Vylo

I managed to find the article in question, unfortunately, it is qualitative data.

"They were discouraged from diluting their wifely and maternal commitments by maintaining "competing" interests in friends jobs, or extended family networks, yet they were also supposed to cheerfully grant early independence to their (male) children-an emotional double bind that may explain why so many women who took this advice to heart ended up abusing alcohol or tranquilizers over the course of the decade." (Arlene and Jerome Skolnick Family in Transition p. 35)

I'll continue researching more, but I only have the net at work, or at my friends house so it takes a while to write anything up .

brighid

That depends on the situation. In some cases I would say yes and in other cases I would say no. I simply disagree with the archaic notion that children are somehow harmed because mommy isn't staying home attending to their every need, or if daddy stays home instead of mommy some grevious harm will come to the children because a man has no place as care taker.

I find absolutely no compelling reason why qualified, dedicated, well-educated and well-trained non-relative persons cannot, or do not properly care for the children placed in their care. All the nay-sayers claim harm to children, but I don't see anything beyond the "claim" and no proof.

I know of a number of mothers who feel they are better at their wifely and motherly duties because they work (part-time or full-time) outside of the home. They feel more vital and capable and this is reflected in their parenting style. Some parents aren't cut out for the rigors of parenting and unfortunately, once a child is born they have a duty to do what is best given their situation. In some cases that is staying home and in other cases that is going to work.

What actual harm is caused a child placed in a qualified, safe, nuturing non-parent, care giver environment? Can you demonstrate that in all, or even most cases a failure to bond (and therefore an irreparable harm is caused) ACTUALLY takes place?

Brighid

Vylo

If both the parents do not desire the stigma that comes with home life, the possible loss of a sense of self, and the isolation that many stay at home parents feel, then yes it would be better that they stay out in the work force. It can be very damaging to a child to have a parent that is constantly discontent with themselves, and the frustration a parent may feel from constant caretaking may foster problems for the future.

HelenM

Surely this depends on the particular family and their childcare options.

I think there comes a point where one wonders why a couple had children, if they seem so reluctant to spend time with them.

But telling one parent to stay home anyway isn't necessarily the best solution.

I also wonder if perhaps 'the children stay with Mom' never was a reality for most families, because in times past, people lived in such a way that extended family - or friends - were much more often available to share the task of raising children.

Helen

brighid

I agree. I personally feel many couples have children before they are really ready to have children. I think this is because there is this instilled ideal that one should start having children immediately after marriage, and that one should marry young (prior to late 20's.) This pressure contributes to the problem of parents having children when they are financially, emotionally, and physically unprepared (or unwilling) to properly care for their children.

The couples that I know that delay marriage (until late 20's to early 30's) and family seem to be in the best positions emotionally, financially and otherwise when it comes to having and raising a family well. I do not think couples should keep on having children they cannot fully support.

Personally, I feel people should delay marriage and children until both spouses have had the opportunity to acquire a good education (beyond highschool), each have lived on their own and know the rigors of supporting ones self, and have a few solid years of marriage time, and some reasonable financial base. There is never truly an ideal time to have children, but there are better and worse times to have children. I do think it is important that a woman work, at least part time (especially in today's economy) because she needs to keep up her work skills in the event her spouse is laid-off, taken ill, or in the unfortunate circumstance of premature death. At least one of these things will happen during the course of any marriage and her children and family are best served if she is able to lessen the burden of such difficulties with her economic contribution. A woman who hasn't worked in years, or decades is going to be hard pressed to adjust and financially handle a seriously ill spouse, or if she is widowed (unless she is fortunate enough to have been financially well-off prior to the tragedy.)

Brighid

brighid

What the American Psychological Association has to say about out-of-home day care and effects on children:

and

http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar00/childcare.html

And another:

http://www.apa.org/releases/wrkmom.html

Furthermore:

http://www.apa.org/releases/childcare.html

Here is an extensive site for infant and child development:
http://www.superstart.org/child_development_sites.htm

Brighid

Vylo

Nice post brighid. It has been pretty well established in sociological circles that it is not the quantity, but the quality of care that affects the child's development. Unfortunately, many parents confuse quality time with play time. You must make sure to instill morals in your child, and set an example, not just play ball every time you see them. Most of all talk to your children constantly and listen to them, one of the more important factors is that they understand you have concern for them.

HelenM

I understand what you're saying, although I've seen it work out when people get married young and have children soon afterwards. Some people seem better at adapting to their circumstances and on the job learning than others. And some people have a better idea of what they want from life at 21 than others do at 35.

Helen

brighid

Oh, I agree and I didn't mean to say that those who get married younger and have children right away can't and don't have great families. Unfortunately it seems the divorce rate is much more likely the younger one gets married, etc. Each situation is different and should be evaluated individually.

As a general principle I think young adults should be encouraged to get a good education, post pone marriage until their late twenties, experience life independentally from their parents home and wait a little while before having children. These sorts of principles seem to promote stronger individuals and in turn this seems to create stronger marriages and families.

More power to the young couples who have happy marriages and families!

Brighid

Vylo

That is because of economic changes. Back in the 50's you only needed a high school education to get a job that would buy you a house with 15 % of your salary. The economic boon of the 50's made it very easy to leave your parent's home and strike out on your own with your partner. Your wife didn't even need to work. With a decline in government investment in families, and a downwardly mobile society, it is difficult to mary at such a young age. You must have at least a 4 year college education to stand a good chance in today's job market, and then afterwards, many young adults will go to grad school. Even if they do not it will still take some time to get their financial situation straightened out to the point where marriage will be a good option.