Could Child-Rearing become a State-run institution? LOL (sitter, meal, SAHM)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that peers can have a major influence on kids but at young ages the only place that little kids have a peer group that can influence them is in daycare. If they aren't in daycare then their primary caregiver, Mom or Dad is their biggest influence. I guess the same could be said for older kids who are home-schooled.
I'm not really worried about little children. Kids don't seem to turn out any different if they were home with mom or in day care. If it makes no difference in the long run, it's a moot point but I do think you'll see behavior differences at the time. I think there is something to the studies that found more aggression in kids who were in day care (caution here becuase assertive behaviors were lumped in with aggressive). I find it interesting that they didn't find higher levels of aggression but rather more children displaying aggression. However, this comes out in the wash as the levels are the same once school starts.
Parents want to believe they somehow impart their child with something that lasts a lifetime by staying home and keeping them out of day care but there is no evidence that staying home accomplishes anything in the long run. A stay at home mom may have a better behaved 3 year old than I do but I'm not raising a 3 year old. I'm raising an adult. IMO, all that matters is what makes a difference when I'm done raising my children and, since I have daughters, that would be working because it turns out the daughters of working moms have higher self esteem, higher educational goals and attainment and higher career aspirations while the sons of working moms see women as more equal to men. For all the hoopla, that's it. These are the only long term differences they find.
As to peers, I'm more concerned with peers through school. Many of those kids will be with our children long term and, from my perspective as a teacher, I see them having a lot more influence than parents. Peers have the opportunity to spend more time with our kids than we do as well since they often see them both at school and when they are home. It makes sense though since our kids should be, biologically, programmed to break from their families and form families of their own.
To be honest, when you look at the differences in time comparing today's stay at home mom who has very little work to do compared to her great grandmother and lots more time to spend with her kids, I'm surprised there isn't more difference. There are differences in our kids compared to yesteryear but I think the change in attitude about children accounts for it and time is a moot point. Today, we treat children like fine china. We protect their egos. We give everyone a trophy just for showing up. In the past, children were part of the team. Their labor needed for the survival of the family. What they did mattered. Now they are the center of the universe. So important that mom will hijack her career to stay home and play patty cake. IMO, THAT attitude shift is way more important than the number of minutes per day we spend with our children because this attitude exists in both working and stay at home mom families. Google the topic and you'll see article after article about working moms giving up sleep and leisure time to spend more time with their kids. Problem is, parents never really spent a lot of time interacting with their kids which tells me kids never needed it and it's not responsible for the differences we see today. I think attitude is what has changed everything not minutes per day spent with our kids. We actually spend more time with our kids today than stay at home moms did in the 1970's yet, things have gotten worse not better. It's not time that is the problem.
Last edited by grimalkinskeeper; 02-08-2010 at 10:39 AM..
They're estimating the time spent in the 1950s. They didn't take a time machine back to study it.
You're educated enough to know that you should consider the source, intent and funding of studies.
There's something to be said for having a parent home who can adjust her chores according to the needs of the children.
You think time spent is more important than actually time at home.
Your current problems with your daughter are proof that being just home makes a big difference.
It's the perfect example of how parents can't effectively SCHEDULE parenting into neat little time periods throughout the day.
When you make your children the center of the universe, don't be surprised when they grow up believing that the world revolves around them. This attitude is exactly what is wrong with parenting today. Children don't need us to adjust our chores to meet their every whim. Doing so tells them they are the center of the universe and everything should revolve around them. There is nothing wrong with saying "I'll make you lunch just as soon as I finish washing the dishes.". There is nothing wrong with children learning that other people count too and they don't have to be first all the time.
In theory I agree that time spent is more important than time at home but I have to add the caveat that it's time well spent. If it's time spent catering to children, it's time poorly spent. If it's time spent teaching children that they should pitch in and help others and they are not the center of the universe, I think it's time well spent.
