Some thoughts on daycare

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 16 pages, in fact I've only read the OP. But I'm an anthropologist, and I wanted to point out that having other women raise your children is actually as normal as human behavior gets. One of the reasons the human species survived was because of their ability to cooperate and share, and start living in larger social units (villages).

In order to sustain the larger groups, people had to all participate in the work required to sustain the village. This usually meant the men would go out and hunt, and able bodied women would go out and gather. Women who were either too old, too sick, or otherwise unable to contribute this way would stay back in the village and watch the children and do other chores (cleaning, cooking).

When you think about it, daycare in our society is just another form of what humans have been doing for many thousands of years.

It is actually a lot more abnormal to have one woman stay at home with her child - much more isolating.

That's an interesting perspective, and it makes sense. It makes a lot of sense, especially, for children - but wouldn't infants have been cared for primarily by their birth mothers, up to a certain age perhaps?

New poster here, not an anthropologist, but I did have a chance to live in other parts of the world in the Peace Corps. THe answer is yes and no. In many villages there are wet nurses. Nursing a baby is not only done by the mother. In the developing world women work very hard and it is a false presumption that Western women are the only ones separated from their babies during the day. Western women actually have it quite easy and often spend much more time with their babies than the developing world where the fields are full of women laboring in the hot sun from dusk till dawn.

BS

Wet nurses are for the rich!

Women in the field are not those with infants at home. They work hard once their kids are old enough to join them in the field around 5 years of age. Until them they're around the village watching their own kids and helping others with young children too.

Been there, done that. Literally!

You have no clue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer PP here. I am not saying that my JD prepared me for child rearing. I am saying that the same qualities that made me successful at my career make me a good mother. I have been good at school, sports, well, most things, my whole life, and suspect many of the DCUM working moms are the same way. I am good at learning things, a hard worker, like doing things the right way without short cuts, etc. That is what makes people successful in all areas of life. Why on earth I would believe that the (maybe) high school graduates who do not speak English as a first language would be *better* at taking care of my kids who are learning to speak, think, etc., is beyond me, so when people say that of themselves, I cannot understand it. I understand what your preference is, but please stop acting like despite being a straight A student, varsity athlete, obtaining multiple degrees, speaking multiple languages, etc., like all of the successful and competent moms out there, you just would be doing junior a disservice if you tried your hand at child care.

You are a poor writer and an angry, bitter person. So yes, it is no surprise that you are not practicing. You were a mediocre lawyer who did medocre work at a third tier firm. You were never going to make very much money anyhow, as even your third tier firm would have counseled you out at sixth year, if not before. No one cares that you left. Go scrub your toilet.

Ha. I worked at two top tier firms and left when my part time salary was $225K, to the firm's disappointment. Kiss my ass.

Lie. Total lie. But I know your type -- you actually have convinced yourself that your third tier firm was "top tier," and you actually think they liked you. (But you know, deep down, that they didn't. And that is part of the reason you left. You were never going to cut it actually PRACTICING law. You could get by as a junior associate, but then you were done.) Admit it. It's so obvious --- who else would be SO defensive about their choices? Who else writes "kiss my ass"? (Other than a disgruntled tween.)

Not the poster you're responding to, but do you even realize how ridiculous you sound, bragging about "tiers" and playing the mean girl on an anonymous board? So sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 16 pages, in fact I've only read the OP. But I'm an anthropologist, and I wanted to point out that having other women raise your children is actually as normal as human behavior gets. One of the reasons the human species survived was because of their ability to cooperate and share, and start living in larger social units (villages).

In order to sustain the larger groups, people had to all participate in the work required to sustain the village. This usually meant the men would go out and hunt, and able bodied women would go out and gather. Women who were either too old, too sick, or otherwise unable to contribute this way would stay back in the village and watch the children and do other chores (cleaning, cooking).

When you think about it, daycare in our society is just another form of what humans have been doing for many thousands of years.

It is actually a lot more abnormal to have one woman stay at home with her child - much more isolating.

That's an interesting perspective, and it makes sense. It makes a lot of sense, especially, for children - but wouldn't infants have been cared for primarily by their birth mothers, up to a certain age perhaps?

New poster here, not an anthropologist, but I did have a chance to live in other parts of the world in the Peace Corps. THe answer is yes and no. In many villages there are wet nurses. Nursing a baby is not only done by the mother. In the developing world women work very hard and it is a false presumption that Western women are the only ones separated from their babies during the day. Western women actually have it quite easy and often spend much more time with their babies than the developing world where the fields are full of women laboring in the hot sun from dusk till dawn.

BS

Wet nurses are for the rich!

