Preschool vs Daycare Wars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be getting a preschool "education" (probably more harm than good at this age—as studies on universal Prek show) but they are much less likely to get the same preschool experience—the small, steady cohort. The naps and meals at home, the teachers who truly chose this path. Do you really not see the difference?

Of course all children deserve the best early years experience. It has nothing to do with SES: If you care about children, stop pretending their developing nervous systems are adapted to 10 hours a day of institutional care—even with the kindest teachers you can hire. I am a feminist but that shouldn't require me to be in denial of child development. Feminists' goals should be to improve daycare and allow much, much more flexibility and job security when kids are 0-3.

You aren’t a feminist. What you are is ignorant, and also you are going to be an absolutely terrible parent to older teens.

Dp. She is right. There is research that shows long lasting detrimental affects of institutional care, especially with increased time and at younger ages.

We are not doing women a service by ignoring or hiding that. A feminist position would be to support mothers and fathers who take leave between ages 0-3 with both job flexibility and return job security. We actually do this with military or detail assignments all the time, it is entirely possible. We as a society have to value child rearing as much as we do going to war.

https://criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4#:~:text=Children%20spending%20long%20hours%20in,negative%20effect%20on%20later%20behavior.

Please don't use this blog post as an excuse to tell other parents they don't care about their children. That just makes you a mean, rude person. Also, read the studies cited in the post. The evidence is not nearly as definitive as the author makes it sound.

No way am I (or this study) saying full time dual working parents of young children care less about their children. It is the only way to stay afloat for many middle class families and poverty is a much worse indicator for child outcomes.

I’m saying we need better workplace flexibility to reduce the early need for 40+ hours of institutional care by freeing up BOTH parents (especially for the men who tend to forego longer paternity leave because it is not normalized enough). As Americans with more working years than any rich country (40-50 !!) Each parent taking 2-3 years of part time or time off to share in raising two kids is so trivial and with such high potential social payoff that it’s absurd we can’t normalize this. exaggerated accounts of ‘welfare queens’ have really blinded us to this reality.

And, yes, I do think the data is pretty compelling since we are talking about 20% of kids affected having behavior issues in early elementary, not to mention adolescent mental health issues. This puts extra pressure on schools and kids and frankly leads to over-medication of kids imo.

You said "She is right" about a post that stated, "Of course all children deserve the best early years experience. It has nothing to do with SES: If you care about children, stop pretending their developing nervous systems are adapted to 10 hours a day of institutional care—even with the kindest teachers you can hire." If you think that's an appropriate way to engage with people, I'm sorry, but you are terrible and ignorant.

My DH and I have one child. We are not super wealthy, but we could stretch to afford a nanny. Daycare is not "the only way to stay afloat" for us. It is however the choice that we made for our family, which you have decided based on a blog post is the wrong choice. FWIW, I can point to a couple of examples of how DD being in group care from an early age has actually really helped her development, including helping us to get early intervention for a condition where early intervention REALLY matters, that is typically identified much later when children start K.

And

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be getting a preschool "education" (probably more harm than good at this age—as studies on universal Prek show) but they are much less likely to get the same preschool experience—the small, steady cohort. The naps and meals at home, the teachers who truly chose this path. Do you really not see the difference?

Of course all children deserve the best early years experience. It has nothing to do with SES: If you care about children, stop pretending their developing nervous systems are adapted to 10 hours a day of institutional care—even with the kindest teachers you can hire. I am a feminist but that shouldn't require me to be in denial of child development. Feminists' goals should be to improve daycare and allow much, much more flexibility and job security when kids are 0-3.

You aren’t a feminist. What you are is ignorant, and also you are going to be an absolutely terrible parent to older teens.

Dp. She is right. There is research that shows long lasting detrimental affects of institutional care, especially with increased time and at younger ages.

We are not doing women a service by ignoring or hiding that. A feminist position would be to support mothers and fathers who take leave between ages 0-3 with both job flexibility and return job security. We actually do this with military or detail assignments all the time, it is entirely possible. We as a society have to value child rearing as much as we do going to war.

https://criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4#:~:text=Children%20spending%20long%20hours%20in,negative%20effect%20on%20later%20behavior.