I agree that peers can have a major influence on kids but at young ages the only place that little kids have a peer group that can influence them is in daycare. If they aren't in daycare then their primary caregiver, Mom or Dad is their biggest influence. I guess the same could be said for older kids who are home-schooled.
Just wanted to add that raising kids in isolation is not the answer and that's what you'd have to do to avoid peer influences. Our children MUST grow up and learn how to function in a society with their peers. We shuold probably accept that our greatest influence is in choosing their peers through where we live.
When you make your children the center of the universe, don't be surprised when they grow up believing that the world revolves around them. This attitude is exactly what is wrong with parenting today. Children don't need us to adjust our chores to meet their every whim. Doing so tells them they are the center of the universe and everything should revolve around them. There is nothing wrong with saying "I'll make you lunch just as soon as I finish washing the dishes.". There is nothing wrong with children learning that other people count too and they don't have to be first all the time.
You act like I haven't raised children. I have a clue for you. Some of us have children who are already productive adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimalkinskeeper
In theory I agree that time spent is more important than time at home but I have to add the caveat that it's time well spent. If it's time spent catering to children, it's time poorly spent. If it's time spent teaching children that they should pitch in and help others and they are not the center of the universe, I think it's time well spent.
You're completely missing the point that you aren't home to supervise your child. That's what I meant by you can't schedule parenting.
Your child is needing to be parented at a time of the day when you are unavailable---a time of the day you don't have scheduled for parenting.
If you were home, you'd be able to notice if your daughter didn't come home from school.
If you were busy with the chore of scrubbing the bathtub, then you could stop scrubbing the bathtub to go look for your daughter.
That's what I mean by adjusting chores. Being home allows that flexibility.
You don't have that flexibility when you work full time. Since you can't adjust your schedule, you have to schedule parenting into your day.
You're learning that parenting doesn't work that way.
Some kids just don't fall into the little cookie cutter schedule. Some need parents to be there at times it's not convenient for parents.
We're not talking about a kid wanting a sandwich. We're talking about a daughter who might be having sex because nobody is home to supervise her.
Just being home would make a big difference with THAT parenting challenge.
I'm not advocating that you quit work.
I'm pointing out that your position in this thread about working parents makes you look crazing considering the problems you're having right now with your daughter.
I'm not really worried about little children. Kids don't seem to turn out any different if they were home with mom or in day care. If it makes no difference in the long run, it's a moot point but I do think you'll see behavior differences at the time. I think there is something to the studies that found more aggression in kids who were in day care (caution here becuase assertive behaviors were lumped in with aggressive). I find it interesting that they didn't find higher levels of aggression but rather more children displaying aggression. However, this comes out in the wash as the levels are the same once school starts.
Parents want to believe they somehow impart their child with something that lasts a lifetime by staying home and keeping them out of day care but there is no evidence that staying home accomplishes anything in the long run. A stay at home mom may have a better behaved 3 year old than I do but I'm not raising a 3 year old. I'm raising an adult. IMO, all that matters is what makes a difference when I'm done raising my children and, since I have daughters, that would be working because it turns out the daughters of working moms have higher self esteem, higher educational goals and attainment and higher career aspirations while the sons of working moms see women as more equal to men. For all the hoopla, that's it. These are the only long term differences they find.
There is ample evidence that the first three years are very, very important for brain development and provide the foundation for life, including future success and self esteem. I don't know about you but I want to be the one who helps my dd develop these things, I don't want to leave it up to a daycare provider who has to balance the needs of all of the children in her care nor do I want to leave it up to dd's peers who she interacts with 10 hours a day, 5 days a week. If my dd is sad and needs a kiss and hug from Mom, I want to be the one available in that moment to provide her with it.
I'm not saying that there aren't quality sources of childcare that can do a good job with kids, because there are and I'm not saying that working parents can't provide love for their children, because they do. I am saying that when children are already at home with Mom, they can get that love and affection exactly when they need it. No one is going to be able to love and attend to my child's needs like I am as her mother. It's definitely not a moot point.
