Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m firmly in the camp that tweens and teens need more time. A lot of time. And if people were more available to kids at these emotional and hormonal moments there’d be less messed up kids.
Little kids hardly recall all the stuff you did and a provider is often down to provide the stimulation and laughter and learning little ones need.
I disagree. It’s not about what a child actively remembers. It’s about emotional security and the needed engagement of the early years that creates brain connections and learning. This can be achieved with an involved SAHP, a good nanny, or a good daycare.
After that, it’s a natural part of human development to become independent from your parents. If I had stayed home with my child during middle school and now in high school, I still wouldn’t have more time with her as she has always been involved in after-school sports, second language enrichment and her friends.
DP. I am around lot of teens. I can't tell who was in daycare, had a nanny, had a SAHM, etc. when they were little. I CAN tell who has engaged parents when they are teens, but this has nothing to do with whether they have a SAHM or not.
Stop trying to create mommy wars OP.
“Engaged” parents of a teen doesn’t mean a SAHP or being the chauffeur to a high school football team. Both parents can remain engaged whether they are both working or not.
And the quality of zero-to-three engagement is very much a determining factor in who that teen is whether it’s apparent to you or not.
Nobody said 0-3 engagement wasn't important, just that teens who had 0-3 nanny, daycare, or SAHM are not distinguishable. Engagement and caring matters regardless of childcare.
Some people seem to think that having a SAHM or a nanny or whatever from ages 0-3 is some sort of magic bullet against teen issues, and it's just not.
So you really think there is no difference between having someone take care of you from 0-3, the end, vs. someone who takes care of you from 0-3 and then is still there in your life when you are a teen? Or the same as having daycare center employees you have long forgotten from 0-3, or a nanny you may no longer be in touch with? Really? I mean, you can't see the difference in quality between those three relationships? Stability is important to all human beings, but especially for kids as they grow. I think a consistent caregiver is a more enriching and valuable relationship. Bonus points if it's a caregiver who loves you.
My nanny growing up is still very much a part of my life. That said, however, even if a nanny leaves before the age of remembrance, what stays with the child is that there was someone to meet her needs and love her.
I’m a psychologist and see it in my practice all the time. A patient will come in and tell me a horror about their lives and yet be capable of dealing with it and growing. I always ask who that person was in their early life who loved them and was there for them. I’ve heard mother, father, grandmother, nanny, aunt... but there is always someone.
Yes, in a perfect world a nanny would visit and stay in the child’s life but that, like a death, isn’t always possible. The positive imprint is still there.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}