Please don't use this blog post as an excuse to tell other parents they don't care about their children. That just makes you a mean, rude person. Also, read the studies cited in the post. The evidence is not nearly as definitive as the author makes it sound.

No way am I (or this study) saying full time dual working parents of young children care less about their children. It is the only way to stay afloat for many middle class families and poverty is a much worse indicator for child outcomes.

I’m saying we need better workplace flexibility to reduce the early need for 40+ hours of institutional care by freeing up BOTH parents (especially for the men who tend to forego longer paternity leave because it is not normalized enough). As Americans with more working years than any rich country (40-50 !!) Each parent taking 2-3 years of part time or time off to share in raising two kids is so trivial and with such high potential social payoff that it’s absurd we can’t normalize this. exaggerated accounts of ‘welfare queens’ have really blinded us to this reality.

And, yes, I do think the data is pretty compelling since we are talking about 20% of kids affected having behavior issues in early elementary, not to mention adolescent mental health issues. This puts extra pressure on schools and kids and frankly leads to over-medication of kids imo.

Data analyst here (not PP). You’re going to have to do better than that to persuade me that this data is so compelling. I’ve looked closely at these “studies” that people like you use to be gratuitously mean for sport.

Give me your hard data and facts. Argue with me using actual science. I’m here for it.

If by ‘people like me’ you mean working moms who are raising three kids and have alternately used daycare, pre-school, and nanny care as well as part time and unpaid leave at various times then yeah, it’s been an important subject to me. There is a lot of data out there. Much of it contradictory. That’s actually why I found the medium summary helpfully thorough. But here’s another one from psychology today that is also thorough:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/insight-therapy/202002/the-deal-daycare-what-do-the-data-denote?amp

…and which points out a big problem with center care in the us is that high quality center care (teacher ratio, education and turnover) is very hard to find (11%) and very expensive and not the norm for our kids in the us.

I find the research wrt cortisol levels and delayed effects like aggression at school age as well as negative adolescent behavior pretty compelling. Here are those specific studies:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076820903494#:~:text=A%20meta%2Danalysis%20concluded%20that,levels%20than%20children%20at%20home'.&text=During%20the%201990s%2C%20experiments%20on,developing%20brains%20and%20neuro%2Dsystems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938040/


I think ramping up child care from 0-4 both in hours and caregiver ratio makes the most sense based on these studies. I think we can do that when dads take on their fair share of parental leave and workplaces offer greater flexibility especially with part time and parental leave options. I don’t think that makes me mean or anti feminist or any of the other names I’ve been called. But of course I could be wrong and am not a data scientist although I do have an Ivy masters in a stem field fwiw. I think we all try to navigate the work life balance issue for young children and I definitely think more dads should be stepping up to the plate to help carry these loads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be getting a preschool "education" (probably more harm than good at this age—as studies on universal Prek show) but they are much less likely to get the same preschool experience—the small, steady cohort. The naps and meals at home, the teachers who truly chose this path. Do you really not see the difference?

Of course all children deserve the best early years experience. It has nothing to do with SES: If you care about children, stop pretending their developing nervous systems are adapted to 10 hours a day of institutional care—even with the kindest teachers you can hire. I am a feminist but that shouldn't require me to be in denial of child development. Feminists' goals should be to improve daycare and allow much, much more flexibility and job security when kids are 0-3.

You aren’t a feminist. What you are is ignorant, and also you are going to be an absolutely terrible parent to older teens.

Dp. She is right. There is research that shows long lasting detrimental affects of institutional care, especially with increased time and at younger ages.

We are not doing women a service by ignoring or hiding that. A feminist position would be to support mothers and fathers who take leave between ages 0-3 with both job flexibility and return job security. We actually do this with military or detail assignments all the time, it is entirely possible. We as a society have to value child rearing as much as we do going to war.

https://criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4#:~:text=Children%20spending%20long%20hours%20in,negative%20effect%20on%20later%20behavior.