Quote:
Just wanted to add that raising kids in isolation is not the answer and that's what you'd have to do to avoid peer influences. Our children MUST grow up and learn how to function in a society with their peers. We shuold probably accept that our greatest influence is in choosing their peers through where we live.
No one said anything about raising kids in isolation. My dd has interactions with her peers regularly. The difference is that she's not with them for 10 hours a day 5 days a week. She sees them for a couple of hours a day, a few times a week along with me and her friend's Mom's. She also interacts with adults and children while out and about running errands.
You're romanticizing something that never was. Relatives and older siblings have always provided child care while mom worked. Parents have always been too busy to spend the majority of their time with their kids. The real differences today are seen in that our kids have no responsibility and the world revolves around them. They have become fine china and have to be handled with care because of it. No longer do they grow up strong. THAT is what we lost not time with our kids.
I'm not really interested in your studies. I grew up then and I know how things were. I'm not romanticizing anything.
Kids today spend less time with their parents than in the '50's. Back then there weren't sports most nights or outside things going on.
The studies you refer to might SEEM like it's different, but it isn't. Mothers today think they have to be supermoms whether they are or not. They will SAY they spend all this one on one time with their kids when in reality, it would be impossible. They just don't want to be looked at like failures. They lie. Mothers work, kids are over-involved in activities, people lead busier lifestyles than ever before.
In the '50's, people stayed home. Mothers stayed home. Oftentimes there was only one car to a household. The men drove them to work leaving the women home with no transportation and kids to tend.
No one said anything about raising kids in isolation. My dd has interactions with her peers regularly. The difference is that she's not with them for 10 hours a day 5 days a week. She sees them for a couple of hours a day, a few times a week along with me and her friend's Mom's. She also interacts with adults and children while out and about running errands.
There is a prevalent misconception that homeschooled kids sit at home all day with mom at the kitchen table and never see peers or interact with others. Homeschoolers know it's all a fallacy, of course, but much of the rest of the world feels that being in an institution prepares kids better for the "real world" than actually living in the real world. Also, because the word "homeschool" has "home" in it, they assume that "home" is the only place homeschooled children are. So when you said "homeschool," I think it may have brought up the word picture "isolation."
We're not talking about a kid wanting a sandwich. We're talking about a daughter who might be having sex because nobody is home to supervise her.
Just being home would make a big difference with THAT parenting challenge.
I'm not advocating that you quit work.
I'm pointing out that your position in this thread about working parents makes you look crazing considering the problems you're having right now with your daughter.
That thread has been closed. This is a different thread altogether.
You act like I haven't raised children. I have a clue for you. Some of us have children who are already productive adults.
You're completely missing the point that you aren't home to supervise your child. That's what I meant by you can't schedule parenting.
Your child is needing to be parented at a time of the day when you are unavailable---a time of the day you don't have scheduled for parenting.
If you were home, you'd be able to notice if your daughter didn't come home from school.
If you were busy with the chore of scrubbing the bathtub, then you could stop scrubbing the bathtub to go look for your daughter.
That's what I mean by adjusting chores. Being home allows that flexibility.
You don't have that flexibility when you work full time. Since you can't adjust your schedule, you have to schedule parenting into your day.
You're learning that parenting doesn't work that way.
Some kids just don't fall into the little cookie cutter schedule. Some need parents to be there at times it's not convenient for parents.
We're not talking about a kid wanting a sandwich. We're talking about a daughter who might be having sex because nobody is home to supervise her.
Just being home would make a big difference with THAT parenting challenge.
I'm not advocating that you quit work.
I'm pointing out that your position in this thread about working parents makes you look crazing considering the problems you're having right now with your daughter.
I dont' know if you have or you haven't. I just know we have a generation of spoiled, entitled and lazy kids who think the world should cater to them. They have great self esteem and crumble when the first obstacle they can't handle comes along. Then mom butts in. I see it over and over and over. Too many of my students need an apron string ectomy.
