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.
Working parents don't raise their kids exclusively if they are in daycare (or with another relative). Credit also needs to be given to daycare providers who are - afterall - taking care of the children while the parents are working. They are learning skills that would have been taught by the parent(s) (how to play nice with others, sharing, using the toilet, etc.) aka "raising". If the parent(s) is unwilling/unable to be with their child exclusively... then they need someone to help them "raise" their child - I don't see how that's raising them by themselves when they are paying someone to temporarily take their place. I would consider that as "it takes a village" approach. When a person decides to be a SAHM/SAHD then... they are... in fact... raising a child themselves (no paid help usually). They are the primary - if not only - caregiver hence the "by myself" statement that you take issue with. Of course, there are those cases when a SAHP isn't really "raising" their child very well but that's another thread.
I hope this doesn't turn into another "I'm a better parent because I do this..." thread. Whatever a parent decides to do is their choice. Just make sure the kids are raised right and happy - that's all that really matters.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Exactly. Thank you for recognizing that someone other than the parent can take part and be considered part of raising a child. These people in daycares, etc. do in fact teach children many things. Sometimes yes reinforcing something that is being taught at home, and sometimes actually being the only source of instruction on that skill or trait for a child. I think to totally say that these people do not raise our children as well is totally disrespectful and unappreciative of the job that they do. I am not too proud of a parent and too defensive of my role to not acknowledge others who took part in raising my children, if through nothing else, the education they received while under their care.
If you want to explain how someone who disappears from a child's life by the time they are 5 raises them, have at it. I just don't buy that. Working or not, I think parents raise kids. They have help from all kinds of sources along the way but parents are the ones who are there for the duration. So no, I'm not accepting that day care providers raise our kids if we work before they're five because that's a really stupid idea. Kids aren't raised by 5 and raising kids isn't a monday-friday job.
I think there are people we remember and people we allow to have influence but I don't think they raise us. Raising a child requires a long term investment.
By your logic, foster parents don't raise children either because more often than not they are but a mere temporary housing solution for a child until someone else adopts them and becomes their parent.
I suggest you do some reading and research on the "formative years" of a child to understand just how much fundamentally essential things are learned by a child prior to entering kindergarten at age 5 or 6.
But stay at home parents don't raise their kids exclusively either. Very few people raise their kids without the help of anyone outside of their little family. Many people help parents raise their kids from grand parents to neighbors to clergy. I didn't put a "village" option on the poll because just about all of our kids have input from the village.
However, I don't believe day care providers raise children because I believe the children in their care are too young to be raised yet. Very young children aren't being raised. They're being cared for while they grow and mature so they can be raised. It's more of monitoring their development and it doesn't matter who does it. Raising on the other hand would require an investment in the child. A day care providers investment ends when the paycheck ends. While I"m sure they're fond of the kids they care for and vice versa, they move on.
Do you realize how condescending you sound to those that are in that profession, who do in fact invest a lot of feeling, time and effort into that "care" that you so say they provide your children. Goodness, I'm glad I was not one of those irrelevant people in the lives of your children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I just don't believe much "raising" goes on before age 5. IMO, the job of raising a child is just starting about then. I'm sure the first 3 years are just developing and learning skills like talking and walking. By 5 they are definitely being raised but they will continue to be raised for the next 10 or so years. Most of the raising will take place after they've left day care. I know a 1 year old isn't raised at all. Ditto for a 2 year old. I can't even say a 3 year old is "raised" to any extent. By 5 the process is definitely under way but not too far out. From 5-10, A LOT happens. By 15, the process is pretty much done (yes some take longer than others ). I just don't think one raises a 2 year old. Survives is more like it, lol.
IMO, most of the preschool years kids aren't being raised. They're being cared for. I think there's a reason we wait until they're 5 to start school.
So basically between the ages of 0-5 parents or caregivers are not teaching anything but walking and talking, basics. They are not teaching how to share, how not to hit, how to speak with a nice voice and not yell at others, how to apologize for hurting someone else (feelings or physically), they are not being taught that it is wrong to lie and why it is important to obey and follow rules. They are not being taught about compassion.
Wow. I'm sorry but I so totally disagree with you on the level of teaching and raising that takes place between the ages of 0-5. I've worked with children in this age group, not to mention my own children. Let me tell you something, many of them could put a lot of adults to shame with what they were able to learn. At 3, 4 and 5 years of age my children were feeding the homeless as well as sorting through their large assortment of toys to give away to less fortunate children. One very cold winter they when they were only 4 and 8 years old, they asked me if they could give away some of their clothing and bedding to to the homeless so they would not be cold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
And I'm not saying I'm a better parent because I work. I just dont' think I'm a worse one because I work. My personal opionion is they've taken so much work out of staying home that it's no longer any kind of necessity. Used to be there was so much work just to keeping a house running you needed someone at home to do it but now we have so many conveniences that take care of the things women used to, we're just not needed at home. Child care, historically, is only a small part of what women did at home. Now it's the major part. We have a lot of free time now. Today's full time working mom has more free time than my grandmother did as a stay at home mom in her day. Today's working mom also spends more time with her children than stay at home moms did back in the 50's.