Women in the field are not those with infants at home. They work hard once their kids are old enough to join them in the field around 5 years of age. Until them they're around the village watching their own kids and helping others with young children too.

Been there, done that. Literally!

You have no clue.

And you do? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 16 pages, in fact I've only read the OP. But I'm an anthropologist, and I wanted to point out that having other women raise your children is actually as normal as human behavior gets. One of the reasons the human species survived was because of their ability to cooperate and share, and start living in larger social units (villages).

In order to sustain the larger groups, people had to all participate in the work required to sustain the village. This usually meant the men would go out and hunt, and able bodied women would go out and gather. Women who were either too old, too sick, or otherwise unable to contribute this way would stay back in the village and watch the children and do other chores (cleaning, cooking).

When you think about it, daycare in our society is just another form of what humans have been doing for many thousands of years.

It is actually a lot more abnormal to have one woman stay at home with her child - much more isolating.

There's a big difference between having all the members of one tribe/extended family take care of the babies, and outsourcing that care to people who are not part of the extended family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer PP here. I am not saying that my JD prepared me for child rearing. I am saying that the same qualities that made me successful at my career make me a good mother. I have been good at school, sports, well, most things, my whole life, and suspect many of the DCUM working moms are the same way. I am good at learning things, a hard worker, like doing things the right way without short cuts, etc. That is what makes people successful in all areas of life. Why on earth I would believe that the (maybe) high school graduates who do not speak English as a first language would be *better* at taking care of my kids who are learning to speak, think, etc., is beyond me, so when people say that of themselves, I cannot understand it. I understand what your preference is, but please stop acting like despite being a straight A student, varsity athlete, obtaining multiple degrees, speaking multiple languages, etc., like all of the successful and competent moms out there, you just would be doing junior a disservice if you tried your hand at child care.

You are a poor writer and an angry, bitter person. So yes, it is no surprise that you are not practicing. You were a mediocre lawyer who did medocre work at a third tier firm. You were never going to make very much money anyhow, as even your third tier firm would have counseled you out at sixth year, if not before. No one cares that you left. Go scrub your toilet.

Ha. I worked at two top tier firms and left when my part time salary was $225K, to the firm's disappointment. Kiss my ass.

Lie. Total lie. But I know your type -- you actually have convinced yourself that your third tier firm was "top tier," and you actually think they liked you. (But you know, deep down, that they didn't. And that is part of the reason you left. You were never going to cut it actually PRACTICING law. You could get by as a junior associate, but then you were done.) Admit it. It's so obvious --- who else would be SO defensive about their choices? Who else writes "kiss my ass"? (Other than a disgruntled tween.)

Not the poster you're responding to, but do you even realize how ridiculous you sound, bragging about "tiers" and playing the mean girl on an anonymous board? So sad.

Nope. Wrong. the fake-lawyer mom is on here juding everyone and being an ass. Someone needs to put her in her place, as pathetic as that place may be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 16 pages, in fact I've only read the OP. But I'm an anthropologist, and I wanted to point out that having other women raise your children is actually as normal as human behavior gets. One of the reasons the human species survived was because of their ability to cooperate and share, and start living in larger social units (villages).

In order to sustain the larger groups, people had to all participate in the work required to sustain the village. This usually meant the men would go out and hunt, and able bodied women would go out and gather. Women who were either too old, too sick, or otherwise unable to contribute this way would stay back in the village and watch the children and do other chores (cleaning, cooking).

When you think about it, daycare in our society is just another form of what humans have been doing for many thousands of years.

It is actually a lot more abnormal to have one woman stay at home with her child - much more isolating.

There's a big difference between having all the members of one tribe/extended family take care of the babies, and outsourcing that care to people who are not part of the extended family.

No, there isn't, especially with regard to outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all 16 pages, in fact I've only read the OP. But I'm an anthropologist, and I wanted to point out that having other women raise your children is actually as normal as human behavior gets. One of the reasons the human species survived was because of their ability to cooperate and share, and start living in larger social units (villages).

In order to sustain the larger groups, people had to all participate in the work required to sustain the village. This usually meant the men would go out and hunt, and able bodied women would go out and gather. Women who were either too old, too sick, or otherwise unable to contribute this way would stay back in the village and watch the children and do other chores (cleaning, cooking).

When you think about it, daycare in our society is just another form of what humans have been doing for many thousands of years.

It is actually a lot more abnormal to have one woman stay at home with her child - much more isolating.

There's a big difference between having all the members of one tribe/extended family take care of the babies, and outsourcing that care to people who are not part of the extended family.

No, there isn't, especially with regard to outcomes.

The fact that you have to PAY someone to care for your child and just rely on "luck" that they'll take a good care of your child and love them says a lot about the differences already.

