The fascination with Sarah Palin comes not only from her unexpected rise, but also from the fact that she is a mother of five, with one child under a year old. While Palin seeks the vice presidency, one of the most demanding jobs on Earth, more than 40 million American moms also balance jobs with motherhood. Do working moms have the best of both worlds, or are they potentially neglecting their children's best interests?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Why is it the mother's responsibility, and not the father's, to make sure that "their children stay on a healthy sleep schedule" and to prepare healthy meals for the children to eat? Your argument is extremely sexist.
The problems you are talking about may be real, but they're not the mother's fault. Working parents shouldn't selfishly keep their children up late at night; that's just stupid, and unrelated to the gender ratios of the workforce. Ideally parents should negotiate for flexible schedules so that one or the other parent can be there to make sure they get to school in the morning and check that they get home safe. Also, parents can provide healthy food for their kids and teach their children healthy habits instead of just resorting to fast food and TV dinners. There are ways to make healthy eating quick and easy, but popular opinion hasn't caught on.
You're giving examples of irresponsible parenting and saying it would all be fixed if women didn't work -- but the problems would also be fixed if men didn't work, or if parents were smarter and more responsible. This is a very misguided argument.
- thoughtcounts Z
October 31, 2008 5:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I am saddened by your book and by your apparent inability to spend some time in another woman's shoes. What about the mothers who are forced back to work due to a failing economy? A result that she could have not predicted nor affected? Will my children be ruined by having a working mother? How dare you draw the line like that - as if everyone has a choice, everytime. Sometimes there is no choice - not even if you believe you can make any situation different. By the way, writing, publishing and promoting a book is considered "work" the last time I looked - what were your children suffering as a result of your clear dedication to your work?
Your argument is very misguided indeed. Perhaps one day the money you've earning working on your book will run out, your husband will lose his job, and you too will be forced to make choices you don't want to. Learning that your children, likely your most precious possessions, will be ruined as a result of your "choice", will likely not help matters. Thanks for helping one woman get a terrible night sleep. Good luck to you and your very selfish proclamations.
- earlythebird November 12, 2008 10:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What a load of rubbish!! I am a working mother and i fix my schedule to allow me to spend time with my daughter without keeping her up late at night. I cook all her meals, and have a live in nanny so that she is not woken up early to go to daycare - the examples you use in your opinion are examples of bad parenting, not the norm!! Are you suggesting that a family should go without the additional income that the working mom provides? Clearly you must be on the "wealthy" side of life, allowing you to stay at home with your children. You should try living on my side where two incomes are sorely needed, then come back and give your opinion again.
- mommy-to-Jazmyn January 12, 2009 12:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Are you against all working moms or just the ones who don't work as professionals liek lawyer, docs, engineers. Apparently then you think women should not be docs, engineers, teachers, lawyers, officers, anything. I am a working mom, my original profession is a physician but for one or another reason i couldnt work as one but i pursued my Masters and work with a Govt. agency full time. Both my kids are in bed by 7, they eat 3 healthy meals a day, well the 3 year old does, the 6 month old is breastfed and solid fed and I pump and provide milk for him for daycare. They both STTN and have a lot of time with me and their dad on weekends. It amazes me to see such narrow mindedness in this time and age, and even more that it is in a book that is actually selling, this is actually funny.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 7:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
plenty of SAHM having no clue whatsoever as to what a sleep schedule is and keeping up kids to attend get togathers and family dinners and what not. In essence working moms are more aware and caerful with time management and keep school nights and weekends more in line. What is your claim based on since my observation is exactly the opposite...sleep deprivation is not a result of a working mom but a result of lack of knowledge on the part of the parent regarding the need for age appropriate sleep amount and priority of a parent. Some families just dont give sleep and schedules importance, esp. if they have plenty of time to begin with.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 7:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I am lucky enough, or not lucky some would say, to have experienced both sides of childhood; living with mother always at home and living without a mother at home. My mother stayed at home and tended to the home like tradition would have it and I enjoyed this very much. When I was fourteen my mom decided to go back to work. Immediately I saw a difference in my families eating habits and overall health. The number of family meals we had weekly dramatically decreased solely due to the fact that my mother was too tired to prepare a decent meal for a large family of six. So, the primary solution was to eat out or snack at home. I saw a difference in the way I was raised and my younger brothers were, and I have to say I was glad to be brought up by a stay at home mom. Since it is a known fact that families that communicate and help each other with their problems, I truly believe that working moms put their kids behind.
- littlekidlover15 January 25, 2009 11:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The one that you supposedly have to support your view (your mere outdated opinion that the shackles of sex and gender role are still in place) that actually doesn't.... that is great. I loved it.
