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!

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.)

OKay, the anthropologists and peace corp people are really too much. Yes, I buy it that it takes a village and always has. But the children went with the mothers to gather. C'mon now. Mothers wore babies in slings to bring them. I'd like to see cited articles and research that suggests otherwise, throughout history, as the primary thing.

So anthropologist, I don't believe your story and I don't really believe you are an anthropologist. (love the creds people claim here). But, if you are legit, by all means, link me something.

BTW, I'm a working mom. I just get bothered by made up statistics.

i haven't read all 16 pages either, but i'm going to chime in with my 2 cents since don't have anything better to do.

my son is in daycare, and wish i could stay home and take care of him. that said, he's learning in daycare -- he's learning things i would never think to teach him at this point and time in his life. (12 months.) the daycare teachers are teaching us stuff i don't know how to do. but i'm annoyed someone else gets to take care of my baby. but some days, i love not having to deal with the crying or the poo. i love my job. i might be a better mom b/c i work, but i just wish i had the choice. i wish we had better maternity leave. i wish we had subsidized daycare. i wish i lived in sweden (and yes, i do think the US is the best country on earth), but i want their benefits. and i also want the french attitude towards vacations and leave. and i wish we made a ton more money so i didn't have to work. and i wish my husband and i were a little less greedy and materialistic, but i want to raise my son in a house with a yard -- is that so bad? but we live in a townhouse now. and sometimes i think i'd be bored out of my mind being a sahm. what would i talk about? diapers? but i think it would be fun and important to my son to be a homeroom mother and drive him to soccer practice and go to his events. and i think i'd have a kick-ass body too. maybe i'd play tennis and get good at it again. my best friend is a sahm to 4 kids. she's not boring, and she plays lots of tennis. i'm jealous. but she gossips a lot and i don't care for the conversations about party favors. anyway, my situtation isn't changing any time soon. my mom was a sahm and while we don't have the best relationship, i think it was good she stayed at home. then she sent me to boarding school and now she gets drunk regularly and often calls me names. joy. i heard something on a tv show a couple of months ago that's really stuck with me. "when you hang out with your children a lot when they're younger, they're going to want to hang out with you when you're older." so true. i rarely go home to visit my parents. okay, this was all just a stream of conciousness.

Wet nursing had been around since hunter gatherer days. Scarce resources demand efficiency, care of the young, even infants, has always been shared. It is completely natural.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DH outsourced child care to you and if you don't home school, you'll outsource education to strangers. You outsourced earning to DH.

Not really. We're partners We don't take turns, we're work together.

Gee I wonder why the SAHM v. Working Mom debate always sparks outrage on this board. I mean we are just so damn understanding of one another and all.

Get it off it, OP. You sound like simpleton, just like most of the SAHMS that I know.

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?

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.

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.

DH outsourced child care to you and if you don't home school, you'll outsource education to strangers. You outsourced earning to DH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how do you define whether a person - I am assuming you mean men as well as women - thinks their career is more important than their kids? Just by choosing to work full time?

No. By choosing to work INSTEAD of spending time with their children. If you NEED to work full time and spend all the child's awaken hours away you should not have had a child in the first place. It's not fair with them.

I have responded rationally several times on this thread. I am giving up, because I believe:

Really, who gives a shit about some random internet person's thoughts on daycare?

Anonymous wrote:"As does everyone else on this board you fucking bitch. And yes, you do in fact suck on every level. Just saying no doesn't make it so. The reason name calling doesn't affect you is that you're truly dumb. Truly, truly, truly dumb. And a bitch. Those two things together just make a very ignorant person. Which you just keep showing over and over and over."

We ought to try not to get so upset because then it makes it seem as though we aren't entirely at peace with our choices. And it suggests to her that she's struck a nerve. If we really didn't believe anything she said, then we'd react with indifference instead of anger.

I'm reacting to her being a judgmental bitch and getting off on trying to make people feel bad. I stayed home with my child, no nerve was struck. It galls me when people act like this and yes, I'm losing my temper because she's an asshole in her intentions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you who abhor daycare, has it occurred to you that when you need emergency medical care for your child - and it has or will happen to all of us - the medical personnel who take of your family probably had their children (at some pint) in daycare?

I'm the poster called a cunt. I never said women should be hidden in the house forever after having children. My point is that women should be encouraged to stay home with their infants and toddlers until they're ready for social interaction and craving this kind of stimulation. A 6mo old does not need that.

I understand your point, but it is not that easy for any professional to come in and out of the workforce at will. If you leave your job for two years, you're unlikely to get it back at the same pay level, if at all. The work world just doesn't work that way.

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.

You are truly a vile human being, and I can see it now, your reaction is "what? Who? Me? I'm just sayin'" No, you're not. You're a total bitch with bad intentions and just an overall crappy person. I hope you enjoy hearing that as much as you think people enjoy hearing your bullshit about who's worthy of having children. I want to continue to call you every name in the book, but you're too stupid to see how vile you are so it won't matter. And yes, I stayed home with my daughter, so no, this isn't coming from a "guilt" thing that you'll probably try to throw back at me. You suck on EVERY level.

No. The reason why your name calling doesn't affect me is because I know for sure that my approach is the best for my family and no anonymous person on a virtual world will make me feel shaky for my decisions in real life

As does everyone else on this board you fucking bitch. And yes, you do in fact suck on every level. Just saying no doesn't make it so. The reason name calling doesn't affect you is that you're truly dumb. Truly, truly, truly dumb. And a bitch. Those two things together just make a very ignorant person. Which you just keep showing over and over and over.

Someone needs a chill pill...

Someone needs to find a brain. I hope your children are being raised by someone other than you. They would be way better off.

You're very funny for being an anonymous person in the virtual world.