Among the findings:The debate reached a high pitch in the late 1980s, during the so-called day care wars, when social scientists questioned whether it was better for mothers to work or stay home. Day care workers and their clients, mostly working parents, argued that it was the quality of the care that mattered, not the setting. But the new report affirms similar results from several smaller studies in the past decade suggesting that setting does matter.
“This study makes it clear that it is not just quality that matters,” said Jay Belsky, one of the study’s principal authors, who helped set off the debate in 1986 with a paper suggesting that nonparental child care could cause developmental problems. Dr. Belsky was then at Pennsylvania State University and has since moved to the University of London.
That the troublesome behaviors lasted through at least sixth grade, he said, should raise a broader question: “So what happens in classrooms, schools, playgrounds and communities when more and more children, at younger and younger ages, spend more and more time in centers, many that are indisputably of limited quality?”
I've long believed that this country's problems with crime, character and moral decay stem from the time that people convinced women that they had to have a job outside the home to have "worth" or "self esteem." You can pretty much trace our decline as a society to the 70s, when day care was pushed on families as a way for mom to be able to "have a career."
Not dissing women who work. Just saying that there is nothing more important than raising your children, and no matter how much you pay someone, they will never do as good a job as the mother.
__________________
"If you make a mistake, make it at full speed."
Bear Bryant
"Just saying that there is nothing more important than raising your children, and no matter how much you pay someone, they will never do as good a job as the mother."
Yep. If the man cant make enough money he shouldnt have children. My wife stayed at home and raised ours when they were young.
__________________
Sometimes we have to force things on the stupid and irresponsible for the greater good of the country.-JGTBH
Not dissing women who work. Just saying that there is nothing more important than raising your children, and no matter how much you pay someone, they will never do as good a job as the mother.
As a general rule, yes, but there are a few cases where the kids would be better off being raised by wolves than their own mothers.
Among the findings:The debate reached a high pitch in the late 1980s, during the so-called day care wars, when social scientists questioned whether it was better for mothers to work or stay home. Day care workers and their clients, mostly working parents, argued that it was the quality of the care that mattered, not the setting. But the new report affirms similar results from several smaller studies in the past decade suggesting that setting does matter.
“This study makes it clear that it is not just quality that matters,” said Jay Belsky, one of the study’s principal authors, who helped set off the debate in 1986 with a paper suggesting that nonparental child care could cause developmental problems. Dr. Belsky was then at Pennsylvania State University and has since moved to the University of London.
That the troublesome behaviors lasted through at least sixth grade, he said, should raise a broader question: “So what happens in classrooms, schools, playgrounds and communities when more and more children, at younger and younger ages, spend more and more time in centers, many that are indisputably of limited quality?”
I've long believed that this country's problems with crime, character and moral decay stem from the time that people convinced women that they had to have a job outside the home to have "worth" or "self esteem." You can pretty much trace our decline as a society to the 70s, when day care was pushed on families as a way for mom to be able to "have a career."
Not dissing women who work. Just saying that there is nothing more important than raising your children, and no matter how much you pay someone, they will never do as good a job as the mother.
Among the findings:The debate reached a high pitch in the late 1980s, during the so-called day care wars, when social scientists questioned whether it was better for mothers to work or stay home. Day care workers and their clients, mostly working parents, argued that it was the quality of the care that mattered, not the setting. But the new report affirms similar results from several smaller studies in the past decade suggesting that setting does matter.
“This study makes it clear that it is not just quality that matters,” said Jay Belsky, one of the study’s principal authors, who helped set off the debate in 1986 with a paper suggesting that nonparental child care could cause developmental problems. Dr. Belsky was then at Pennsylvania State University and has since moved to the University of London.
That the troublesome behaviors lasted through at least sixth grade, he said, should raise a broader question: “So what happens in classrooms, schools, playgrounds and communities when more and more children, at younger and younger ages, spend more and more time in centers, many that are indisputably of limited quality?”
I've long believed that this country's problems with crime, character and moral decay stem from the time that people convinced women that they had to have a job outside the home to have "worth" or "self esteem." You can pretty much trace our decline as a society to the 70s, when day care was pushed on families as a way for mom to be able to "have a career."
Not dissing women who work. Just saying that there is nothing more important than raising your children, and no matter how much you pay someone, they will never do as good a job as the mother.
Did anyone actually read the study? This statement should have been what the headlines should have been about:
"The effect was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved."