Please don't use this blog post as an excuse to tell other parents they don't care about their children. That just makes you a mean, rude person. Also, read the studies cited in the post. The evidence is not nearly as definitive as the author makes it sound.

No way am I (or this study) saying full time dual working parents of young children care less about their children. It is the only way to stay afloat for many middle class families and poverty is a much worse indicator for child outcomes.

I’m saying we need better workplace flexibility to reduce the early need for 40+ hours of institutional care by freeing up BOTH parents (especially for the men who tend to forego longer paternity leave because it is not normalized enough). As Americans with more working years than any rich country (40-50 !!) Each parent taking 2-3 years of part time or time off to share in raising two kids is so trivial and with such high potential social payoff that it’s absurd we can’t normalize this. exaggerated accounts of ‘welfare queens’ have really blinded us to this reality.

And, yes, I do think the data is pretty compelling since we are talking about 20% of kids affected having behavior issues in early elementary, not to mention adolescent mental health issues. This puts extra pressure on schools and kids and frankly leads to over-medication of kids imo.

Data analyst here (not PP). You’re going to have to do better than that to persuade me that this data is so compelling. I’ve looked closely at these “studies” that people like you use to be gratuitously mean for sport.

Give me your hard data and facts. Argue with me using actual science. I’m here for it.

If by ‘people like me’ you mean working moms who are raising three kids and have alternately used daycare, pre-school, and nanny care as well as part time and unpaid leave at various times then yeah, it’s been an important subject to me. There is a lot of data out there. Much of it contradictory. That’s actually why I found the medium summary helpfully thorough. But here’s another one from psychology today that is also thorough:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/insight-therapy/202002/the-deal-daycare-what-do-the-data-denote?amp

…and which points out a big problem with center care in the us is that high quality center care (teacher ratio, education and turnover) is very hard to find (11%) and very expensive and not the norm for our kids in the us.

I find the research wrt cortisol levels and delayed effects like aggression at school age as well as negative adolescent behavior pretty compelling. Here are those specific studies:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076820903494#:~:text=A%20meta%2Danalysis%20concluded%20that,levels%20than%20children%20at%20home'.&text=During%20the%201990s%2C%20experiments%20on,developing%20brains%20and%20neuro%2Dsystems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938040/


I think ramping up child care from 0-4 both in hours and caregiver ratio makes the most sense based on these studies. I think we can do that when dads take on their fair share of parental leave and workplaces offer greater flexibility especially with part time and parental leave options. I don’t think that makes me mean or anti feminist or any of the other names I’ve been called. But of course I could be wrong and am not a data scientist although I do have an Ivy masters in a stem field fwiw. I think we all try to navigate the work life balance issue for young children and I definitely think more dads should be stepping up to the plate to help carry these loads.

Do you want a medal?

If you don't want to be associated with people bashing other parents bc they make choices you disagree with based on a BLOG POST, don't say you agree with them

Stop being mean, and people will stop calling you that.

[Anonymous]

Btw lit reviews and meta analyses take a lot of skill and hard work. If the author of the blog post wants to be taken seriously, they should produce a document that will pass peer review. This blog post does not even come close to that.

[Anonymous]

It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may be getting a preschool "education" (probably more harm than good at this age—as studies on universal Prek show) but they are much less likely to get the same preschool experience—the small, steady cohort. The naps and meals at home, the teachers who truly chose this path. Do you really not see the difference?

Of course all children deserve the best early years experience. It has nothing to do with SES: If you care about children, stop pretending their developing nervous systems are adapted to 10 hours a day of institutional care—even with the kindest teachers you can hire. I am a feminist but that shouldn't require me to be in denial of child development. Feminists' goals should be to improve daycare and allow much, much more flexibility and job security when kids are 0-3.

You aren’t a feminist. What you are is ignorant, and also you are going to be an absolutely terrible parent to older teens.

Dp. She is right. There is research that shows long lasting detrimental affects of institutional care, especially with increased time and at younger ages.