- SocialistBetty February 6, 2009 9:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The main point of the argument is that the child’s health is comprised due to the mother working outside the home. First of all, in the argument, the responsibility is put on the mother to manage her child’s sleeping and eating schedule, which is certainly a job that any person who cares for the child can do. It is an obvious hasty generalization that “…many wake their children up in the morning…and keep them up at night…the result is sleep deprivation”. Although it may be true that this occasionally happens, the health and well-being of a child is most certainly a priority for a mother, thus she would not force her schedule upon her child to result in a medical condition. The following argument addresses the rising obesity of children, where a cause and effect fallacy is made. It is mentioned that children have become overweight due to mothers entering the workforce. This association cannot be made, though, because there is no evidence to support that claim. Obesity in children has risen for many different reasons and cannot be associated to just the rise of mothers in the workforce. It is possible that all children, regardless of the status of their mothers in the workforce, are eating excessive amounts of prepared food and watching television.
- Natalie Marie February 8, 2009 9:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"In addition to sleep deprivation, the percentage of overweight children has tripled since mothers began to enter the workforce in droves." How can it be determined what causes overweight children? At the time women began to enter the workforce I am sure there were other social changes that lent a hand to the obesity epidemic, such as the increasing number of fast food chains. Also, just because a parent is out working does not mean the children can not exercise. Once again it all goes back to lifestyle, for there are many families that still believe in keeping their children healthy, even while working.
- SweeneyToddInc February 26, 2009 7:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
When a mother is keeping a hawk's eye on her child for twenty-four hours of each day of the week, she is able to control each and every item that enters her child's mouth. In this way, her presence most definitely effects the child's weight, for she is the one who determines what is healthy and what is not. If the child is being watched by someone else, they may want to take the easy route and give the child sweets or the like simply to keep them happy. By being around her child all day, a mother is also able to teach the child what is healthy and what is not. She can instill her own values in the child and he will model her and her habits, rather than a stranger's.
I can also agree with SweenyToddInc, however, when she comments on the actual cause of weight gain. When a mother decides she needs to enter the workforce, it may be because the economy is down, similar to today. According to a recent article in the NY Times, "Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods." It is the slumping economy that can therefore be attributed to the mother's absence (due to working) and the child's weight gain occurring simultaneously. There are far too many factors leading to weight gain for one to place the blame on the mother's absence.
- kas43091 March 1, 2009 11:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sleep is a very important part of a developing child's life, but it is not something that is only affected when both parents work outside of the home. Being an honors high school student there are many everyday activities such as homework, college preperation, and having a semblance of a social life that can affect one's sleep. Experts say that children should get at least 9 hours of sleep a night, but this is unrealistic with the amount of things a child has to accomplish in a day. This can also be attributed to a the statistic of overweight children. This rise in obesity can be linked to how many activites a child does leaving no time to get in three well-balanced meals a day. These two instances should not be blamed on working moms, rather on socitey and the pressure it puts on children to be the best at everything they do.
- Shay March 1, 2009 6:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Why is a working mother worse for child than a working father?
- clarence July 29, 2009 7:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Though all this might happen in a house where the mother works, this does not happen just because the mother is working. I know both sides to this, as I have been both sides to this. I did stayed home with my children for a few years. I have and am a working mom . My children do not stay up late, they do not wake up any early then they do for school. We do not eat crap, we do not sit in front of the television all evening. When I come home from work I or my HUSBAND cooks a full dinner. We do homework together. Yes, studies during the summer too! We all play for a little or do crafts after studing. Then my HUSBAND and/or I give the kids baths and get them off to bed at a descen time. I know that 40 years ago the womens work was in the home, but 40 years ago one salary was enough. Now that 2 salaries are usually needed the MAN needs to pitch in around the house.
I know not everyone raises their families the same, however, I don't any families that are as described in this arguement. I am not saying there aren't families out there that are just as described, but I can tell you it is not the majority of families with working moms . All but 1 of my girl friends are working moms and this does not describe their children or life style at all.
- mom-of-4 August 22, 2009 3:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My child is pdd-nos with autism. To leave him with someone else I feel is dangerous. Autistic children tend to just open doors and run, into pools, into traffic...etc. I'm sure there is a place that might offer what I need in a daycare, that doesn't mind changing a 4yr olds diaper. In my opinion while my child spends all day receiving therapies I choose not to send him to more strangers after his tough day. It might make him feel unwanted by me. Since he doesn't speak it might make the childcare worker more apt to just ignore him. like the autistic child left on the schoolbus. This question does seem a little bias. I think it's up to the individual. I don't have enough time during the day to do all I want and I don't work...
- momof2alienboys October 19, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
When the mother or father takes her or his child to daycare, what message does this send to the child? Some children will think it's just another day to spend with my friends having fun BUT other children may take it as abandonment. No matter if the parents are almost perfect and rear their children with love and affection, some children just have to have one of their parents with them during the day.
- GraceG January 24, 2009 1:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In response to “Depends on the Child”, the emotional well-being of a child does have the chance to be affected, but overall, it is not. If daycare was found to be such a problem, then daycare would no longer be used because of the large majority of parents worrying about their children. But because daycare is still used, daycare simply provides a learning environment for a child while the mother is at work. In fact, daycare can be quite similar to pre-school, which has been found to be beneficial for a child.
