From: lauraf@notavax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Laura Floom)
Subject: Re: At what age is day care appropriate?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:56:32 GMT

In article <STB.92Apr7153111@sbodoff.hpl.hp.com> stb@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Stephanie Bodoff) writes:
>In article <1992Apr03.234858.952904@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom
>Tyrer) write:

I responded to this thread on the weekend, but it seems to have ended up i
net.abyss, so I will add my comments onto Stephanies excellent post.
>
>   convenience of the parent.  Children are human beings who demand an enormous
>   amount of time, love, and affection from those who brought them into the world.
>   As the child grows, they become more and more involved in the world and the
>   time demands of the parent diminish.  (For example, school takes a considerable
>   amount of their time, then there is scouting, sports, peers, etc.).  HOWEVER,
>   the first five years of a child's life are CRUCIAL to the well being of that
>   child.  The most important job a person will ever have and the biggest most

Where do you get this 5 year stuff? you have mentioned this before on other
threads, and I always picture you sending Mitch and Erin off into the world 
at 5 years of age to seek their fortunes. Well, as your kids get closer to
that magic age, I think you may find that they are still in need of loving
care and attention, wether it be a parent or loving caretaker. 

>   critical responsibility a person will ever know is the care of the 0-5 YO so
>   that this human being has the requisite basis for a happy, fulfilling life.
>
>   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
>   human being, then, IMO, you should rethink having children.  It is one thing

Ok, this sentance above is the one that really burned me up! What makes you 
think that people dont do that? I am sure the when people plan kids they
consider all their options, and if they decide that they need (or want)
two careers/salaries, maybe they still decide that it would be ok to go ahead
and have the kids. Perhaps they make this decision based on their observations
of how well the children of friends are doing, in the same situation.

>   to HAVE to work.  It is quite another to choose to work at a time when your
>   children need so very much of you.  
>
>Well, you anticipated some flames, so here goes ...
>
>I'm getting very tired of these not so subtle intimations that parents who
>use daycare are treating their children as pets. Especially from someone
>who has previously admitted that she couldn't stand staying at home all day
>with her children. In addition, I recall a remark to the effect that the
>person who is staying at home with her children (her husband) is "straining
>at the bit" to return to work with the youngest child still several years
>away from going to school. I wonder what sort of unconscious message gets
>sent to these kids every day. 

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).

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.
>
>No, I agree with Elise, that supreme parental sacrifice, with the attendant
>guilt trips that get laid on children, is not really in the child's best
>interest. On the contrary, I think they might even be better off with
>someone "who often doesn't speak the native language" but actually loves
>caring for young children. Since neither you nor your husband really enjoys
>the job of full-time childcare, maybe you should have thought twice about
>having children.

Both my neighbors have babysitters who come to the house. Both speak excellent
English (with an accent), and both are loving and caring. The children are
thriving under the care. One of the kids is probably better off with the
sitter, because the mother is a self-centered. I would say that the only
chance this child has is with his sitter.  Of course Judy wants to see the
worse case scenario and use it to argue for staying at home. How about the
worst case scenario for stay at home parents. I know people who plant their
kids in front of TV for 4-6 hours a day (oh, but it is PBS or videos so it
must be good, yeah, right), just so they can cope.

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.


Newsgroups: misc.kids