We are not doing women a service by ignoring or hiding that. A feminist position would be to support mothers and fathers who take leave between ages 0-3 with both job flexibility and return job security. We actually do this with military or detail assignments all the time, it is entirely possible. We as a society have to value child rearing as much as we do going to war.

https://criticalscience.medium.com/on-the-science-of-daycare-4d1ab4c2efb4#:~:text=Children%20spending%20long%20hours%20in,negative%20effect%20on%20later%20behavior.

Please don't use this blog post as an excuse to tell other parents they don't care about their children. That just makes you a mean, rude person. Also, read the studies cited in the post. The evidence is not nearly as definitive as the author makes it sound.

No way am I (or this study) saying full time dual working parents of young children care less about their children. It is the only way to stay afloat for many middle class families and poverty is a much worse indicator for child outcomes.

I’m saying we need better workplace flexibility to reduce the early need for 40+ hours of institutional care by freeing up BOTH parents (especially for the men who tend to forego longer paternity leave because it is not normalized enough). As Americans with more working years than any rich country (40-50 !!) Each parent taking 2-3 years of part time or time off to share in raising two kids is so trivial and with such high potential social payoff that it’s absurd we can’t normalize this. exaggerated accounts of ‘welfare queens’ have really blinded us to this reality.

And, yes, I do think the data is pretty compelling since we are talking about 20% of kids affected having behavior issues in early elementary, not to mention adolescent mental health issues. This puts extra pressure on schools and kids and frankly leads to over-medication of kids imo.

Data analyst here (not PP). You’re going to have to do better than that to persuade me that this data is so compelling. I’ve looked closely at these “studies” that people like you use to be gratuitously mean for sport.

Give me your hard data and facts. Argue with me using actual science. I’m here for it.

If by ‘people like me’ you mean working moms who are raising three kids and have alternately used daycare, pre-school, and nanny care as well as part time and unpaid leave at various times then yeah, it’s been an important subject to me. There is a lot of data out there. Much of it contradictory. That’s actually why I found the medium summary helpfully thorough. But here’s another one from psychology today that is also thorough:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/insight-therapy/202002/the-deal-daycare-what-do-the-data-denote?amp

…and which points out a big problem with center care in the us is that high quality center care (teacher ratio, education and turnover) is very hard to find (11%) and very expensive and not the norm for our kids in the us.

I find the research wrt cortisol levels and delayed effects like aggression at school age as well as negative adolescent behavior pretty compelling. Here are those specific studies:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076820903494#:~:text=A%20meta%2Danalysis%20concluded%20that,levels%20than%20children%20at%20home'.&text=During%20the%201990s%2C%20experiments%20on,developing%20brains%20and%20neuro%2Dsystems.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938040/


I think ramping up child care from 0-4 both in hours and caregiver ratio makes the most sense based on these studies. I think we can do that when dads take on their fair share of parental leave and workplaces offer greater flexibility especially with part time and parental leave options. I don’t think that makes me mean or anti feminist or any of the other names I’ve been called. But of course I could be wrong and am not a data scientist although I do have an Ivy masters in a stem field fwiw. I think we all try to navigate the work life balance issue for young children and I definitely think more dads should be stepping up to the plate to help carry these loads.

Psychology Today? Lol. You aren’t a serious person. Just a mean one looking for BS reasons to justify the meanness.

I can’t even do a basic data discussion with you. It’s hopeless.

[Anonymous]

The author of the PPs vaunted Psychology Today article is also the author of this disturbingly creepy book:

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Psychologist-Novel-Noam-Shpancer/dp/0805092595

The good professor does indeed get around the block with his opinions, as this lovely discussion on the trad wives of TikTok shows:

https://www.today.com/parents/family/traditional-wives-tradwives-controversy-tiktok-rcna67253

And look! Here he is to tell us all about competition between women:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/insight-therapy/201401/feminine-foes-new-science-explores-female-competition

It does seems that he has a high opinion of his value to the world on a very wide range of topics. Who knew we would have the fortune to encounter the analysis of someone able to get himself in so many different publications on such widely varying topics! Truly, it is remarkable.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to whether this is the person whose judgment you’d trust when it comes to the care of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