- Natalie Marie February 26, 2009 10:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
According to Erik Erikson’s Eight Stage of Development, the first few years of a child’s life, typically when they are placed in a daycare, are key in the development of trust and security. During early infancy, a child learns whether he can trust and be supported by the world around him. If all but two days of the week he is in daycare, the child cannot rely on his ‘teachers’ or his mother to be there for him no matter what. It is important for there to be one person that the child knows he can always fall back on. Sometimes his mother is gone and sometimes the teachers are gone, therefore the child loses that sense of security and knowing that his mother will be there for him 24/7.
Erikson’s second stage focuses on autonomy. This, however, cannot be achieved without passing through the first stage successfully, meaning trusting. A child cannot fully explore his freedoms without a strong foundation he knows he can fall back on. Taking risks and trying new things is how a child is introduced to the world. If a child wants to explore and go out on his own, he must be secure in knowing that his mother will rescue him if things do not turn out as planned.
Erikson’s entire theory is based on the fact that one cannot successfully progress through all eight stages of development unless he completes each individual step in the correct manner with a positive outcome. When a child is away from his mother during the earliest years of his life, he fails to succeed the first key step of development, which therefore snowballs and affects the rest of his development.
- kas43091 March 1, 2009 10:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I will not deny that children who spend more time away from their mother will have a different relationship than a child that spends a lot of time with their mother, however, which child is worse off? "Young children do not form a strong attachment to a person they little of" but on the other side of that, if a child spends too much time with thier mother they could also have too strong of an attachment. This can lead to even worse problems. If a child is not very attached to thier mother, they may look for attachment somewhere else but if a child is too attached they may fall into the trap of never being able to function without thier mother. Many children that try to leave home for college and such come back because they don't know how to make decisions for themselves or they simply never leave. If a mother attempts to have the same attachment to thier child when they are 18 as when they were 4 there is no growth.
Also, "Quality time" can be a good thing because this can help the child feel special since thier mother is putting aside time just for thier child, rather then just always seeing them.
- Shay March 1, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Again you are so wrong on this one, it comes down to a moms attitude be it working mom or not. Working moms are not lazy, stupid and irresponsible to depend on others to bring up their kids. They are very involved in their child's day asking teachers questions and giving instructions about naps sleep, food, its not like we throw our kids and run to the door. I for one do not believe in i have worked all day I shouldnt be the bad guy now, if they act out i make sure they are handled the way i used to when i used to be home, and that will never change. Like i said consistency is the key and many SAHM dont want to be the bad guys and in many cases children dont listen to mom since "ehhh she is home all day we are not going to listen to her" now if the dad walks in they will behave b/c he is less in picture, have you never seen SAHM threatening kids with "let your dad get home"
Its always the parent not the choice of WOHM or not, but parent itself, who set the boundaries and keep them regardless of if they work or not.
Are you seriously telling us that all kids to SAHM moms are free of issues emotional, physical and behavioral??? and i am suppose to buy that and feel guilty..???
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 7:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
When children are with their parents, they should be receiving discipline from both parents. But at a daycare, the child may not be getting the right discipline for their wrong actions. In effect, the child may attempt to get away with these actions at home and eventually will succeed.
- GraceG January 25, 2009 3:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
From the argument that “working mothers are also less inclined to discipline their children during the hours they are with them simply because they have not seen them all day and do not want to spend what little time they have together having an argument,” my point of view was formed. I believe that working mothers do not want to punish their children after not seeing them all day. These mothers may feel as if their children will only see them as absent disciplinarians. Others may argue that the children will appreciate the discipline, but how can a young child or teenager understand this position? These mothers have a huge fence to straddle and most of the decision will be based on the family’s values and situations.
- GraceG February 11, 2009 8:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
First, preschool teachers choose the profession that they have expecting young children that are often unruly for the simple fact that they are young children. Also, if one looks at a family demographic, if there is a father in the picture, he tends to be the one to shell out the most dicipline, leading one to believe that it is he who should be home the most in order to control the children. Things such as power struggles do often occur at home but it is my belief that they happen because the child wants to be an individual at certain times, not because they resent their mother from working. Children lash out constantly, mainly for reasons that are illogical but whether or not their mother works would not be high on my list for why they decided to do this. Based on my own experience, I do not believe that mothers hold back on disciplining their child just because they work. There are mothers that discipline to frequently, and those that don't do it enough. This says more about the mother's personality than anything else. As a child grows, many hours are commenly spent arguing whether a mother works or not; it is simply a fact of life that children agrue and disagree with their parents.
