Daleth

yguy, Do you have anything else to say about children in daycare or in the care of anyone other than their mothers?

If you want a conversation about the APA and/or Seligman, start a new thread. Your point is interesting, but it's a rather huge topic that can't be properly addressed in this thread.

Dal

Daleth

Fair enough. To be reasonable, your conclusions must stem from reason, which is a process of the mind, not of the heart, the gut, or the colon.

A feeling is a feeling is an emotion. It didn't come from a process of your mind. It's intuitive (intuition also being associated with feminine qualities, not masculine). Unless of course your gut feeling is gas, in which case, ouch.

Yes, you've made this point to me at least 3 times, and I've always agreed. However, I can take (as far as I'm aware) anything I believe and trace it down to the core that I believe I exist and that other people/animals exist. Beyond that point, my reasoning becomes circular and I have to call it faith that I and others exist. Some day if I'm really bored or really drunk, I'll demonstrate. You seem to have hundreds or at least dozens of core beliefs that reside in the vicinity of your intestines, and you give up trying to defend them beyond their existence in that region.

Then do be kind and start a new thread for a new set of ideas.

Hideous. Monstrous. Children run away screaming.

yguy

That is a problem in semantics. Men sense, or can sense, the same things women do - they just tend to use the information differently. For instance, if a child comes home and shows by his demeanor that he has done something he shouldn't have, the stereotypical mom tends to want to coddle him, where the stereotypical dad wants to kick his ass. That, of course, was before the brave new world of men as moms and women as dads.

I'm not sure the agreement is a sign of comprehension, judging by what you just said.

That's not faith, it's knowledge.

You misperceive. They all come from the same place. You're like Copernicus looking at the motions of planets and thinking they make no sense, except that unlike Copernicus, you have yet to see that there is a moral center to everything I'm saying.

If no one else tries to defend Seligman here, I won't bring it up.

So that's what the hubster had to settle for, huh? Poor guy.

Just teasing, of course. I didn't have you figured for a dog.

fatherphil

dal, i figured this was a good last word statement although i really disagree with it.

one thing i do wonder about is how many parents are happy they were able to have their kids in daycare from infancy instead of being able to raise them themselves. i also question the ability to really measure all the effects of such an arraingement.

why do we have children in the first place?

Jinto

Can you provide support for either of these assertions?

Can you tell me why either of these behaviors are a healthy way to deal with disciplinary problems?

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by fatherphil
one thing i do wonder about is how many parents are happy they were able to have their kids in daycare from infancy instead of being able to raise them themselves.

If the child is happy in day care, if the parents are happy with their jobs and if they are able to spend some time (albeit not 24/7) with the children, what's the problem?

Take the case which prompted me to start this thread. If my friend had quit her job in order to raise her child, they would have been broke in short order. She got health insurance for her family from her job, so they would have lost that as well. Do you think this would have been a good situation for anyone?

i also question the ability to really measure all the effects of such an arraingement.

I haven't seen any evidence that this arrangement has negative effects.

why do we have children in the first place?

Failed birth control, in my friend's case.

fatherphil

no qos, it would not do a family good to be destitute. perhaps your friend should stop mating with someone who is not good parent material. why take such a risk which ends up shortchanging innocent children in the long run? to continue to do so would seem selfish.

also to compare 24/7 to 3/7 seems a stretch. i've always thought parenting was a 24 hour job and the most important job a person could have. to sublet it out to a total stranger is not ideal.

since you are pegging the decision to the situation, i would assume you feel that if parents can afford to do so, they should not deposit their infants in a daycare facility from 7 am to 6 pm 5 days a week. is my assumption correct?

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by fatherphil
no qos, it would not do a family good to be destitute.

My friend shares your reasoning, therefore she is working in order to support her family.

perhaps your friend should stop mating with someone who is not good parent material.

It must be wonderful to have a crystal ball into which a woman could look to see what kind of a father the man will be ten years down the line. Unfortunately, my friend did not have such a thing when she married, nor did she realize before she conceived that he would be unenthusiastic about the pregnancy. This was an accidental pregnancy; she did not, presumably, marry the man with visions of booties and Pampers floating through her head.

Just to cover all bases, though, is your suggestion supposed to mean that she should divorce her husband because of his lack of support?

why take such a risk which ends up shortchanging innocent children

Question : are there guilty children? If not, why is it necessary to add the adjective "innocent"? For emotional value?

in the long run? to continue to do so would seem selfish.

I haven't seen any evidence that my friend is shortchanging her child.

i've always thought parenting was a 24 hour job

And I've always thought that it was good for parents to take a little time off work every now and then.

and the most important job a person could have. to sublet it out to a total stranger is not ideal.

Perhaps the answer, then, is to make the care provider less of a total stranger. Get to know them first, for example, or hire an au pair.

Also, you have failed to show why such a situation is not ideal.

since you are pegging the decision to the situation, i would assume you feel that if parents can afford to do so, they should not deposit their infants in a daycare facility from 7 am to 6 pm 5 days a week. is my assumption correct?

Can afford to do what, exactly? Can afford to take care of their children themselves? Can feed, support and educate their children on one person's income?

The way I see it is : if a woman wants to stay at home and take care of her kids, she should be allowed to do so. If a woman wants to work, she should be allowed to do so, as long as the children are not being neglected by this arrangement.

Daleth

A 24 hour job for a woman but not for a man, apparently. Or is a man actively parenting when he's out earning a living? If so, why is woman not actively parenting when she does the same?

I take it then that it's OK when the caregiver is the child's grandparent or other relative or a 20-year friend of the family.

fatherphil

does a hireling generally hold a child's interest in the same light as a parent? do you really equate the care and bonding they offer as the same as that of a mother?