....but, that wouldn't have been very sexy: Study shows slight difference in behavior of children of day care.
Despite all of our logical feelings that we are great parents and make all the difference, the statistics continue to indicate that as long as you are at least a decent parent (throw out the abusers of any kind) and care about your kid (read: vast majority of parents), the most important influence of intellectual success is the genes given the kids.
For the love of God, Pecos, please tell me your post is tongue-in-cheek.
I am as serious as cancer.
I believe everything in my post and I am glad that there is now some evidence to support what many of us have suspected.
Single moms ABSOLUTELY must have day care, but married couples seem to only choose day care so the mom can work, so they can have more "stuff."
I'm pretty much old school on this.
When Mrs. Pecos and I got married, we agreed that we would try to make it on one salary so someone could be home with the kids.
We drive older cars and don't eat out too often, but I've never regretted our decision.
Not saying it's for everyone, but I think it's a good way to go.
__________________
"If you make a mistake, make it at full speed."
Bear Bryant
Gee, thanks, bearadox. I took it down because there's no point. There are so many fallacies in the thread-starting post that there's really no point in engaging, and I found it incredibly offensive, and not because I didn't stay home with my kids--I did.
All I can say is, read some history. Look up the studies. You'll find that a woman working "outside the home" is (a) not much different from a woman historically working in the home in terms of who's with the kids, and (b) not as adverse to our society as overscheduled, disconnected, electronics obsessed kids who never eat dinner at home. But don't listen to me. Look it up. "Traditional" doesn't mean "how we did it in the 50s." For centuries, women have turned the care of their children over to others while they did their complex, daylong jobs of running a household. These days, there just ain't that much household to run.
BTW, I don't work because I want more stuff. I work because my brain requires it.
Pecos:
All hyperbole aside, I think there are glaring problems with your argument. WacoGone seemed to dispose of them quite adequately, but here's my take. First, you argue that the only reason women are working is for either "self-esteem" or so people can have more "stuff." The reality is that two-incomes have become increasingly necessary to live the same modest middle-class lifestyle that a single income could provide in the past. An interesting and recently published book on this is: The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Families are Going Broke
(From a review in Publishers Weekly) "Warren, a law professor at Harvard (The Fragile Middle Class) and her daughter Tyagi, a former McKinsey consultant, have joined forces here to argue here that the two-parent middle-class working family is on the brink of financial disaster. The number of families declaring bankruptcy or receiving a foreclosure against their house has shot up dramatically. Presenting carefully researched economic data to support their arguments, the authors contend that, contrary to popular myth, families aren't in trouble because they're squandering their second income on luxuries. On the contrary, both incomes are almost entirely committed to necessities, such as home and car payments, health insurance and children's education costs. When an unforeseen event such as serious illness, job loss or divorce occurs, families have no discretionary income to fall back on. The authors recommend a number of useful societal solutions to get families out of this trap, such as legally prohibiting credit card companies from charging grossly unfair interest rates and exposing banks that employ a loan-to-own strategy that steers minority customers to higher mortgage rates with an eye to future foreclosures."
What objective or statistical evidence (other than this article) can you provide that our nation started going to hell in a handbasket when more women started to work? Sounds like the silly argument David Barton makes when he goes around to churches arguing that society went downhill after the Supreme Court ended teacher-led prayers in the public schools.
And, by the way, I'm willing to admit contemporary American society has its serious problems--but are we really worse off now than when we had slavery, women couldn't vote, and we settled our disputes with handguns? (ok some things might have not changed in West Texas)
Historically speaking, the stay-at-home Mommy is a myth of post-WWII world. Sure, many middle-class Americans, riding the post-WWII prosperity were able to live the Ozzy and Harriet lifestyle. But this was an anomaly. The vast majority of mothers, throughout history, worked full-time. It may not have been in public jobs, but they worked the fields or cottage industries in order for the family to survive. Children were more frequently raised during the day by older siblings, servants, wet nurses, or grandparents. Having too many children made survival difficult, so off to the orphanage many were sent. I'm not celebrating this, but to suggest that women are just now abandoning some traditional role just doesn't jibe with the realities of the past.
And why the heck can't the husband stay at home? Often fathers can provide wonderful care--or is it really their self-esteem and self-worth that needs the job and for the woman to stay home?
Guys (and girls)
I'm not saying that everyone must do it my way. We all make our own choices, based on the tools we have at hand. If people choose to put their children in day care, that is their decision, for their reasons, and I won't tell them they have to do otherwise.
