Jamie_L

Very latecomer to this thread. But it sparked a thought I've had before about day-care.

There is a basic assumption involved here: a stay-at-home nuclear family is the best invironment in which to raise a human being.

On closer inspection, I wonder if this is an unfounded assumption.

What does it mean for an environment to be optimal? Presumabely human beings have evolved such that a particular method of child-rearing produces the most robust human (physically and psychologically).

Well, the nuclear family is actually a pretty recent development for the human animal. It may have been the standard for a little while now, but it's not really what was going on when humans were evolving.

So, sometimes I think that both day-care and stay-at-home nuclear parenting have short-comings. If so, then its not a well-founded assumption that day-care must be equal-to-or-worse than stay-at-home parenting.

Jamie

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Going by your past performances, I'm going to assume this is a sarcastic dig, since I can't make sense of it otherwise.

I'm not sure you could make sense of anything involving studies, evidence, etc. since going by your past performances, it's all intuition.

Of course one can draw generalizations from any study, which may or may not have merit. So what?

Nope, I said that one can quote the findings of studies. This doesn't necessarily mean that one makes generalizations from those studies.

yguy

Why else would one quote studies in a discussion such as this, except to buttress whatever position one has taken, which is necessarily a generalization?

I'm totally lost as to what you're getting at here.

Sol

Early on in this thread the suggestion was made that your friend consider a nanny or an au pair arrangement as a possible child care solution. Based on some comments (by the original topic starter) regarding the significant others behavior and general attitude. I'd like to suggest some deep consideration regarding that option be given before entertaining it as a solution. Although there are some wonderful benefits, I see more potential pitfalls to such an arrangement in the situation, as it has been described.

fatherphil

Main Entry: 1best Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: best
Function: adjective, superlative of GOOD
Etymology: Middle English, adjective & adverb, from Old English betst; akin to Old High German bezzist best, Old Norse beztr, Gothic batista; superlative of the root found in Old English bt remedy, compensation -- more at BETTER
1 of a person a : excelling all others (as in moral, intellectual, or physical qualities) <the best boxer in his class> <the best teacher of the subject I ever knew> <the best person in the community -- kind, gentle, and understanding> b : excelling or leading all others in social and usually financial standing -- used especially in the phrases the best families or the best people <the best people, alas, were no longer always the people with money -- Brian Glanville> <the rich and arrogant, the traditional "best families" -- Bess A. Garner>
2 of a thing : excelling or surpassing all others of its kind in inherent quality or according to some standard : most productive of good : providing or offering the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction <ready to receive ideas and to devote life's best energies to developing ... their implications -- M.R.Cohen> <what is the best thing to do> <a luxurious yet practical material, the best you can buy> <the best road> <the best way to make coffee> <the best of Shakespeare's plays>

Roland98

How do you figure that one? You get much more bang for your buck if you start saving while they're babies. Heck, we already have a decent chunk in a tax-deferred savings account, and my kids are only 1 and 3 1/2. I don't want them to be burdened with the same astronomical student loan debt that I am.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by yguy
Why else would one quote studies in a discussion such as this, except to buttress whatever position one has taken, which is necessarily a generalization?

Providing evidence for one's position is not making a generalization.

I'm totally lost as to what you're getting at here.

Then feel free to start another thread where you can discuss the roles of generalizations, evidence, etc. in a debate. This thread is meant to explore the consequences of having infants in day care.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by fatherphil
Main Entry: 1best Pronunciation Guide

You seem to have misunderstood. I asked you to define "best mother", not "best".

For example, is a "best mother" someone who leaves discipline up to the father, eg. "you're going to get a spanking when your dad comes home"? Or is she someone who does this herself? Does a "best mother" encourage her offspring from their early childhood to try new activities, aim high, etc. or does a "best mother" see this as putting too much pressure on the child, instead preferring to let the child choose what he/she wants to do?

Once you have provided a definition of "best mother", we'll work on a definition of "best caretaker" and see how the two definitions differ from each other.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Sol
Early on in this thread the suggestion was made that your friend consider a nanny or an au pair arrangement as a possible child care solution.

Luckily for my friend, she works in a university and the university runs a day care center. There was a long waiting list for that place, so much so that the baby would not have been able to enter it till she was maybe six or seven months old, but I think the waiting period is almost over. This means that after the baby enters this particular day care center, my friend will be able to go and play with her during lunch break.

I don't think she was even aware of nannies and au pairs, because when we discussed the matter, that never came up. I did suggest them to her now, but she gave me another piece of news : her husband found a job (albeit not paying as well as hers, or with the health insurance). With no one at home during the day now, she thinks it would be best if the baby was in the university center.

brighid

fatherphil,

I don't know if you have children, or even have any idea the costs of advanced education these days (including the ever increasing costs due to a very poor economy.) If a parent desires a child to get the best education that child can a parent may need to save $100,000 or more (per child.) How do you expect parents to save that kind of money AFTER a child has finished their primary education?

Let's say that a child can attend a state school that costs about $10,000 p/year and the average university stay is between 4 and 5 years for undergraduate work. That is $40 to $50,000 p/child. If you have mutliple children, or children closer together then 4 years apart you may need to have a large amount of money at your disposal to pay for that education.

A mother who has been out of the work force for 18 years will find it incredibly difficult to find a job she is a) qualified for and b) can pay the kind of money needed to pay for higher education for her children.

None of this takes into account the poor status of health care in this country and the expenses of normal medical up keep of children: dentists visits, orthodontists, vaccinations, eye glasses, etc.

Then there is the issue of retirement and having money to support a partnership when one gets old and is in need of advanced medical care (since one sure as hell can't count on social security by the time I retire).

How about the cost of a child being in sports like hockey, basketball, football, or baseball (or any other number of sports?) Uniforms, equipment, and lessons can be quite costly.

How about a child who wants to play an instrument? My son's school offers orchestral instruments and he would like to play violin. Instruments aren't cheap, neither are lessons.

My son also wants to act and he has shown quite a talent for it. Acting lessons range from $350 -600 for a 7 week session (at a good school quite a distance from our home.)

His orthodontic work has thus far cost me over $2,000 out of my own pocket despite having good insurance.

Then there is the cost of living in a decent home (nothing fancy) in a good, safe neighborhood, with excellent schools and other opportunities that will enrich his life and his future ability to compete in an every competitive world.

It is not my fault that we cannot afford the best things for our son (and this isn't ANYTHING fancy) without two incomes.

Personally I think it is more important that he live in a neighborhood that is safe, has good schools and plenty of open space for him to run and play in, as well as in an integrated community where he won't feel a daily sting of prejudice because of the color of his skin and be offered some of the best educational, sports, musical and other opportunities that we can provide then as his mother, being shackled to a home.

Furthermore, it is much less stressful on my husband when I am able to amply contribute to your household, our son's education and our retirement.

I did not have the good fortune to marry a rich man, but I did have the good fortune and sense to marry a good man.

So where is the evidence, beyond the traditional notion that a SAHM is the best choice, that children are harmed by being in day care? If you are too lazy to do the research you shouldn't assert unfounded opinions as either factual, or optimal.

Brighid