Preschool vs Daycare Wars

[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.

DP. It is a sensitive topic but it might help to couch discussion of what’s “best” in more moderate language. I also like to say that there are a lot of “bests” in parenting and few parents/kids check all the boxes all the time. Many of them are at odds! (Staying home for a few years, but are you saving for college? etc.). Not to mention, there are a lot of ways to do right by your kids and every family situation is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Um no I am not, try again

[Anonymous]

The blog post and Psychology Today poster used inflammatory and degrading language to talk about what other families do while relying on “studies” she doesn’t understand and can’t explain. It is impossible to support the views of someone like that as she is adding nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Saying, based on shaky research, that a parent should stay home or work part time for years, is absolutely anti-woman.

Paid parental leave is great and I SUPPORT IT but no program will make that parent whole for their financial and career losses as a result of taking a step back from your career for years. For starters, no paid leave program offers multiple YEARS of paid leave. While some do mandate full salaries, most do not. And there is evidence that more than 6 months of leave has negative career impacts.

And you can say well men SHOULD be making that sacrifice just as much as women and I AGREE with that, but the REALITY is that this burden currently falls and will continue to fall mostly on WOMEN. Which you very well know and are ignoring. That sacrifice is significant and has massive impacts on women's ability to be financially secure in retirement.

[Anonymous]

Really what these arguments amount to is a resistance to increasing funding for child care. You would rather women take the hit than pay extra in taxes to fund child care in a way that makes it possible for more children to attend high quality programs. In the end you are hurting children AND women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying, based on shaky research, that a parent should stay home or work part time for years, is absolutely anti-woman.

Paid parental leave is great and I SUPPORT IT but no program will make that parent whole for their financial and career losses as a result of taking a step back from your career for years. For starters, no paid leave program offers multiple YEARS of paid leave. While some do mandate full salaries, most do not. And there is evidence that more than 6 months of leave has negative career impacts.

And you can say well men SHOULD be making that sacrifice just as much as women and I AGREE with that, but the REALITY is that this burden currently falls and will continue to fall mostly on WOMEN. Which you very well know and are ignoring. That sacrifice is significant and has massive impacts on women's ability to be financially secure in retirement.

Agreed, and it absolutely ridiculous how that poster waves around such weak evidence. If you are going to cite to “research” to justify your anti-woman screeds, you had better be able to dig in on those studies and understand their strengths and flaws. I’m not sure she even understands how to critically read an academic study, let alone discuss the methodology, statistical analysis used, and precision of the conclusions. It’s basically just bigotry at this point masked by handwavy appeals to “science.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really what these arguments amount to is a resistance to increasing funding for child care. You would rather women take the hit than pay extra in taxes to fund child care in a way that makes it possible for more children to attend high quality programs. In the end you are hurting children AND women.

I’m assuming you are talking to the anti-woman poster who thinks anyone who uses daycare is an inferior parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really what these arguments amount to is a resistance to increasing funding for child care. You would rather women take the hit than pay extra in taxes to fund child care in a way that makes it possible for more children to attend high quality programs. In the end you are hurting children AND women.

I’m assuming you are talking to the anti-woman poster who thinks anyone who uses daycare is an inferior parent.

Yes

[Anonymous]

I don’t think any parent who uses daycare is an inferior parent. At all. But do I think it’s generally an inferior experience for infants and young toddlers? Absolutely. And I would hazard that the vast majority of people of all ages, in all cultures, would agree.

Posters need to separate criticism of specific types of care from personal attacks. I have family in Europe who use daycare. But it starts later, has shorter hours, serves healthier food and is staffed by career professionals who deliberately chose this path.

These debates are nuanced. And none of it is anti-woman. It’s pro-child—and not in some archaic right wing way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think any parent who uses daycare is an inferior parent. At all. But do I think it’s generally an inferior experience for infants and young toddlers? Absolutely. And I would hazard that the vast majority of people of all ages, in all cultures, would agree.

Posters need to separate criticism of specific types of care from personal attacks. I have family in Europe who use daycare. But it starts later, has shorter hours, serves healthier food and is staffed by career professionals who deliberately chose this path.

These debates are nuanced. And none of it is anti-woman. It’s pro-child—and not in some archaic right wing way.

Inferior compared to what, and by how much? I had a depressed mother who was a SAHP. It wasn't awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think any parent who uses daycare is an inferior parent. At all. But do I think it’s generally an inferior experience for infants and young toddlers? Absolutely. And I would hazard that the vast majority of people of all ages, in all cultures, would agree.