- Shay March 1, 2009 6:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This is not an issue of work or not. All kids at one point or another have to be in multiple group situation unless they are exclusivley home schooled. They will be away from moms and bad behavior can stem at any age when in group environment because of the mere fact that there are children from all kinds of homes in daycares and schools. It is ultimately the home environment and a parent's way of upbringing and disciplining a child that will effect the behaviour, not the daycare or school. You POV in essence debars parents from any responsibility if a child exhibits bad behavior since its the daycare setting that is causing it. I have seen plenty of good, well behaved kids in pre-school and daycare and I have seen completely out of control kids with SAHM and vice versa, i cant say I have seen more in one setting or another. I havent seen any behavioral issues in my 3 year old, she has a very structured day, she learns things and is on a eat play nap eat play come home, eat play, read books go to bed schedule and she has beenin day care since she was 2 and now is in pre-school. You can have sickness in kids at home too. She was sick with ear infections and cold etc at home too even with breastfeeding and while she might have had few more EI in the beginning at the same time my frequent visit to her ped due to them helped us diagnose her Asthma and treat her and finally putting an end to EI and cough issues since she was 15 month old. Bottom line is a child's behavior is made at home, if parents are consistent in their manners and strategies daycares and school cant break good habits and just instill bad habit.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 7:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"It is ultimately the home environment and a parent's way of upbringing and disciplining a child that will effect the behaviour, not the daycare or school"
If the parent is not there to care for the child then he or she is sent to a day care, where the child learns the majority of their values. It is the parents fault for dumping their child off at a childcare facility where they know their child will not learn important values. Either way, if a child has bad health or behavioral issues it is purely the parents fault.
- littlekidlover15 February 3, 2009 11:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree that parents are responsible for their child's upbringing. But if they can't stay home with them, then their job is to find a proper daycare that enforces the values they teach at home.
- SweeneyToddInc March 1, 2009 10:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In the author’s response to “Full-Time Day Care Causes Health and Behavior Problems in Children” argument, she stated that “children in day care suffer from higher rates of illness (such as) ear infections.” I deem that daycare is not the only place children receive their infections. Children can catch viruses any where from stores to interaction with their parents. Some may argument the risk is increased at daycare. The majority of the cases of the common cold and the flu are just from connections with random friends and family the children see every day, not just a daycare. Daycare maybe a catalyst for illnesses but they are not the primary source.
- GraceG February 11, 2009 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Suzanne Venker's view on anger and aggression places blame on "teacher turnover". However, she never mentions the benefits of meeting new teachers and how that enables the children to transition more easily into classes where teachers change all the time. Also, for many daycares there is more than one teacher so it is not as if all the adult figures are leaving. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "More than 80 percent of child day care services establishments employ fewer than 20 workers". Children come into contact with so many people that the absence of one or two people will not psychologically damage them.
- SweeneyToddInc February 17, 2009 8:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In response to Rebecca’s comment, the issue of “teacher turnover” can most definitely be a cause of psychological issues. During the early years of a child’s life he is determining whether he can trust people or not. When teachers are constantly coming and going, the child instantly assesses his world as untrustworthy. Added to that, his mother is also coming and going, when she ought to be the most trustworthy individual in his life.
- kas43091 March 1, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You make a good point that there are some situations in which it's irrational for both parents to work. If one parent's income would be less than the additional costs incurred by having no adults at home during the day, then they're actually losing money by becoming a two-income household. However, your argument, that "families fare better economically" this way, is only true in those limited situations. If the non-working parent has a high earning potential -- for example, if they are very educated or have skills that are highly in demand -- it could easily put the family in a better economic situation to have both parents working than to only have one. They'll be making more money than they will have to spend in commuting costs, child care, etc. Clearly the rational thing to do is to send the higher-earning parent to work for sure, and decide about the second parent by making these calculations. But these calculations will not always lead to the conclusion you assert here.
- thoughtcounts Z October 31, 2008 5:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
While you make a good point that mothers at home are not wealthy, those that work outside of the home are not wealthy either. I do not believe that exponential wealth has a lot to do with mothers working outside of the home, it is more thier need to either gain some independence or support thier families. If a mother is a single parent she has no choice but to work outside of the home or collect welfare. Even if thier are two parents, not all adults are money savy and can hold large debts causing the need for two incomes just to pay the bills. While eating out costs and child care may be an issue, families that have two working families just need to organize thier time since they have less of it.
- Shay February 9, 2009 8:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
While wealth does play into the role of a working mother, whether or not one is wealthy does not have a major affect on the raising of a child. Shay’s argument is mainly about the ability of parent’s to manage their income, but the amount is income is somewhat irrelevant. A mother is a mother and would raise her child equally whether being a wealthy stay at home mother or a single parent. Each mother is providing for her child and giving her child all that she has to give. Whether or not the family knows how to manage their money is about their economic abilities, not their child raising abilities. Each situation needs to be examined individually, but as a whole, each family is not affected by all economic factors.
- Natalie Marie February 25, 2009 11:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Suzanne Venker's argument that two-income families cost more is nothing but speculation. She blames it on lifestyle, claiming that those families spend more money on laundry, eating out, etc., but that has nothing to do with it. Just because the parents are out does not mean they slack off at home. Instead, it all depends on how they handle their time before and after work. Rather than eating out, the mother or father should plan the meal ahead of time and save leftovers for later. Especially during these hard economic times when money is of great importance, many are watching how they spend and focusing on the essentials.