I think our kids are spoiled today. I think they lack purpose in life. I think they think the world revolves around them becuase too many parents treat them like it does. I think we lost something when we left the farm. Back then, we needed our kids to work the farm. They were contributing members of the family. Now children are more like ornaments. They don't really have a role.
When I was a kid, I had to come home from school, pick up my siblings from the baby sitter, get the laundry done and dinner started before mom came home. My family counted on me. My mother would never have considered quitting her job to cater to me. Her job was needed by our family and my labor was needed to make that happen.
My husband grew up on the farm. His father needed his help. He wasn't just a child to be taken care of, he was part of the team. Today, our kids are accessories. I think they've really lost something.
While I do make my kids do chores, the fact is, there is little value in them. The world won't stop if they don't sweep the floor. We didn't eat if I didn't cook dinner. The sheep didn't get sheered and the wool sold if my husband didn't sheer the sheep. I look at my own kids and realize that they, a this point in their lives, have no purpose. They are simply children. I wish I could change that.
My sister, who was 14 when mom died, had it the hardest. She had to pull a lot of weight. She is by far, the most responsible and empathetic one of the bunch. Having purpose so young in life made her strong. Our kids need a purpose.
This has nothing to do with time spent with kids. It has everything to do with treating children like the world revolves around them and there is little value in what they do. So, we, like the idiots we are, decided to build self esteem by TELLING them they are special little snowflakes. Now they expect to be treated like special little snowflakes.
Our kids need a function.
Parenting at a particular time of day is not the issue. If it weren't that time, it would be another. Filling that time with something like her being a mother's helper will put my mind at ease while I work but it won't prevent her from doing what she wants. No one parents 24 x 7. In fact, they've calculated we parent about 7.3 hours out of 24. I think they inflated the numbers. We parent like we do everything else. In snippets. We always have. My mother taught me how to cook and then left me to cook dinner. My husband's father taught him how to sheer a sheep and left him so sheer them. We never have hung around our kids all day, at least not until recently. I have no idea why we ever got the idea we needed to. Perhaps to justify our own existence but, certainly, not because our kids needed it.
As to my daughter, until she fesses up, I have no idea what time of day the deed was done. For all I know, she snuck out after we went to bed. I simply prefer to keep her away from this boy when we are not around. Hopefully, I'll find a mom who wants a mother's helper to take care of that. I am, however, not naive enough to think that supervising her for those hours will solve the problem.
This is kind of a funny conversation because, when I was growing up, there were three girls on my street who got pregnant before they were 16. All three had stay at home moms. t'wo of them (sisters) very strict stay at home moms who tried to control everything they did. it didn't work. There are no guarantees. I can make things more difficult but I cannot supervise her 24 x 7. I can't stop her from skipping school. I can't stop her if she's determined to sneak out at night. It's not a supervision issue. I need to get to the bottom of why she made the choice she did and that has nothing to do with not being home certain hours.
Why would any of this make me look crazy? Do you think it has to do with the fact I work? It doesn't. You're trying to make it about something it never was about. It's not about my working status or particular hours she's home alone. However, her behavior now dictates she not be home during those hours. I spent more hours home before my mom came home when I was 10 than she does now and there were no issues. Either a child is trustworthy or they are not. It has nothing to do with mom's working status.
Last edited by grimalkinskeeper; 02-08-2010 at 02:10 PM..
This is kind of a funny conversation because, when I was growing up, there were three girls on my street who got pregnant before they were 16. All three had stay at home moms. t'wo of them (sisters) very strict stay at home moms who tried to control everything they did. it didn't work. There are no guarantees. I can make things more difficult but I cannot supervise her 24 x 7. I can't stop her from skipping school. I can't stop her if she's determined to sneak out at night. It's not a supervision issue. I need to get to the bottom of why she made the choice she did and that has nothing to do with not being home certain hours.
This is the very same reason why preacher's kids always had reputations.
They were always expected to be so perfect that they were usually the ones who got into the most trouble.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a clue for you. Some of us have children who are already productive adults. 
