fatherphil

is this today's ideal then?

and do children have better care under it than the "ideal" of yesterday?

what i'm looking for is this:

today's ideal is where both parents work full time and the children are cared for under a state run instituion at the age of 6 months till high school, which offers a healthy nurturing environment. both parents are valued equally in the workplace and the children are assured a college education which is financed through payroll deductions upon both parents.

that could be considered someone's ideal situation for children, assuming that the child's welfare is the priority here.

yguy

I'll just bet they do.

brighid

Why would you assume that working parent's don't have the child's welfare as a priority?

An ideal situation IMO would be societal structure that does more then pay lip service to family values, but actually constructs practical policies that support families and economic growth. It isn't a working families fault that a half-way decent home in a relatively safe neighborhood, with good school systems (and therefore vast future opportunities), health care, food and utilities are not cheap in this country. Parents who are interested in the overall best interests of their child make the best choices with what they have to work with. I would say when a parent(s) make the choice to bring their children up in the best environment they can provide, given their individual circumstances that chosing to work to keep your family safe, fed, cared for and providing important opportunities like a good education are in the childrens best interests. Those parents ARE providing for their welfare.

Parents shouldn't have to work 60+ hours a week to support their families and provide them with basic needs. It should not cost the average family $400-500 p/month to insure they can be medically cared for. It shouldn't cost $300,000 to be a home in a safe neighborhood, with good schools. A mother shouldn't have to chose between nursing her child for a year, or losing her job and therefore being unable to put food on the table, or a roof over their heads. It shouldn't cost $400 p/week to get care for an infant. Fathers shouldn't be looked down upon because they want to take leave and care for their children. Men and women shouldn't be confined to archaic, out dated gender roles that all too often sacrificed the dignity and humanity of women.

But that is not reality and so parents have to make choices, and some even have to make sacrifices. So instead of attempting to penalize women or put them "back in their place" you should address the reasons why parent HAVE to make these choices.

I work because I have to. I work because I want the best for my child. I work to put him in the best schools, to have the best tutors, mentors, coaches and peers (and so does my husband.) I work because my benefits package can't be given up. I work because I make a vital contribution to my family and society. I work to set an example for my son to demonstrate the value of an honest days work for an honest days pay. I work because it insures if something happens to my husband that I can support my family in the face of tragedy. I work because it allows me choices, choices my mother, grandmothers and great grand mothers never had. I am mother, wife, woman, and employee. I have a healthy, strong, loving family because of the choices I and now my husband make.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of those who bash my choices based not on evidence, but on the mythology of the ideal, intact, traditional family. A family and circumstances are what you make of it. A SAHM does not insure the health, happiness, welfare or strength of a family unit.

I see the hybrid of the modern family and the changing of gender roles as overcoming the discontent of the past and the awkwardness of the past few decades. I see it achieving the harmonious balance we all desire: a husband and wife fulfilled in their individual lives, careers, and homes and children growing in more stable environments because of it ... at least if those I spend time with are reflective of the "modern" family.

Brighid

Roland98

:notworthy

Excellent post.

yguy

In that case, it appears that brighid's statement about separation anxiety being a healthy sign of bonding is meaningless.

yguy

I don't suppose the term "fresh material" has any particular meaning to you?

brighid

No it doesn't. It simply means that children have a full range of emotive responses, but there is a set of response considered "normal" for their growth. Children that do not experience separation anxiety to any degree that temper tantrums are thrown don't demonstrate they do not have a healthy bond to their parents. It may also mean that these parents have simply done a better then "normal" job instilling trust, love and confidence in their children and the children simply don't worry and experience anxiety that is an expected response. That is one of the benefits of socializing a child to a number of different non-parent care givers and it is a positive example of how to eliminate the terrible anxiety some children experience.

Brighid

yguy

Just what would that prove? How would I know whether those readings are at all representative of the the entirety of the study group?

Hey, adultery was rampant post WWII, from everything I've heard. How many of those women knew or suspected their husbands were cheating? IOW, how do we know it's traditional marriage which produced these symptoms rather than a sick parody of it?

And where is it written that women should sit at home and rot when the children are gone anyway?

yguy

OK, so those who DO experiece such anxiety to that degree are probably healthy... and those who DON'T probably are as well. Right? If that's the case, what the hell is the point of saying it?

Or maybe the kid is just resigned, and pretends to himself that he's happy, as I did.

Sounds to me like the idea is to eliminate it by producing it.

brighid

I don't see any reason to believe a child who doesn't experience normal separation anxiety isn't healthy (unless there is something to indicate a reactive or other attachment disorder, but those are brought on by neglect and abuse in early childhood and would therefore not be indicating a "healthy" response.)

The point in saying it is that many children experience separation anxiety as a normal part of healthy development. This does not mean that ALL children will experience normal phases of development. It's normal for boys to not be potty trained until after 3 years old, where girls tend to be potty trained by 2. It doesn't mean a boy who is potty trained earlier or later is abnormal, or unhealthy.

Normal is a guideline, not an absolute!

Brighid