Raising children and daycare
 

Mike, I've heard you mention this before and Arch is quoting you. Can you share your information with us?

It's definitely counterintuitive from what I've heard and believed for years.

It seems everything I ever hear from the mental health profession reinforces the idea that early childhood development and bonding with both mother and father is essential to a mentally healthy person. And it seems to be the more bonding the better, not just a minimum standard that needs to be met.

I've never read a news story that showed daycare children did better than with a stay at home mom, but I have seen several that claimed the opposite.

Purely from an anecdotal standpoint, my wife spent a lot of her childhood in daycare and hated it and that was a major driver in her desire to be a stay at home mom once we could swing it financially (although it was very tough financially at first). I realize that's a sample size of one, so FWIW.

Like much else in life it depends on the "day care." I like Montessori, though not the pretenders (it's not a copyrighted term nor is there a patent on the system). Do you need everything boiled down to you in a neat little generailization? I've seen some preschools that deliver more to a child than even the best of mothers could; of course, even the best preschools can't supplant a competent mother. Mother and father and "day care" need to work in tandem. I've seen some mother's I'd less rather have raising their kids than any licensed "day care."

The problems with day cares at their worst are identical to the evils of putting small children in front of the TV (electronic baby sitter). Do you do that?

Personally, I'd rather my kids have a happy and highly intelligent and educated mother. This often entails the mother working outside the home.

Those who condemn mothers working outside the home are caught in a mid-twentieth century time capsule in a relatively microscopic geographic location. Why none of this should be intuitively obviouse to you is beyond me. But hey, I could say that about a lot of stuff.

SU lecturing me on how to raise my kids. This is rich.

Well there is a rule and there are the exceptions to it. If you're going to address people generally, like in a GENERAL CONFERENCE, you should be concerning yourself with the rule, rather than the exceptions to it.

If I'm an oddsmaker, I'm going with a stay at home mom over daycare. After a billion trials or so, I'll come out ahead.

Zowey ... I guess we could call such a statement enlightenment and not the least bit offensive

lol

To bad your kids will never be able to benefit from their "highly intelligent and educated mother" because she is never at home to teach them. So hopefully in your case they have a "highly intelligent and educated nanny"

I didn't listen to the story. Maybe I'll listen from home tonight. I would think there is mountains of research on this kind of stuff. Any other studies?

I'm afraid this issue might be too emotionally charged for us to discuss. I can see why it's so tough for the church. Everyone was either daycared or not. Everyone either puts their kids in daycare or not. It's such a huge issue because everyone loves their kids and no one wants to feel like they're blowing it or have someone tell them that. We feel immediately condemned before the discussion can even start.

He says, completely oblivious of the irony in his statement.

I think you highlight the fact that this is a highly personal and subjective issue, highly dependent on the household, income level, education level, proximity of child care to work, quality of the day care, a host of things. How ironic that Mormons should be unabashed in claiming their moral superiority for advocating that all women must be stay at home moms or else they harm their children or violate divine law. Then when someone states a contrary view they take offense. Typical. It's like the religious bigotry card. Grow up.

I'm going to chime in in accord with Indy here. There a lots of things we hold up in the church as being the ideal. That doesn't mean you get the ideal all the time, but not always getting it does not mean we shouldn't continue to uphold it.

There are lots of kids who come through abusive terrible childhoods and wind up fine in life. That doesn't mean that a normal childhood is not preferable to an abusive one. Its an extreme example that illustrates the point.

I think the decision of whether or not to stay home with the kids is up to each couple. I think even the Proclamation on Families recognizes that individual adaptation to circumstances is expected. On the other hand, I think that it is right for the church (and I'm not saying the talk that has gotten so much run here does this) to suggest to its members that there is an ideal and that we all ought to examine whether our current arrangement is best for our children and whether our motives are their best interests or whether they are selfish.

I am biased because I came from a home where my mother who was never going to be happy being a homemaker. She had a career before my brothers and me. While we were little she worked out of the home, had a framing business, mortgage business, was a realtor, but was nearly always there when we got home from school and always saw us off in the morning. Work happened when we were at school. We had a parent parenting us rather than (sorry) warehousing us somewhere. I'm certain this was a financial sacrifice as well. When we were all high school age, mom completed her graduate degree and went back to work full time. She still works.

To me, the ideal is that parents should only have children that they intend to raise. That doesn't mean, to me, that either shoulders that burden any more than another. But, IMHO, if your kids are in day care and it would not be a financial hardship to have them out with one or both parents "at home" some of the time, that is a selfish decision. It is a decision that gratifies the parent rather than reflects the child's interests. I get that sometimes it just can't be avoided.

