Jamie_L

You don't necessarily have to prove bonding is a good thing. You just have to show that not bonding is worse. If it is, then we can say "based on this study, day care looks like it's a bad idea for young kids." If, on the other hand, we can still get "good" results with less bonding, then we're left with a matter of preference, not a question of good vs. bad.

As you say, the definitions of "good" and "bad" would need to be spelled out and agreed to.

Jamie

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
If I may be so bold, Your Majesty, feigning stupidity so as to annoy your opponent isn't quite cricket, is it?

If I may be so bold, it must suck when your definition has a gaping hole in it, mustn't it?

I write. I love writing. I would do it even if I wasn't being paid for it. Shouldn't the best care provider do the same?

They can't come rushing home every time a kid scrapes a knee,

Ah, so they're not on call 24/7, contradicting what you said earlier about parents.

Running the household is part of the job, so I don't see how that's an exception.

To run the household, you may need to be out of it for part of the time, eg. shopping. If some parents prefer to leave the kids with a relative, friend, etc. while they attend to their other obligations, they will not be with their kids 24/7.

Participating in the community is secondary.

I've Nutwatched a website which suggested that parents not allow themselves to be distracted by infants in church. In such a case, they might wish to have the infants watched by someone else for that period of time, which means the parents will not be with their kids 24/7.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by pilaar
The notion of children spending whole day with one adult person is strange to me as they don't get to socialise and learn about relating with many different kinds of people.

Absolutely. My mother was the only person looking after my little brother till he was a year old. He was terribly shy as a result, and would cry if a friend of hers even looked at him. After that, she had to work part-time, so she started leaving him with friends during her working hours, and he became much more friendly and sociable.

yguy

If you insist. That would make the parent the best care provider, wouldn't it?

Really, Queen, it is flagrantly disingenuous of you to cut out the rest of that sentence:

"but in case of an emergency, any father worth his salt will put work on the back burner with or without the boss's permission."

Remember that part? Being on call 24/7 means being there when needed, not necessarily when wanted. As the kids grow older, the parents will be needed less and less, if they're doing their job properly.

I don't know why they would prefer that, but friends and relatives are rather different from "etc." if "etc." includes paid health care providers.

Obviously I can't answer for them, but I think a parent needs to be within earshot of a crying infant. If the church doesn't allow for that, I'd bloody well find one that does or forget it.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
If you insist. That would make the parent the best care provider, wouldn't it?

What would be the difference between the parent and the care provider then?

Remember that part? Being on call 24/7 means being there when needed, not necessarily when wanted.

No, being on call 24/7 means being on call 24/7. It means that if there's any problem, you should be there for your kids.

I don't know why they would prefer that, but friends and relatives are rather different from "etc." if "etc." includes paid health care providers.

What's the difference, and why is it relevant?

Obviously I can't answer for them, but I think a parent needs to be within earshot of a crying infant. If the church doesn't allow for that, I'd bloody well find one that does or forget it.

Well, perhaps these people place their worship of their god before their need to be on call 24/7 for their kids. Maybe they define "being on call 24/7" in an idiosyncratic way too.

yguy

Why, none whatsoever. They would be one and the same.

No, it means if there's any problem your kids can't handle themselves, you should be there for them.

A paid care provider is not morally obligated to be available for the child during off hours. An infant needs someone who will always be there, whom they can bond with. A benevolent god in human form, if you will.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Why, none whatsoever. They would be one and the same.

So if there's no difference, what's wrong with hiring the care provider?

No, it means if there's any problem your kids can't handle themselves, you should be there for them.

Who defines what kids can and can't handle themselves? You, society, the parents involved in that particular situation?

A paid care provider is not morally obligated to be available for the child during off hours.

And a relative or a friend is? What moral obligations compel a friend to stay with a child, such that the friend will neglect his or her own duties and obligations to care for that child?

An infant needs someone who will always be there, whom they can bond with. A benevolent god in human form, if you will.

Since no one in life can guarantee that they will always be there, forever and ever until death do you part, the infant just isn't going to get a benevolent god.

yguy

Hire? Do you no longer agree that the best provider is the one who loves the job so much they'll do it for free?

The parents. If they get it wrong, they are responsible for the consequences.

No. That's why friends or relatives shouldn't be the primary care provider for the kid either.

To be sure, human gods have feet of clay. That's the way of the world. However, if the parents are doing the best they know how - or if they aren't - the kid will know it.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Hire? Do you no longer agree that the best provider is the one who loves the job so much they'll do it for free?

Well, in real life, not every parent may be lucky enough to find this Mary Poppins of caretakerdom, and they may have to settle for second-best.

The parents. If they get it wrong, they are responsible for the consequences.

So if some parents decide that their kids can handle being with care providers some of the time, provided there are no ill-effects from this, what's wrong with them making that decision?

No. That's why friends or relatives shouldn't be the primary care provider for the kid either.

No one was arguing that they should be the primary care provider for the child.

My question was, what is the difference between leaving your child with a care provider (i.e. a person paid to look after the child) and leaving your child with a friend. The identity of the primary care provider is irrelevant.

To be sure, human gods have feet of clay. That's the way of the world.

It's also the way of the world that no one can guarantee that they will always be there. So what is the point of saying that this is what an infant needs?

However, if the parents are doing the best they know how - or if they aren't - the kid will know it.

Not necessarily. That depends on the capabilities of child in question and the future it experiences.

yguy

So is that a yes or a no?

If in fact there are no ill effects, there would of course be nothing wrong with it...but of course that very premise is the subject of the debate.

We're back to the question of whether the one who loves the job is the best at it. Presumably a friend or relative loves the job of secondary care provider better than the hireling. If they didn't, they'd ask for money in exchange for the service.

Even if the parents fail to always be there, the child will feel the intent to succeed in that regard.

Oh, baloney. You know your own parents' weaknesses better than they do. The very ability to perceive any fault in a parent is what gets some children abused.