BRANCH: Careers and childraising

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

I never said that the parent's roles should be the same so that point is irrelevent. 'It's true that the child needs different role models in their lives'

I wasn't sure if you were talking about parents or "other people" and surely interactions with other people, children and adults, is important.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

You can raise the child without being there 24/7. Clearly if you are working 8-7 every day bar Sunday then that's no good either.

Indeed, it is about finding a balance.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Your child will never grow to be dependent if one person is constantly there 24/7. It's easy for a nanny or a childcare worker to provide these basic needs (and more) for a child while you are away.

Yes, it is easy for a nanny or childcare worker to raise your child. But just because it is easy doesn't mean it is best. I think a few hours here and there doesn't hurt the parent child relationship, but when you have a situation where the child is in someone else's care for the majority of waking hours in a day, during those very important development years it can have negative results.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Surely it's better to learn by example than to be 'taught' to be independant?

I would rather teach my child not to play in street than have him learn by example.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

There has to be a balance.

Personally I think if career is your priority, kids just get in the way, so that's why I don't want them. But either parent shouldn't have to give up their career if that happens as a result of circumstances beyond your control.

Raising a child is a full-time job. A husband and wife should decide their priorities before they start having children. If raising children is not a priority over a career, then why have children at all? I agree with your attitude. If you would rather be a professional career woman rather than a professional mother, then more power to you.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

There are positives to either example but I personally think working parents set a better example for their kids than those that don't work.

If you are saying teaching a work ethic and showing by example (rather than sitting on the sofa and not working) then I agree.

However, if you are saying being a stay-at-home parent isn't work, then I think you inadvertently insulted a lot of people, mostly women, who have put their children ahead of their careers as a priority.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

As a side note, from my experience (which to you will be limited because I'm 20 so not much to go on), all the kids with stay-at-home Mum's or Dad's are the ones that have never had jobs, and all the kids who's parents worked are the ones that have, or have had, a part-time job, including me. Those are just my observations and not stats, but that's what I'd rather go on than nothing.

I cannot comment on what you see around you, but at least my generation was mostly raised by at least one parent that put their career on temporary or permanent hold to raise the little ones, and I started working part-time as soon as I was old enough, and have been consistently employed since graduating college.

To be honest, now that I think about it, the ones I can think of off the top of my head that more regularly unemployed are children of divorce where both the moms and dads, out of necessity, had to work.

[protheus]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

...from my experience (which to you will be limited because I'm 20 so not much to go on), all the kids with stay-at-home Mum's or Dad's are the ones that have never had jobs, and all the kids who's parents worked are the ones that have, or have had, a part-time job...

Huh?

[MissMisa]

I don't even think we disagree that drastically.

Personally I think having a kid would be the easy way out for me right now, if that's offensive to mothers then, oh dear, I'm offensive.

And protheus, I don't get why that's shocking. In England we have a huge 'benefit culture', with the highest teen unemployement in Europe. What I remember from Sociology is that this is down to a number of factors, one of which is unemployed parents sitting on benefits setting a bad example to their child. But that's the other end of the scale and not what anyone was saying.

[File0]

I think life is wonderful because there are different creatures in it. I might be old fashioned to say this but I love to see these differences, and I also think we can lose ourselves so easily and became something we weren't at the beginning, so yes men should differ from women.

@MissMisa sorry to say but you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Not working women/mother/men/father and the one who stays at home with the baby while it's necessary is very different. You seem to understand the slightest differences when it pleases you and make it harder to see when it doesn't.

It's not without reason that in almost every society there are similar things happening to the children. First a child needs the process of being born, than to be with the mother in a very close body to body contact for they lived together for the whole time before. It's not about letting him go to live his life cause he's already alive - we are not sharks, but even they keep their babies close in the beginning.
Even than a baby has many different needs which I won't specify, but you need to know it's so easy to miss those things, and if you are not with your BABY you'll never know.
It's not that you'll make him miserable if you aren't with him, it's just that you'll never get the chance to do those things apart from that certain time. It's his and your life no-one else'. And yeah I do believe women do it better because it's more natural for them but I don't say that to offend men, so please forgive me men if I offended you!!! And I've also seen despeakable women who'd better not to give life, and wonderful father who could do whatever is needed - it's just not the majority and sorry to disappoint you, but also never will be!!

[MissMisa]

Ah, the 'you don't have a baby so you can't have an opinion' comment.

I can tell what MMM is saying because he makes his points clearly, you however, don't. I don't know if that's a miscommunication because of differences in English, but I never really get your main point even though I try to work it out. I'm not purposely trying to be selective about what I understand and what I don't, if that's what you are implying.

It's not about letting him go to live his life cause he's already alive - we are not sharks, but even they keep their babies close in the beginning.