And as to raising kids, I think that's a multi decade job not a job from birth to 5. I think of it as more of a long term assignment. It's not about what I did when they were born, two, four, seven, ten, sixteeen but the sum total of what I did over all those years.
Again, still see a condescending attitude. You don't want to be considered a poor parent for being a working mom, but you sure belittle the job that SAHM currently do as saying that it is just not that important anymore. Personally, I feel that is insulting. To me, as a SAHM, who has also been a working mom, I still feel that the most important job I do is that which I do at home and with my children.
A child begins learning and growing from DAY 1 - they need a whole heck of a lot more than just someone caring for them, feeding them, changing their diapers, from DAY 1. This is not just my opinion, this is scientific fact.
If you really think all you have to do is "take care of them" until they are 5 and then send them off to school you are sadly mistaken. Children can be taught a great many things before the age of 5. In fact, even when they are not being "taught" they are learning from everything and everyone in their environment - so you better be damn sure you really trust the people you place in their environment or they may be learning things you don't necessarily want them to learn. I'm assuming you aren't familiar with Montessori education either? It is simply amazing what 2, 3, and 4 year olds really can learn when given guidance by expert hands.
Exactly. So little credit is given sometimes to what 2, 3, 4 and 5 year olds can learn. There is a reason why in the world of psychology these years are clearly labeled as the "formative years" in the life of a child. Like I said before in a previous post, I don't remember where I read it but it said something along the lines that what a child has not learn by age 5, they will have a tough time learning later on. This was talking about character traits and such. Not so much intellectual education of the school system.
Exactly. So little credit is given sometimes to what 2, 3, 4 and 5 year olds can learn. There is a reason why in the world of psychology these years are clearly labeled as the "formative years" in the life of a child. Like I said before in a previous post, I don't remember where I read it but it said something along the lines that what a child has not learn by age 5, they will have a tough time learning later on. This was talking about character traits and such. Not so much intellectual education of the school system.
Oh the learn but what do they learn? How to talk, use the potty, their ABC's? Pretty basic stuff that doesn't require a particular person to be there. Just someone competent. Now, my 13 year old, she's another story. She needs people who are invested in her who know her and who care about her.
Could you please post links supporting that character traits not learned before 5 are tougher to learn later? I've read that if a child doesn't learn to talk by 5 they won't be able to but never that they have trouble developing character after 5. Character is far from completely developed by 5. In fact, I want to say it's just really starting around that age (but that's just what I think I recall from psychology and I'm not sure of my memory these days ).
Character flaws can manifest early but they can easily be genetic not environmental. For example weak empathy runs in my husband's family. So, it's no surprise that one of our daughters has empathy issues. One might, mistakenly, say that she didn't develop empathy in time and now struggles when it's the other way around. She didn't develop it on time because she struggles with empathy. It's a genetic predisposition.
Do you realize how condescending you sound to those that are in that profession, who do in fact invest a lot of feeling, time and effort into that "care" that you so say they provide your children. Goodness, I'm glad I was not one of those irrelevant people in the lives of your children.
So basically between the ages of 0-5 parents or caregivers are not teaching anything but walking and talking, basics. They are not teaching how to share, how not to hit, how to speak with a nice voice and not yell at others, how to apologize for hurting someone else (feelings or physically), they are not being taught that it is wrong to lie and why it is important to obey and follow rules. They are not being taught about compassion.
Wow. I'm sorry but I so totally disagree with you on the level of teaching and raising that takes place between the ages of 0-5. I've worked with children in this age group, not to mention my own children. Let me tell you something, many of them could put a lot of adults to shame with what they were able to learn. At 3, 4 and 5 years of age my children were feeding the homeless as well as sorting through their large assortment of toys to give away to less fortunate children. One very cold winter they when they were only 4 and 8 years old, they asked me if they could give away some of their clothing and bedding to to the homeless so they would not be cold.
Again, still see a condescending attitude. You don't want to be considered a poor parent for being a working mom, but you sure belittle the job that SAHM currently do as saying that it is just not that important anymore. Personally, I feel that is insulting. To me, as a SAHM, who has also been a working mom, I still feel that the most important job I do is that which I do at home and with my children.
What children learn early on is pretty basic. It's a lot but basic. It's really quite phenominal that a child can learn to control a finger with their brain when you think about it. And speech is amazing. However, what is necessary for learning what they need to learn is simply a proper environment.