Posters need to separate criticism of specific types of care from personal attacks. I have family in Europe who use daycare. But it starts later, has shorter hours, serves healthier food and is staffed by career professionals who deliberately chose this path.

These debates are nuanced. And none of it is anti-woman. It’s pro-child—and not in some archaic right wing way.

You’re going to need to be specific as to why you believe it’s inferior, and note that you cannot conflate cause and effect from other issues such as poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think any parent who uses daycare is an inferior parent. At all. But do I think it’s generally an inferior experience for infants and young toddlers? Absolutely. And I would hazard that the vast majority of people of all ages, in all cultures, would agree.

Posters need to separate criticism of specific types of care from personal attacks. I have family in Europe who use daycare. But it starts later, has shorter hours, serves healthier food and is staffed by career professionals who deliberately chose this path.

These debates are nuanced. And none of it is anti-woman. It’s pro-child—and not in some archaic right wing way.

Wouldn't it be awesome if we offered more funding for child care in the US so it would be higher quality? I think so, but I am guessing you would not support more funding for an option you consider "inferior" (inferior to an undefined alternative)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying, based on shaky research, that a parent should stay home or work part time for years, is absolutely anti-woman.

Paid parental leave is great and I SUPPORT IT but no program will make that parent whole for their financial and career losses as a result of taking a step back from your career for years. For starters, no paid leave program offers multiple YEARS of paid leave. While some do mandate full salaries, most do not. And there is evidence that more than 6 months of leave has negative career impacts.

And you can say well men SHOULD be making that sacrifice just as much as women and I AGREE with that, but the REALITY is that this burden currently falls and will continue to fall mostly on WOMEN. Which you very well know and are ignoring. That sacrifice is significant and has massive impacts on women's ability to be financially secure in retirement.

So what? Having kids is a sacrifice! If you'd be afraid to take 6 months of leave due to potential negative career impacts, I don't really know what to tell you. Some of us, believe it not, would be ok with a financial loss of going unpaid for a year, so long as we had a job to go back to. The only fields where I actually know women who have been able to do this are nursing and education.

Guess I'm just not career-driven enough, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying, based on shaky research, that a parent should stay home or work part time for years, is absolutely anti-woman.

Paid parental leave is great and I SUPPORT IT but no program will make that parent whole for their financial and career losses as a result of taking a step back from your career for years. For starters, no paid leave program offers multiple YEARS of paid leave. While some do mandate full salaries, most do not. And there is evidence that more than 6 months of leave has negative career impacts.

And you can say well men SHOULD be making that sacrifice just as much as women and I AGREE with that, but the REALITY is that this burden currently falls and will continue to fall mostly on WOMEN. Which you very well know and are ignoring. That sacrifice is significant and has massive impacts on women's ability to be financially secure in retirement.

So what? Having kids is a sacrifice! If you'd be afraid to take 6 months of leave due to potential negative career impacts, I don't really know what to tell you. Some of us, believe it not, would be ok with a financial loss of going unpaid for a year, so long as we had a job to go back to. The only fields where I actually know women who have been able to do this are nursing and education.

Guess I'm just not career-driven enough, lol.

What you are is privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying, based on shaky research, that a parent should stay home or work part time for years, is absolutely anti-woman.

Paid parental leave is great and I SUPPORT IT but no program will make that parent whole for their financial and career losses as a result of taking a step back from your career for years. For starters, no paid leave program offers multiple YEARS of paid leave. While some do mandate full salaries, most do not. And there is evidence that more than 6 months of leave has negative career impacts.

And you can say well men SHOULD be making that sacrifice just as much as women and I AGREE with that, but the REALITY is that this burden currently falls and will continue to fall mostly on WOMEN. Which you very well know and are ignoring. That sacrifice is significant and has massive impacts on women's ability to be financially secure in retirement.

So what? Having kids is a sacrifice! If you'd be afraid to take 6 months of leave due to potential negative career impacts, I don't really know what to tell you. Some of us, believe it not, would be ok with a financial loss of going unpaid for a year, so long as we had a job to go back to. The only fields where I actually know women who have been able to do this are nursing and education.

Guess I'm just not career-driven enough, lol.

Lol it's not about who is "afraid" it's about who is impacted and why. These are real negative impacts that primarily affect women. You need to be able to justify calling for them. But you can't. Anytime someone raises questions about the "research" you all throw up your hands and say "well this is just too difficult to discuss without being accused of hating women" but you all clearly don't care about women being negatively impacted and can't demonstrate why those impacts are worth it.