From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Subject: Re: At what age is day care appropriate?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 19:45:10 GMT

I have noticed several things in the years of reading the net.  All of them
apply to this thread.

1)  People take things out of context with great regularity.
2)  People read through very thick filters and sometimes these filters 
    dramatically change what was written.  In fact, I have seen changes
    to my posts which were exactly the opposite of what was written (and read
    by the plurality of other readers).
3)  People take discussions of general philosophy and personalize them.  They
    then feel personally insulted and retaliate by personal insults.

That said, I would now like to defend my post agains several who disagree with
me.  

First is context.  The question was asked, "Why do people scorn those who
CHOOSE to work (with the implication that this choice is for their own 
fulfillment rather than financial necessity)."  My post was in answer to that
question.  I am in no way stating that choices are made based on anything other
than the personal needs of the people involved.  Nor am I condemning those
who disagree with me.  But there are good reasons people scorn these choices.

My post was one of general philosophy.  We must have a general philosophy which
guides our choices and decisions.  This philosophy is developed by personal
experience, other's experiences shared with us, reading, and discussing things.
That is, after all, one of the most important features of the net.  It gives
us the opportunity to discuss moral, ethical, philosophical, political and
religious views.  And it causes us to think.  It is my hope that all my posts
cause people to think.  I am not naive enough to expect everyone to agree with
me (nor would that necessarily create a healthier society).

That said, I would like to address several of the responses to my post without
names.  I want to discuss the issues, not people's personal choices.

I view parenting, like many other things, as a spectrum.  On the one side are
those who do treat their children like prize posessions or darling pets.  These
are the parents who love Johnny as long as Johnny is a straight A student,
captain of the football team, etc.  These are the parents who bemoan their bad
seed when Johnny turns out to have a learning disability or be less than the
best.  We've all heard of these people.  I have met some.

In this spectrum there are two extremes.  Those who choose not to care for their
children in order to pursue their own fulfillment and those who sacrifice 
everything for their children so they can have a better life.  For the first
case I will use as an example from an experience I had while house sitting
on the posh west side of LA.  We enrolled Mitchell, then 2, in a gym class.
Of 12 children in the class, I was one of 2 parents who attended.  All the other
children were cared for by nannies.  One child was on her third nanny in 2
years.  Why?  Because whenever she misbehaved the nanny was fired for not
being strict enough.  This child broke my heart.  But, more important was
a little boy who became a friend of Mitchell.  His father was retired (60+)
and his mother was in her mid 30's and did not work.  Yet neither of them were
primary caretaker for their son.  The mother told me how wonderful it was
because they weren't tied down.  They could play tennis, golf, go to the club,
go horsebackriding, etc. without worrying about their son.  I would put this
couple at the extreme end of the spectrum of those who choose not to stay home
and care for their children themselves.

At the other end of the spectrum is a woman who left her homeland, lived on
Hester street, and gave her entire being over to ensuring her children
had a better life than they had had.  I know this woman (though
she died at age 98) and I know her children, grandchildren, and great 
grandchildren).  Her satisfaction came not in the rewards she reaped in her
later years, though they were great and we could all hope to be so beloved and
well cared for in our dotage.  But it came in the satisfaction of seeing her
children rise to the top of their fields and of society and live a truely good
life.  Her satisfaction was in watching their offspring fulfill the American
dream.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.  I fall middle with strong leanings
toward Hester street.  And I and my family have made our choices based on 
these philosophies.  My mother was raised by a governess and she resented it.
She told me stories of how horrid she felt being left behind with the governess
while her parents went off.  In turn, she was divorced when I was one and HAD
to go to work to support the family.  I was raised by my grandmother and the
maid.  I remember being 2,3, and 4 and sitting at the window crying every day
as Mommy went off to work.  My foster brother and his two sisters were sent
to boarding school starting in seventh grade.  I know how each and every one
of us felt and the term abandoned and unwanted applies.  These experiences
also color my views.

Because I stated that children are not possessions or pets, some of you took
personal insult.  I apologize.  I was stating a fact.  I was not implying that
those who disagree with me necessarily treat their children as possessions or
pets. 

Because I said that if you aren't willing to sacrifice 7% of your lifetime
to the rearing of a child you should rethink whether or not you should have
children, someone suggested that I should also rethink having children since
I have stated that I find my job satisfying and Ron is "chomping at the bit"
to go back to work.  What you fail to realize is that many people who do
not have children read this newsgroup.  They often post asking questions like,
"How do you know if you should have children."  This rethink was targeted at
that audience.

However, I would say that if you are unwilling to sacrifice 7% of your lifetime
to the rearing of a child, you might want to rethink your priorities.  I don't
mean this as an insult.  After all, I rethink my priorities on a regular basis.
It is healthy to do so.  At the moment I am on a project which makes no 
significant impact on the world and which is an utter waste of my talent.  I
am thinking that I would better use my time spending it with my children.  
Clearly, I either need a new, more valuable project or I need to find a way
to work more when the children are asleep (the latter being my short term 
choice - I only have 3 more weeks on this project).

Another poster discussed my use of 5 years as a determinant for when it is
critical to spend maximum time with children.  I derive this from my studies
in educational psychology and early child development.  The first five years
are "the formative years" after which the foundation for the person's entire
life has been laid.  Abraham Maslow created a hierarchy of needs.  Many, MANY
of these needs are met in the first five years of life.  By meeting these needs
then, the child has the maximum potential for acheiving self actualization.
I also see this time based upon the realities of school and after school 
programs coupled with the child's ability and willingness to function 
independently.  Once a child enters first grade, they are gone from the house
(unless you home school) for about 6 hours a day.  If they have friends and
outside activities, then you can easily add another 2 to 3 hours a day.  That
coincides with the average workday of 8-9 hours.  So the adult has a full 40
hours a week to work during which his or her child is occupied in outside
activities.  Also, as children get older their desire to interact with their
parents lessens and their desire to do their own projects increases.  At 3 1/2
Mitchell sometimes chooses to spend large parts of the day in his room alone.  
This represents increased freedom for us to persue our hobbies and personal 
interests.  

Yes, the number 5 is magic when talking about early childhood development.
Also, if you know your priorities and want to stay home with them in their
early years but have your career back after these critical early years have
passed, you might choose to space your children accordingly (close together).  
If you want to always be home with a baby, you might want to space your 
children further apart.  These are important issues.

I do not condemn people for the choices they make.  But I feel strongly that
people who choose to have children take their responsibility very seriously 
and acknowledge that children require a LOT of time, a LOT of patience, a LOT
of attention, and, yes, sacrifice.  And for those who view sacrifice as negative
and setting oneself up for dissappointment, I would suggest they talk to some
people who have made sacrifices in their lives.  Those who say to their 
children "After all I've done your you you treat me like this" are not making
sacrifices for their children.  They are being martyrs so they can lay major
guilt trips on everyone else because of their chosen martyrdom.  

We are the "me" generation and the concept of sacrifice is foreign to us.  I
take this as a major flaw in our generation's value system.  And I include 
myself among the group of flawed people.  There are a lot of things I have 
chosen to postpone for my kids.  I don't begrudge the children these things.
I consider these minor sacrifices for a major cause.  But philosophically I
believe that all things being equal, a child should be with one or the other
parent during the child's formative years.  I have made my life's decisions
based on this belief.  

-- 
"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