- SweeneyToddInc February 26, 2009 6:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The question could be seen as misleading if you don't consider working part-time 'working'. I believe this question is fairly clear to ask if you think that working at all while mothering is damaging to the children. The best interest of the child is to be happy and learn how to function and be a contributing member of our society. If that means to work fine, if that means stay home fine. But to say that by mothers working, their children are neglected or disadvantaged is just untrue.
- Kate September 30, 2008 11:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Shouldn't this argument be on the opposing side? In this article it states that, basically, mothers can have the 'best of both worlds' in terms of working and taking care of their child(ren). How is that a disadvantage?
My own parents had decided on an option relatively close to this so that my mom could be there when we were little and as we grew up, she began working more and more. Meanwhile, my dad worked but we still saw him every morning and every night and every weekend. (Additionally - Who says Fathers can't be the ones to stay home? Or is that not mentioned because it is, just as ridiculously, seen as 'less damaging'?)
There are even options in the category of work. My mom works in my school and as I moved up in grades, she moved up in schools. This way she was always there. Although I'm not saying this is the only alternative, I am saying that there ARE alternatives. I've never been in a daycare in my life, nor have my other siblings. My parents always made sure that one of them was with us at any given point during the day. And I'm sure if there was ever any reason they could not be, that they would place us in the care of our relatives.
I agree with Kate, "But to say that by mothers working, their children are neglected or disadvantaged is just untrue,".
This topic is presented as too vague - yet too narrowed and specific - to adequately discuss.
- Juno February 8, 2009 9:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Should mothers work?" is most definitely a misleading question simply because mothers are already workers. The question should instead be, "Should mothers work two jobs?" If a mother finds it necessary to have a paying career in order to maintain her confidence, happiness, etc., then perhaps she should simply be a career-woman and not a mother. The job of a mother requires 100% of a woman's devotion, energy, and passion. The mother's duty is not just raising some kids when she has the time, it is guiding young human beings along the path of becoming adults. This job comes with its own rewarding payment of raising strong, capable, respectable individuals. Working another career spreads the woman too thin - her work at the office will not receive 100% of her effort, and neither will her children. All in all, adding a career on top of mothering is equivalent to pulling two full-time jobs.
- kas43091 February 17, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You say that a mother's job requires 100% of her devotion, but I disagree. If a mother had to put 100% into her job in rasing her children, she would not be able to do anything else, including a job. While if one decides to to become a mother, that should be a priority, children do not need rasing for very long. 18 years seems like a long time to the child, but really by the age of 12 a child is branching off to become an individual person. Plus, I believe it is impossible to put 100% into anything because in order to do this, one would have to drive everything else from thier mind besides that task. I don't believe that anyone can do that or that they would want to. One should not have to make the decision to become a mother OR a career woman. If she wants both, and she puts effort into both, she should have both.
- Shay March 1, 2009 5:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Usually, it makes no financial sense for a 2 parent family to have more than one breadwinner. The second income is wiped out by day care costs, gas, taxes and clothing costs. Unless both parents make a lot of money, it doesn't make financial sense for both parents to work.
- Iknowbetter September 29, 2008 2:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
With the economy in the slump it's in, the statement that families need the extra income from a working mother is very true. I personally know of families that the mother got a part-time job just the make some extra cash for the upcoming holidays or a family vacation. This didn't completely destroy the development of the children. These children were more provided for and could experience more and exciting events. @ the comment below: Sometimes families are able to find family or friends to care for their children for next to nothing.
- GraceG January 24, 2009 1:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
@maybe. Families take up a second job in order to pay for things like "day care costs, gas, taxes and clothing," not to earn a disposable income which you unintentionally or intentionally implied. They take up those jobs to wipe out those costs so the main source of income doesn't have to.
Sometimes having financial stability is more important than being able to raise your kids on your own. And in the day and age we are in today, it is easier and easier to find a job. Just look at the very first bill President Obama signed, a bill guaranteeing equal pay for women in the work place. Just another example of the changing times.
- littlekidlover15 February 1, 2009 11:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree. Financial stability important because it allows you to give your children a good upbringing. Just because a mother is working does not mean that her child is being raised less effectively an a child whose mother stays at home. That child is just lucky that the father can provide enough money to keep the finances in order. If money is not coming in from one job it is necessary for it to come from somewhere else: the mother.
- Zeusthewoman February 11, 2009 4:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I strongly agree with Grace, parents can sometimes find other people to watch their children. Also, in certain cases parents are getting jobs and their kids are already school age so they don't have to pay for daycare. "Gas,taxes and clothing costs" are all going to be there no matter if the mother works or not. So other than daycare I don't see how it would make "financial sense" for the mother not to work. I know daycare can be expensive but, that is not going to wipe out an entire income.
