Anonymous wrote:
In a perfect world, yes, a child's family would be a source of stability. But most families are far from that, in reality. After parents divorce, at least one of them wants to hurry up and get another partner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

I'm attached to my parents. Who else is there to attach to? Children differentiate very easily between parents and non-parents, regardless of how often the latter change. I didn't grow up here so whatever they do in American daycares didn't affect me one bit.

In your whole tirade, only one thing is true: each situation and child is different. So you can't really make any statements applicable to all children. Some children, as you claim, may agonize over 'severed attachments'. Some understand quite clearly that the only source of stability is family. Everyone else comes and goes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but here in America, even the biological family isn't so stable. I remember one particular divorcing parent saying that his child's caregiver of several years, was the only source of stability his child had. So sad.

Then this parent isn't being a good parent. He ought to have been his child's source of stability. Why cite bad parenting in support of your position?

Don't most working parents spend most of their waking time at the office? He was in no position to serve as a primary caregiver for his child. It's darn hard to be much of a source of stability if you aren't there. But at least you can think happy thoughts from the office.

He's there (or should be there) mornings, evenings, weekends, holidays, vacations, for the rest of his child's life. He is there making decisions that shape that child's life. He is there putting food on the table and roof over his head.

Family is the only source of stability, the only thing deserving of attachment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

I'm attached to my parents. Who else is there to attach to? Children differentiate very easily between parents and non-parents, regardless of how often the latter change. I didn't grow up here so whatever they do in American daycares didn't affect me one bit.

In your whole tirade, only one thing is true: each situation and child is different. So you can't really make any statements applicable to all children. Some children, as you claim, may agonize over 'severed attachments'. Some understand quite clearly that the only source of stability is family. Everyone else comes and goes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but here in America, even the biological family isn't so stable. I remember one particular divorcing parent saying that his child's caregiver of several years, was the only source of stability his child had. So sad.

Then this parent isn't being a good parent. He ought to have been his child's source of stability. Why cite bad parenting in support of your position?

Don't most working parents spend most of their waking time at the office? He was in no position to serve as a primary caregiver for his child. It's darn hard to be much of a source of stability if you aren't there. But at least you can think happy thoughts from the office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

I'm attached to my parents. Who else is there to attach to? Children differentiate very easily between parents and non-parents, regardless of how often the latter change. I didn't grow up here so whatever they do in American daycares didn't affect me one bit.

In your whole tirade, only one thing is true: each situation and child is different. So you can't really make any statements applicable to all children. Some children, as you claim, may agonize over 'severed attachments'. Some understand quite clearly that the only source of stability is family. Everyone else comes and goes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but here in America, even the biological family isn't so stable. I remember one particular divorcing parent saying that his child's caregiver of several years, was the only source of stability his child had. So sad.

Then this parent isn't being a good parent. He ought to have been his child's source of stability. Why cite bad parenting in support of your position?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

I'm attached to my parents. Who else is there to attach to? Children differentiate very easily between parents and non-parents, regardless of how often the latter change. I didn't grow up here so whatever they do in American daycares didn't affect me one bit.

In your whole tirade, only one thing is true: each situation and child is different. So you can't really make any statements applicable to all children. Some children, as you claim, may agonize over 'severed attachments'. Some understand quite clearly that the only source of stability is family. Everyone else comes and goes.

I hate to burst your bubble, but here in America, even the biological family isn't so stable. I remember one particular divorcing parent saying that his child's caregiver of several years, was the only source of stability his child had. So sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

I'm attached to my parents. Who else is there to attach to? Children differentiate very easily between parents and non-parents, regardless of how often the latter change. I didn't grow up here so whatever they do in American daycares didn't affect me one bit.

In your whole tirade, only one thing is true: each situation and child is different. So you can't really make any statements applicable to all children. Some children, as you claim, may agonize over 'severed attachments'. Some understand quite clearly that the only source of stability is family. Everyone else comes and goes.

