they are
>lucky, they are in a fulfilling job.  But these people would work regardless
>because the family needs to survive.  It is only tradition that makes this
>the man's role instead of the woman's.

The people you know may only work for money. 

The people who have posted against parents working seem to take the
attitude that the care their children get CAN'T be as good as what they'd
give them. As a de facto standard. In all cases. I don't buy that.

The parents themselves aren't, as a rule, PHD's in child development.
So what makes them better than somebody else ? Only biological ties
to a child will allow someone to care as much for a child as is possible ?
I don't buy that, either.

I care very deeply for my daughter. Her entire welfare / development.
And I know people who are not biologically related to her who care just
as much. There's no contradiction there. If the anti-childcare people
haven't met anyone like that, it doesn't negate the existance of someone
who has.

  -- davem@cs.umr.edu  (Dave Mentis)