Uhm, I didn't say that either:

Maybe it's useful in the very early days for parents to be at home to provide basic needs for a new born child, but that's about as far as it goes for me.

'Women do it better the majority of the time' is just an opinion so that's irrelevent (and way more offensive than anything I've said)

You said you WANT to be close to the child.

I said:

There is nothing wrong with looking after the child if you WANT to look after it.

So... what's your problem?

[dogsbody70]

How precious and gorgeous is that little boy.


thank you fileo for showing him to us.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by RobinMask

I don't understand why you're against parents leaving their child with another perosn whilst they work. If we assume that the parents are leaving their child with a loving nurturing adult, one who will attend the childs needs and not neglect or abuse them, then the parents return later on in the day/night to spend considerable/quality time with the child, then what would be the problem?

Simply put, because they aren't the parents. Every situation is different, so if you can find someone who "loves" the child and "nurtures" the child, then that is a positive, but do the math. If a child is awake 14 hours a day, and 9 of those hours are in child care that means only five waking hours are with the parents. That's just over 1/3 of the child's day. Again, do I want my child to learn my values, or his babysitters?

I have friend who was raised like this. His father is a doctor and his mother worked full time at the father's office. She didn't NEED to, but she wanted to. He was raised by a nanny, essentially who happened to be from South America. She only spoke to him in Spanish, and his Spanish is still pretty good. That's an easy-to-see example of how the person who raises you can influence you. What about the ones that aren't as easy to see?

Originally Posted by RobinMask

The child knows who it's parents are, it loves them, and those few hours apart don't serve as a problem. If anything it teaches the child to socialise and interact with people other than its parents, and it gives it a wider world view and teaches it respect of other adults. Why would it be deteremental to a child?

There are some assumptions being made there. My example from above does not have a close relationship with his parents. I am not going to say he doesn't love them, but he doesn't make an effort to spend any more time with them than he has to.

Yes, interacting with other people is a positive. Why are we assuming that a stay-at-home parent would not interact with other people. In the US we have "play groups" where (mostly) moms take their children to socialize and play with other children their age. Raising a child is not prison. You do get to go outside.

What is detrimental is that I have a vested interested in making sure my child learns how to socialize properly and not be a bully, for example. Do you think the babysitter cares if my child is sticking up gas stations in 20 years?

Originally Posted by RobinMask

Also - just because it's been annoying me, lol - I have to ask you. . . you keep saying men and women are different. I get that, biologically and psychologically we are, and children can relate differently to each parent depending on gender/age etc. When it comes to parenting though what do you think the difference should be (or is) between the father and the mother? And if there is a difference - aside from cultural and sociological expectations - why should there be a difference?

I cannot say what should the differences be, but that in this modern political world there is a moving that everyone is the same and equal, and that is really going against millions of years of nature and evolution. A man will never have a baby, no matter what happens. Even in nature animal parents fill different roles. Humans are the same, whether we like it or not.

Originally Posted by RobinMask

I would also ask where is your evidence it's better to have a two-person family. I could give anecdotal evidence why single-parent families or same-sex parents can be better in the long-run for a child, but I would like to see objective/scientific evidence that different-sexed two-parent families are better, if that is what the claim is.

I am not going to get into gay parents and child raising, as that is a whole new topic on its own. And surely there are many success stories from children of single-parents. (The American president is one.)

Evidence of the benefits of two-parent homes over single-parent homes is not hard to find. I cannot vouch for any of these sites, it was just the first things that came up on a search.

Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family

Single-parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Facts About Single Parenting vs Dual Parenting Households

Single-Parent Homes - The Effect on Schooling - NYTimes.com

Single Parent Vs Two Parents

Is a two Parent home More better than a one parent home? Why or why not? - Yahoo! Answers

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

I don't even think we disagree that drastically.

Personally I think having a kid would be the easy way out for me right now, if that's offensive to mothers then, oh dear, I'm offensive.

.

That's not what was offensive, it was saying that being a stay at home parent isn't work.

[dogsbody70]

Misa one day you will learn.


your generalisations are very misleading. yes there are plenty of mothers or fathers who take the mickey out of the benefit system. Its disgraceful that too many babies are being born to teenage mothers.

sex education should include the real responsibilities of having unprotected sex, then bringing a child into the world.


I do object to many of your statements. However a time will come when you will learn.


babies are so precious----- they say that a childs formative years always have an impact on their future lives.

It is the most responsible job anyone could have.


My childhood definitely had an effect on Me and the way I think and behave.


Unwanted--nobody caring. today there are thousands of children in care here in the UK. even in the year 2001------------


time spent with your child is wonderful.

[dogsbody70]

MISA WROTE:
Personally I think having a kid would be the easy way out for me right now, if that's offensive to mothers then, oh dear, I'm offensive.



Okay MISA-- why do you say that? A KID? easy? How and why? Is it a pet or something?