How do I belittle the job of a SAHM? It's the same job working moms do when home. A parent is a parent working or not. I don't see a need for staying home. I don't think it accomplishes anything special. I don't think being a working mom accomplishes anything special either. Our working status while parenting is pretty transparent. Kids just don't turn out differently based on moms working status. So it's irrelevent as far a they are concerned.
My personal preference is to use the extra time we now have because they took the work out of staying home to do other things. For me, there isn't enough at home to fill the day in a meaningful way and since I know that, especially early on, it really doesn't matter who provides care for my kids as long as the care is good, I choose to contribute my paid labors as well as parent.
But stay at home parents don't raise their kids exclusively either. Very few people raise their kids without the help of anyone outside of their little family. Many people help parents raise their kids from grand parents to neighbors to clergy. I didn't put a "village" option on the poll because just about all of our kids have input from the village.
However, I don't believe day care providers raise children because I believe the children in their care are too young to be raised yet. Very young children aren't being raised. They're being cared for while they grow and mature so they can be raised. It's more of monitoring their development and it doesn't matter who does it. Raising on the other hand would require an investment in the child. A day care providers investment ends when the paycheck ends. While I"m sure they're fond of the kids they care for and vice versa, they move on.
I just don't believe much "raising" goes on before age 5. IMO, the job of raising a child is just starting about then. I'm sure the first 3 years are just developing and learning skills like talking and walking. By 5 they are definitely being raised but they will continue to be raised for the next 10 or so years. Most of the raising will take place after they've left day care. I know a 1 year old isn't raised at all. Ditto for a 2 year old. I can't even say a 3 year old is "raised" to any extent. By 5 the process is definitely under way but not too far out. From 5-10, A LOT happens. By 15, the process is pretty much done (yes some take longer than others ). I just don't think one raises a 2 year old. Survives is more like it, lol.
IMO, most of the preschool years kids aren't being raised. They're being cared for. I think there's a reason we wait until they're 5 to start school.
And I'm not saying I'm a better parent because I work. I just dont' think I'm a worse one because I work. My personal opionion is they've taken so much work out of staying home that it's no longer any kind of necessity. Used to be there was so much work just to keeping a house running you needed someone at home to do it but now we have so many conveniences that take care of the things women used to, we're just not needed at home. Child care, historically, is only a small part of what women did at home. Now it's the major part. We have a lot of free time now. Today's full time working mom has more free time than my grandmother did as a stay at home mom in her day. Today's working mom also spends more time with her children than stay at home moms did back in the 50's.
And as to raising kids, I think that's a multi decade job not a job from birth to 5. I think of it as more of a long term assignment. It's not about what I did when they were born, two, four, seven, ten, sixteeen but the sum total of what I did over all those years.
Actually, there is A LOT that goes on before the age of 5. For instance, if you place a newborn in a crib and only take him/her out to change their diaper... rarely acknowledging them only to be fed/changed for the first five years you will have a child that is severely psychologically damaged (most likely permanently). If you think that a daycare provider is not doing anything except doing the bare minimum of keeping a child alive (and not raising them to do "right") then you will have a severe problem on your hands and should seriously consider new help. So, for you to say that not much raising occurs before the age of 5... well, sorry but I think you are flat out wrong.
Stay at home parents can and do raise their child exclusively. There is a difference between the occasional babysitter (neighbors, clergy, grandparents) and full on daycare/nanny. I know stay at home moms who raise exclusively - they drop their kids off at my house once a month - does that mean the parent is not raising exclusively? Absolutely not. Fours hours with me in a month doesn't mean I'm raising their child. 5 days a week at a daycare center for 4+ hours a day? Yeah, they are helping the parents raise their child. If they aren't they need to be fired. Do you know what I'm sayin'?
Perhaps you are confused on what raising a child means - what do you think daycare is supposed to be? You seem to be trivializing what they do and anyone who believes that they are not actually shaping a child is kidding themselves. That is why it's so important to find a good daycare - one with small caregiver to child ratios, safe environment, clean, and most importantly... caregivers who will be a good substitute for their parents... someone who will care.
So, if you're with a child 50+ hours a week you're raisng them? If that's the case, who cares what the parents do with the other 118 hours a week they have after they put in their 50 with their kids?
By the way, the average number of hours infants who attend day care are in day care is something like 38 hours a week, not 50 but even if it were, if it only takes 50 hours a week to raise a child then the parents should be able to do what they want with the other 118 horus they have left after they put in their 50.
I'm trying to figure out your math here. Where do you get the parents spend as much time with the kids in a week as the day care provider does in a couple of days? The day care provider gets the day shift Monday-Friday with weekends holidays and vacations off. The parents get the rest including those weekends, holdidays and vacations.
Are you so sensitive because you work full time?
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 just don't think one raises a 2 year old. Survives is more like it, lol. 