Anonymous wrote:
Exactly *my* point, thank you. Children normally *do* remember some things about the caregivers they had before preschool age. The fact that you remember not a thing, is astoundingly revealing.

If you should ever study child development, you'll see that after enough severed attachments (each situation and child is different,) children simply stop attaching to the parade of caregivers. Continued repetition of severed attachments teaches children to not trust in the "safety" (as in stability) of their environment. Such early childhood experiences have profound long-term consequences, even if as adults we claim to be "just fine."

By the way, "The Hell of American Daycare" has a lot to do with the typical high-turnover rate of the poorly compensated workers. If your caregivers stayed on for years at a time, consider yourself fortunate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of hours of actual "hands on" care during your waking hours. Your mother paid the daycare workers to be your primary caregivers.

Whether by waking hours, by importance or by authority, my mother was my primary caregiver. I don't remember any of the others. And I wasn't scarred by the "severed attachments" when my caregivers changed every year. I am sure they were all fine ladies who did a great job. I'm grateful. But the thing is, I don't remember them. At all. Not one.

Your point?

That the annual change of guard in caregivers made zero difference to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of hours of actual "hands on" care during your waking hours. Your mother paid the daycare workers to be your primary caregivers.

Whether by waking hours, by importance or by authority, my mother was my primary caregiver. I don't remember any of the others. And I wasn't scarred by the "severed attachments" when my caregivers changed every year. I am sure they were all fine ladies who did a great job. I'm grateful. But the thing is, I don't remember them. At all. Not one.

Your point?

Anonymous wrote:I'm a nanny and while I don't believe or agree with half if these nannies bitching on here, I see your point on this.

I saw a post the other day. The parents wanted a nanny for 50-55 hr/wk for a 3 month old and a 2.5 year old. The nanny was expected to do all child-related cleaning ( as she should) but also empty/load dishwasher, meal prep for entire family 3-4x a week, take & feed dogs 2x a day ( 2 dogs), grocery shop for family 2x a week, towels and linens for family 1x a week, and keep house tidy.

They asked for a nanny who was college educated ( bachelor's degree), vaccinated, physically fit, and 5+ experience. The were offering a weekly salary of $300 - 350.

Most nannies won't do that much work and if they do, they are heavy compensated for it.

I work for a family who pays me well but I understand that I am not ENTITLED to pay just because I feel I am. I am in grad school where I will making $100,000+. You can't be a nanny and expect a 50,000+ salary. Pick another career if you want that salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of hours of actual "hands on" care during your waking hours. Your mother paid the daycare workers to be your primary caregivers.

Whether by waking hours, by importance or by authority, my mother was my primary caregiver. I don't remember any of the others. And I wasn't scarred by the "severed attachments" when my caregivers changed every year. I am sure they were all fine ladies who did a great job. I'm grateful. But the thing is, I don't remember them. At all. Not one.

Anonymous wrote:
The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of hours of actual "hands on" care during your waking hours. Your mother paid the daycare workers to be your primary caregivers.

Anonymous wrote:Working mothers can also be caregivers, if that's what they do.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a nanny and while I don't believe or agree with half if these nannies bitching on here, I see your point on this.

I saw a post the other day. The parents wanted a nanny for 50-55 hr/wk for a 3 month old and a 2.5 year old. The nanny was expected to do all child-related cleaning ( as she should) but also empty/load dishwasher, meal prep for entire family 3-4x a week, take & feed dogs 2x a day ( 2 dogs), grocery shop for family 2x a week, towels and linens for family 1x a week, and keep house tidy.

They asked for a nanny who was college educated ( bachelor's degree), vaccinated, physically fit, and 5+ experience. The were offering a weekly salary of $300 - 350.

Most nannies won't do that much work and if they do, they are heavy compensated for it.

I work for a family who pays me well but I understand that I am not ENTITLED to pay just because I feel I am. I am in grad school where I will making $100,000+. You can't be a nanny and expect a 50,000+ salary. Pick another career if you want that salary.