- Jack February 11, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We need to look at the big picture. Every person parents differently, there is no best way. If the mother needs to work to provide the best quality of life for her kids, then she needs to do what she needs to do. If it is best for the mother to be home with her kids, then she needs to be home. By being the parent of a child you are making a promise to them to put their health and their best interest, most of the time, in front of your own.
- big red February 16, 2009 9:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Working moms can provide advantages and disadvantages to their children. On the one hand they provide their children with the best example of the importance of working hard. Working moms also can instill values in their children like responsibility and competence. Often times working moms do not choose to be away from their children but for financial reasons they are forced to leave them. This is primarily the main disadvantage of working moms, children can be unintentionally neglected and ignored. Yet children can be neglected even by stay at home moms just as stay at home moms can instill values in their children. There is no clear answer to this divisive issue.
- annalise February 17, 2009 6:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I do not believe a working moms put their children at a disadvantage. If anything i believe they put them at an advantage. i believe it'll teach their kids that to get ahead in life you need to work hard. In todays day you also need to work hard because of the econmy so the mother can either work to provide for her children or neglect her motherly duties by not providing food, shelter, clothes, etc in order to care for her kids.
- Michelle M February 18, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The most important factor in a child development , I believe, is emotional stability and not economical. But unfortunately sometimes one requires the other, so a happy balance should do it. The problem is that sometimes the mother is under so much stress after a day a work that she is completely exhausted to give the necessary attention to their children and that will put the child at a disadvantage.
- StelaR April 6, 2009 8:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Actually, studies have shown that the opposite is true. Kids get illnesses more often. Also, many children suffer attachment disorders when put into day care at a young age. Day care kids are known to have more behavior problems when compared to children that stay home with a loving parent.
- Iknowbetter September 29, 2008 2:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Actually, many pediatricians and studies show children who attend daycare at a young age have less health problems when older; meaning less school days missed, and less work days missed as adults. It seems that the belief here is a mother staying home full-time is the only good option for children. Most of my conversations with SAHM's is listening to them complain and talk about how difficult it is to be home with their kids; that they never get a break from them, etc.
Not all children who stay home with a parent are with a loving healthy parent. Many mothers who stay home full-time are not happy and the kids home with them pick up on that and will probably need therapy because of it.
- WorkingMomof1 September 30, 2008 3:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When kids get sick at younger ages they build that immunity so that would make sense. But I'd hate to see babies and toddlers sick over older children who can handle illness easier and better. They are just exposed to more illnesses at an earlier age in day care and build their immunity. Those are very misleading studies and neglect the part where babies and toddlers get sick more often in day care, when their immune systems are not fully developed. They are not fully developed until they are 5.
And yes your right there are lots of unhappy parents, whether they work or not. Could you imagine though if this stressed out, angry parent (that you speak of), also worked on top of child care duties? The situation would most likely be much worse, as far as care for the child goes.
- Iknowbetter September 30, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Where are you getting your research from...and with home with a loving parent, this is so self righteous, implying our kids are devoid of loving parent at home. I wont repeat what i said but read my comments in the same debate
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/childrens-physical-health-suffers-when-mothers-are-absent/comments
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/children-of-working-mothers-often-struggle-with-boundaries
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/full-time-day-care-causes-health-and-behavior-problems-in-children/comments
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 8:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
As I've said before "denial" is not just a river in Egypt.
It's really a no brainer that a child is better off home with a loving parent than at a daycare with a minimum wage earner who does not have the "vested" interest in the child, like a loving parent would. The person may "like" kids and jr. may like them back, but that does not mean that they are better off with them. Why have kids in the first place, if you are planning to have other people raise them? It's not fair for the child or the minimum wage worker, who might aspire to do something else more constructive than raise other people's wanted only part-time children. ( And I'm talking about people who made the "choice" to work because they feel that is more important than being a parent at home.) Being a parent is not and should not be a part-time job, people. I mean really? The poor children that grow-up thinking that they were not worth staying home with because their parents thought other things were more important then they were. Sad!