[Anonymous]

No it doesn't. You know a child is exponentially more likely to be harmed by a family meber tha a daycare worker, right?

It isn't luck. And again, please show me one scrap of evidence that children who go to daycare don't do as well as other children. There isn't any.

You keep rationalizing your choice by all means, whatever helps you sleep at night. Daycare or no daycare, it is all the same if other variables are constant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but if you wake up, get the child ready, take them somewhere, stay out all day long, pick them up feed them dinner and put them to sleep you're NOT raising your child.

Oh really? Just who is paying for everything, planning developmentally appropriate activities, instilling abstract values like religion? I guess you're not really married, since you only see your husband at nights and weekends.

You think that paying for childcare is mothering???

Why not? Isn't that the main contribution to parenting that the dad of a SAHM is making?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"That's why the work world should be more accepting of women taking breaks from their career. And if your job is so much more important that your child's first year why are you having a child anyway? That's the part that I don't get.

When you're home they're asleep, you also need sleep so you let them cry, put them in another room and just hope for them to sleep through the night... When do you actually spend time (raise) your child? When getting them ready in the morning and rushing them through a bath to get them to bad? I doubt it."

Why did your DH have a child?

Don't you know it's totally ok for a man to outsource childcare, so long as he's shtupping the caregiving and supporting her financially?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"That's why the work world should be more accepting of women taking breaks from their career. And if your job is so much more important that your child's first year why are you having a child anyway? That's the part that I don't get.

When you're home they're asleep, you also need sleep so you let them cry, put them in another room and just hope for them to sleep through the night... When do you actually spend time (raise) your child? When getting them ready in the morning and rushing them through a bath to get them to bad? I doubt it."

Why did your DH have a child?

DH and I share the same values, morals and principles. We also make the same money. The difference is that I make milk and he doesn't so we decided it would be smarter if I stayed home instead of him. It works for us.

The key differentiator is who can breastfeed? That lasts, what, one year? And why not both work and double the income? Why do either of you need to chuck the career just to instill values, morals and principles in an infant?

[Anonymous]

"There's a big difference between having all the members of one tribe/extended family take care of the babies, and outsourcing that care to people who are not part of the extended family."

Are teachers part of the "extended family"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn't. You know a child is exponentially more likely to be harmed by a family meber tha a daycare worker, right?

It isn't luck. And again, please show me one scrap of evidence that children who go to daycare don't do as well as other children. There isn't any.

You keep rationalizing your choice by all means, whatever helps you sleep at night. Daycare or no daycare, it is all the same if other variables are constant.

My child doesn't know statistics. All she knows is that her mommy is there when she falls and gets hurt or when she's hungry for her milk. Not a complete stranger that is paid to "love" her and feed her on a schedule along with 4 other children (depending on the ration established by the state).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn't. You know a child is exponentially more likely to be harmed by a family meber tha a daycare worker, right?

It isn't luck. And again, please show me one scrap of evidence that children who go to daycare don't do as well as other children. There isn't any.

You keep rationalizing your choice by all means, whatever helps you sleep at night. Daycare or no daycare, it is all the same if other variables are constant.

My child doesn't know statistics. All she knows is that her mommy is there when she falls and gets hurt or when she's hungry for her milk. Not a complete stranger that is paid to "love" her and feed her on a schedule along with 4 other children (depending on the ration established by the state).

Spoken like a woman who couldn't be bothered to look into childcare options. Couldn't pay for it anyway, huh? I love this type of oh so stupid post. My kids are teenagers now; we have hundreds of thousands of dollars more than we would if one of us had SAH. And our kids are doing great! Looks like our "luck" paid off, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it doesn't. You know a child is exponentially more likely to be harmed by a family meber tha a daycare worker, right?

It isn't luck. And again, please show me one scrap of evidence that children who go to daycare don't do as well as other children. There isn't any.

You keep rationalizing your choice by all means, whatever helps you sleep at night. Daycare or no daycare, it is all the same if other variables are constant.

My child doesn't know statistics. All she knows is that her mommy is there when she falls and gets hurt or when she's hungry for her milk. Not a complete stranger that is paid to "love" her and feed her on a schedule along with 4 other children (depending on the ration established by the state).

It's all perspective - few things make me happier than seeing my daughter's bond with her day care teachers, and all the wonderful things she learns from them. It also helps that I have worked in day care, and I know that day care teachers aren't just robots that turn off their feelings for children once they're off the clock.

Also, you do realize that once you get to know people they're not "complete strangers", right? My daughter hasn't had a stranger care for her since her first day of day care. Again, all about perspective - you seem to be afraid of strangers and the unknown. Do what's best for your family, no one is asking you to do anything else.