DP. Glad you followed up with this, as your trolling to this point was well-done and subtle (so I didn’t catch on until this last post) and I was getting concerned that any reasonable person could possibly think this way…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

DP. Glad you followed up with this, as your trolling to this point was well-done and subtle (so I didn’t catch on until this last post) and I was getting concerned that any reasonable person could possibly think this way…

NP here. Lol, right? I would have been over the moon to have parental leave policies akin to some European countries. My Swedish colleague (a dad!) took a year off with each kid, after his wife had already been home for a year. It's not for everyone but I wish we had more realistic options for more parental leave, even unpaid but allowing you to keep your job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

DP. Glad you followed up with this, as your trolling to this point was well-done and subtle (so I didn’t catch on until this last post) and I was getting concerned that any reasonable person could possibly think this way…

NP here. Lol, right? I would have been over the moon to have parental leave policies akin to some European countries. My Swedish colleague (a dad!) took a year off with each kid, after his wife had already been home for a year. It's not for everyone but I wish we had more realistic options for more parental leave, even unpaid but allowing you to keep your job.

Reading is fundamental. I said I support paid parental leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

DP. Glad you followed up with this, as your trolling to this point was well-done and subtle (so I didn’t catch on until this last post) and I was getting concerned that any reasonable person could possibly think this way…

So this is your way of saying you DGAF about millions of elderly women living in poverty. Okay. Glad you are taking a stand on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's become impossible to discuss/research what's best for children because you will be accused of being anti-woman, anti-parent, elitist, etc. for even asking the question.

I was in govt. subsidized daycare from 2 months because my (incredible, devoted, thoughtful) parents couldn't afford anything else. It makes me livid and defensive to think that anyone would judge them for their choices. But this isn't about them—it's about what's the healthiest option for children 0-2. And I don't see how anyone can argue that long hours of institutional care from early infancy is ideal.

The PP is right that there should be wiggle room in our national and household economies to allow parents to at least work part-time during these short but critical years. But that would break the binary of sahm v wohm that has become an essential way modern women define themselves.

The research on this is very mixed. People are going to react when someone says you don't care about children if you believe in daycare for young children. My guess is, that is the intent of these inane comments.

The reality is that taking years out of the workforce, a burden that will mostly fall on women, is often very very bad for those women in terms of their careers and long term financial security. Of course, I'm sure you have some anecdote about how you overcame this and therefore everyone else should. The fact remains that women are vastly overrepresented among elderly people living in poverty and their caregiving burden us a big part of this. Paid parental leave will not change that meaningfully especially if you are talking about 1+ years career slowdowns or breaks. You basically dismiss this reality as unimportant based on very mixed evidence from observational studies about the impacts of daycare on children. The reason you are being cast as anti woman is because you are anti woman, just admit it (and yes a woman can be anti women, women are often the worst of the anti feminists).

shes anti-woman because she calls for better national parental leave policies?? that is completely irrational. You don’t speak for the majority of women in the US and in fact that is the opposite of what we are saying, most women strongly feel we need more parental leave just as PP states. And why do the dads get a complete pass in your ’reality’, why shouldn’t they be expected to take on a greater caregiving share? You are just an enabler for the corporate profit patriarchy, in a developed country with the least parental leave in order to further enrich mostly white male ceos and shareholders. That does not make you pro-woman, sister.

She's not simply calling for paid parental leave, which I support. She's saying a part should take years out of the workforce fully or partially. And while some of those parents will be men, most will be women. It's not that I support the patriarchy. It's that, unlike you, I acknowledge that it exists. You are very transparently twisting my words which makes it all the more obvious how anti woman you are. You have no real solutions to the very real problems I identified, nor do you have an answer for why you put so much stock in such mixed research. The only answer is that you hate women.

DP. Glad you followed up with this, as your trolling to this point was well-done and subtle (so I didn’t catch on until this last post) and I was getting concerned that any reasonable person could possibly think this way…

So this is your way of saying you DGAF about millions of elderly women living in poverty. Okay. Glad you are taking a stand on that.

You're literally calling other posters anti-woman for calling for more parental leave.