- Iknowbetter January 23, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So you will home school i guess, since group environment will have some effect on kids whether it is in daycare or school. They will learn bad things, they will get sick, they will develop emotional issues in every group setting IF THE Parent doesnt take responsibility and just thinks since I stayed home i did my part of being loving and sacrificer. Bottom line is all these issues are found in kids at home as well. I have been A SAHM for 2 years but now I am working first it was by choice now it is because I have to. I started with choice b/c my child was old enough to go to a preschool and be with other kids so I started to work but in this economy it is needed for our family and my accidental pregnancy we have to have our son on daycare....Nonetheless, he hasnt been sick yet other than cold that My daughter also got when she was home with me all the time, He is on a very good sleep schedule b/c it is my absolute responsibility to make sure they both get their 12 hrs of night we can always play on weekends, they both love to read with me when we come home and on weekends and Ihave SAHM who have horrible lack of discipline and routine and out of control kids. If being loving means stay home and hating it than no thank you. BTW I LOVED LOVED SAHM, and It bugs the hell out of me when SAH moms complain all the time that dont get a break. Why complain if it is such a big deal, I never ever felt like I was trapped with my DD and I absolutley adored every moment of it no matter who sick I got with my PPD. But if a mom is going to complain all the time and act like she is doing some huge favor to kids by being SAH, its better she looks deep into why she is so dissatisfied rather being miserable. Ihave been on both sides of raising a baby at home and while working by far working and doing it is much harder than being home since I have to make sure I keep them on their routine and do everything i did when I was home. I am sure many working moms do that time management juggling work and home. And its not always about money, if a mom wants to have a sense of self other than being a mom and she wants to pursue her life as a human being that is her right. Had I been using my Physician education you bet I would have worked through out after coming out of med school but I didnt continue it for verious personal reasons. I want to give my children the idea that you can do anything you want and life is not a bed of roses, sometimes you have to make tough decisions to keep a roof on your head and that is as loving as it can get when it comes to being a mom. Seriously this judging other parents who are not like you or SAHM needs to stop, you sure dont love my kids more than me and i dont love yours more than you, so people need to get off of their high horses and pass judgment on other parents imposing they are selfish and unloving. PERIOD. Every one knows what works for their family. And those minimum wage workers you talk so lowly about happen to be very hardworking women and men who believe it or not are taking care of my child and While Jr. seems happy to see them, I as a mother sense he is well taken care of in my absence, My child has reached all his milestones right on time and even before he is suppose to, I wonder who is working on him every day when i am at work. I respect day care workers and teachers immensly. They are unappreciated and underpaid for the work they do and then we have people like you who calle them "minimum wage workers" Off my soap box
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 9:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I "hear" your defensiveness in your rationalization that the choices that you are making for your child are all right and good. It still does not mean that your child would not be better off with you or jr.'s dad. Also, jr. is still not getting the advantages of a stay at home parent (and yes kids are hugely advantaged that have a stay at home parent). All I hear is that your needs come before your child's attachment needs and that there is some guilt for you in that. I'm so glad I'm not you or your child. It's just a bummer that so many kids are being raised by strangers and are not forming proper, healthy primary attachments that make them emotionally healthy children and adults. This is why so much of our society is such a mess to begin with.
- Iknowbetter January 24, 2009 3:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am not a bit defensive and not to you anyways, i dont think I owe anyone any explaination at all. YOu are so arrogant and hell bent on making other parents feel like their children have attachment issues and your dont, i seriously think if you are this obstinate with your kids Jr. sure will have some serious issues growing up lol. The inflexibility you are showing in even giving the other side even a chance is a character trait i am sure and i think you are the one who shoudl really be worried about junior not getting his point through to you ever.
BTW i have been on both sides of fence and I absolutely love both but WOHM is so much more harder than SAHM but of course I know it because i have done it both ways and my kids are perfect both ways, regardless of what your ideas might be. 8 out of 10 times a misbehaving and out of control child in a mall is usually a SAH child so yes they are better off b/c majority of moms who SAH resent their husbands saying you get to get out, and I dont, you get a break and i dont...do not go on denying that. I can find millions of web references to the disadvantages of SA Children b/c if you can find ref, so can anyone else. And lol you should be glad you are not me b/c A i have far more education that you reading your responses, B I have my kids on a very healthy life routine and C b/c I am not hell bent on proving that your child is at a disadvantage. B/c he is not and neither is mine.
You know why our society is a mess....not b/c of working parents who are trying to keep a roof on their childrens head b/c yes that is their need to fput food on table and keep a house to live in (lucky you you don thave to worry about it) as i can see you are mostly on line so what a quality time your kids are having lol. My kids are both still asleep and were last night too since 8 o clock when i was answering here. Anyway the reason we are a mess is because of people like you who think anyone not living their way is wrong and horrible, if only people can open their mind and think about other situations out side their little worlds things will be so much better but than again it needs to get out of the house and looka round which to you is the biggest wrong a person can do. Good luck to you and your family.
I am sure to your mind I am still defending parents like me but really think about it, i amtrying to show you people have all kinds of reasons to work and if one of them is self growth, there is nothing wrong with it. Open your head and mind to other possibilities and styles of parenting and teach your children the same diversity and acceptance of other's point of view other wise my dear you are pushing them in a world with huge surprises they might not be able to face, since thery being so formed PROPER...lol
Good luck
- Najma jay January 24, 2009 9:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My son was born at 31 weeks. He started daycare at 8 and one half weeks old. He could have had developmental delays due to his prematurity, but he doesn't. Did he get sick more, not really. He has asthma and seasonal allergies and was only hospitalized once, for his asthma. He rarely needed asthma meds. My daughter, has never been in day care. After she was born, hubby and I decided I'd stay home with her (I do still work though, I run my husband's computer business and my candle business). She's clingy, hates being left with anyone and terribly shy; whereas my son is outgoing, tells me "bye mommy" and give me a kiss when I leave him with someone and is by no means clingy.