I think the problem lies, in large measure, is in a culture that tells us we can have it all. That both parents can have career and family and that neither will suffer. Reality is different.

I have a granddaugter who has gone to day care since she was 2 and she is now 5.

I have grandkids who are stay at home kids. This grandaughter is as smart as the stay at homes and actually as well as or better behaved. Of course all my grandkids are awesome, so better is relative.

I was raised in a home where my Mom had a daycare inside of it.

I saw a lot with my own eyes at a young age that left a lot of impressions on me.

While I fully support any woman's desire to go out and have a career, seeing what I did every single day, if I had the choice, I'd rather she stay home with the kids......however, under no circumstances would I ever be staunch in that. Just a preference based on what I saw growing up. Oft times it seemed to have a harder impact on the mom dropping off her kid every singled day than it did the other way around.

My wife worked when I was married and I encouraged her to follow her career. If we'd had kids and she wanted to stay home and not work, work part time or work full time I'd just support her in any way.

I can't say much about daycare. I never was in it, nor have my kids been in it. There are pros and cons to either situation. However, I will say that looking back to when I was a teenager, having a mom at home in the afternoon helped keep me out of some trouble. She was around and expected me to come home or at least check in and let her know what I was doing and who I was going to be with. Having her there wasn't fool proof, but it definitely helped.

So what kind of trouble did you get in?

I was basically good kid who never wanted to lie to my parents. What I meant was that having a mom at home isn't always going to keep a kid who is looking for trouble, out of trouble. If I didn't care about lying to my folks, I could have gotten into situations where doing the right thing would have been more difficult.

I myself am greatful back when I was a teenager most every girls mom was home.

I shudder to think of the number of invites I would have gotten to come over if their mom's hadn't been at home.

Instead of replying to my comment which speaks directly to the irony of this board and it's dynamics you choose to dodge the meat of my thought and rely on a broadbrush insult to emphatically assert your superiority.

You grow up and contend with my astute observation. Resist the urge to belittle.

Not to mention tried to big-time us with his household income. *cough* *cough* *puke*

Little Respect
 

I have little respect for parents that put their kids in daycare (barring extreme circumstances; death, disability, etc.). To be blunt, I think they're bad parents.

My wife is a licensed Civil Engineer and very accomplished and intelligent. She is also a full time mother. I wouldn't marry anybody that didn't want to take care of her own kids and likewise, I wouldn't recommend any girls marry a guy that can't support them. It's pretty simple. I also think it's my responsibility as a husband and father to take care of the kids. I do my share.

If I was a Bishop, I would never even consider calling a working Mom to be in the Primary, YW or RS presidency (unless the Spirit dictated it, which would knock me for a loop).

In my opinion, nothing is more important than raising your children in the best manner possible. When you have your first, your needs and wants should become secondary.

I say Sister Beck is right on. Power to her!

I don't like you.

Sorry if I didn't sugarcoat it. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Now let me clarify. I don't think working Mom's are evil. I think they're misguided and misled. So are their husbands. Their priorities are all out of whack.

Thank you Jonathan Swift

I'm not being the least bit satirical.

TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile His work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

I agree. No way this is legit. This is obviously somebody posing as a mullah.

Yes, what a radical concept; People should take care of their own children. It seems pretty simple to me. There's no flaw in my logic.

Are you a polygamist?

Nope. I've got nothing against polygamy when the Lord commands it. (I do have something against child molesters and welfare frauds).

You're not real. Real people aren't that stupid. Lingo is at the very bottom of the stupid scale. When people say things that more stupid than something Lingo would say, you can only surmise that those people are fictitious. Nice try though.

tooblue and jay santos = burning bright but not kidding around. They have no room to talk about pulling a sense of superiority.

Is it OK to marry 14 year old girls?

In 2007, I would say definately not OK.

In an agraian society from 150 years ago, I would say I'm not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the circumstances?? I dunno.

Burning Bright, I bet you haven't been laid in at least a year. I bet deep inside your wife hates you.

Projecting?

It is not stupid to say people should raise their own kids. What's stupid is having kids and farming them out to hired servants to raise them for you. If you don't want to take care of your own kids, you shouldn't have had them. You should have gotten a goldfish instead.

This is further evidence that Burning Bright is not legit. First of all, the BB persona is not smart enough to make allusions to Blake, and if he were he would know that the Tiger symbolizes evil and would not take a moniker that symbolizes evil. I think BB is Mike.

Except your goldfish can't take care of you when you're wearing Depends and mistaking your children for your pet goldfish.

Burning Bright, if you work for an engineering firm of any account at all, I wonder if you have the courage of your convictions to publicize your opinion of full-time women professionals to your colleages, especially female colleagues? I bet not.