I just found it intriguing (?!?!) that a study came out that showed what I have long suspected (kids don't do well in day care, no matter how much of a 'quality' care place it is).
I felt that somebody finally validated what I suspected.
Now, what people choose to do with it is their business.
I'm not going to condemn anyone for making their choice because I don't live in your house, in your situation.
"Don't criticize what you don't understand. You never had to walk in that man's shoes." Elvis Aaron Presley
PS For the record, I don't think it's a good idea to settle arguments with handguns. My great-grandfather tried that back in 1915 and it didn't turn out too well. (Although he used a .30-.30)
__________________
"If you make a mistake, make it at full speed."
Bear Bryant
Um, the study didn't say that "kids don't do well in daycare." The study, as DallasM5 pointed out, actually said, "The effect was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved."
There are several studies that show a cognitive advantage for children who have been in daycare, including significant increases in IQ. Children who have never been in school who then start kindergarten are often behind their peers, more disruptive in class for that year, and require more attention and specialized assistance from their teachers. They are also less well socialized, have a lesser understanding of cooperative play, which puts them at an immediate disadvantage (these factors may arise from our no longer having six or seven children in one family). They also have less experience with structure and routine, which puts them at a disadvantage when they begin school. Children who have attended daycare also are ahead in language and literacy, although this advantage evens out by third grade. Children who attend preschool are less likely to have to repeat a grade or require special education interventions.
Sure, it's every parents' decision. But to aver that the fabric of society somehow frayed because women went to work (and to make fallacious assumptions about a woman's reasons for working) and then also base those assumptions on historic inaccuracies is not just exercising opinion. It is misrepresenting facts and making assumptions based on misinformation.
Single moms ABSOLUTELY must have day care, but married couples seem to only choose day care so the mom can work, so they can have more "stuff."
You can't place a blanket statement over all married moms. It is very common that married moms who stop working when their first baby is born go through postpartum depression that is exacerbated by the sudden elimination of normal social interaction with other adults. The mom can fall into a deep depression, and going back to work can help alleviate the depression and make the whole family environment a happier place.
It has nothing to do with the selfish act of wanting more "stuff".
If the man cant make enough money he shouldnt have children.
Unfortunately, merely having a job and keeping it seems to be the norm with young marrieds.
I agree that greater effort should be made not to bring a child that you can't afford into this world but they do and they will continue to do. Child care is their only option.
For the record, my ex-wife stayed at home with the kids.
Last edited by Texas Golfer : 03-30-2007 at 09:25 AM.
You can't place a blanket statement over all married moms. It is very common that married moms who stop working when their first baby is born go through postpartum depression that is exacerbated by the sudden elimination of normal social interaction with other adults. The mom can fall into a deep depression, and going back to work can help alleviate the depression and make the whole family environment a happier place.
It has nothing to do with the selfish act of wanting more "stuff".
Valpo, it's funny you say that. After we had our last child, I had postpartum depression, and the minute I settled in at my computer to do some work, it started to lift. I felt reconnected, more human, and I think this was key--more in control. With an infant, there is NO control, so being able to sit down and work on something I could predict and also to take my mind out for a little walk was like an antidepressant for me. And the connecting was also important.
And work for me isn't about the money--I just turned down a very high-paying job because it did not fit with what I wanted for my family life--it's about using my mind, being connected, doing something that goes beyond my individual self or my family life, etc. There are so many factors and they are intertwined, so it's hard to tease them apart, but acquisition of "stuff" simply isn't one of them. I'm not a "stuff" kind of person. And I honestly tried to think of a woman I know who works for "stuff," and I can't. I do, however, know plenty of leisure-class women who do not work outside the home, but who have all of their children in daycare so they can do whatever it is leisure class women do for fun.
Unfortunately, merely having a job and keeping it seems to be the norm with young marrieds.
I agree that greater effort should be made not to bring a child that you can't afford into this world but they do and they will continue to do. Child care is their only option.
For the record, my ex-wife stayed at home with the kids.
But my husband does make enough money. His income has nothing to do with why I work. It seems that there is some inability to understand that women don't just work to make money for the household. Do you think Katy Couric works because she's dying for the money?
Day care
I took it down because there's no point. There are so many fallacies in the thread-starting post that there's really no point in engaging, and I found it incredibly offensive, and not because I didn't stay home with my kids--I did. 