Even my kids doctor said that being in day care helped my son developmentally. Starting next fall, my son will go to pre-school 2 or 3 days a week and my daughter will go to day care during that time too. My son misses the socialization and my daughter needs it. I enjoy working and feel like I'm wasting the degree I worked so hard for. Plus, I'm bored staying at home, especially when business is slow.
My mother and step-mother both worked full-time. If anything, that showed me how to manage my time and that it's about the quality of the time spent with family, not the quantity.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 6:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm glad to hear that your preemie son did not have health delays....I'm not buying that he did not get more sick than he would have, if he had been home with you. Many studies say that younger kids in day care are exposed to more germs (how could they not be?).
It's actually NORMAL for babies and toddlers to be clingy. That shows that they are properly attached to mom and dad. It is unusual and NOT healthy that a baby or toddler would NOT have seperation anxiety. Read the section on attachment in this link for more info.
http://www.sparknotes.com/101/psychology/development/infancy_and_childhood.html
I can provide you many more links in regards to this.
The kids' doctor does not know, if your son would have done better developmentallly had he been home with you and NOT at day care. He has no way of knowing this.
That's too bad that you feel that you are "wasting" a degree. It's strange that you would not feel like you were "wasting" your children's childhood, if you were to put that degree and work, as a priority over your children. A degree is intangible and can always be picked up or used later. Your children, unfortunately, can't be. They won't be children forever. Your children are more important than any degree. You and they will be missing out, if you choose working and a degree as more important than they are. Quantity AND quality do matter. There are many studies that show this, including this recent and interesting one which points out economic status matters as well:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158462
So a child in an impoverished, low income situation would do better in day care educationally and physically because of so much "lacking" at home. I'd be curious to know how they fared emotionally, though. This study does not really address the attachment part.
If you're bored staying home why not get some hobbies that you can do at home or work from home, so that you can be with your children? Working full time outside of the home is just one of many options to conquer boredom.
It is indeed about Quality AND Quantity. Children know the difference. Don't think that they don't understand or won't be affected by your choices.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 10:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Trust me, I'm a much better mother when I have some adult time. It really upsets me that you insinuate my son isn't "properly attached to mom and dad" because I can leave him with a sitter and go to a doctor's appointment alone. How dare you! If my son gets hurt, only mommy or daddy can kiss it and make it better, no one else is good enough.
when I worked, my son had the opportunity to go out into the world, play with kids who weren't like him, do projects I wouldn't have thought of doing (like cutting out his hand-prints to make an ice cream cone, this is my favorite project he made at day care). I never once felt I was "wasting" my kids childhood, I felt I was enriching it. I have a 2 year old who says "please", "thank you" and "no, thank you" without being prompted, something they worked on in day care that I thought he was too young to understand. I don't believe in keeping my kids in a bubble.
And unless you are living in my house, who can you say you don't buy he didn't get more sick?
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A sitter for a short time, while you go to an appointment is a lot different than a all-day, everyday day care. I did not say that getting a sitter once in awhile was eqivalent to day care. I'm sorry that you misread that.
And yes kids know when we are not there for them to kiss an owie or other traumatic experience. Day care taught your 2 year old compliance. They have no idea what please and thank you means at this age, just that it's something that adults drill into their heads and demand from them. A 2 year old is not cognicent enough to get "manners." They just know that they have to say it or jump through this hoop to get something that they want.
Also, because you were not home with your son when he was a baby, we will never know if he would not have been sick as much had he been home with you. Because of exposure to many children and their germs, it makes sense that he would have been sick more often in day care, though.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 11:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
First off, I leave them with a sitter for short times now, as I work from home and they are no longer in day care. Secondly, my son was only in day care for about 8 hours (if not less) at most 5 days a week.
You don't think my kid has mannors? I say "do you want a snack?" he says "yes" I hand him his snack and he says "thank you, mommy" no prompling from me. When he wants his cup refilled, he says "more stuff in it, please" once again without prompting. My children do not perform to get something. I think it's a great thing that they can learn to function in a group setting. So my 2 year old says please and thank you, I'm such a bad mother for encourging manners. I love the fact that he says them, I really don't care if he truly understands what they mean, it'll just be easier for him to use them when he's older.
And his ONE hospitalization from asthma probably would not have been prevented. He needed to have his meds changed. He went back to day care after that, on the new meds, and hasn't had a bad attack since. He was 12 months old when he was hospitalized, he left day care at 22 months, he's now 29 months. No attack needing the nebulizar in over 12 months. Sounds really good to me.
And I don't think I worded the "properly attached" sentence. My kids seem attached quite properly to my husband and myself, and one of them was in day care for almost 2 years. Since I'm not sure what you mean by not being properly attached, so maybe you can elaborate.
Just because I'm curious, where are your kids while you're here on the internet debating with me? Mine are napping, otherwise I don't have large blocks of time on the computer.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 11:36AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
What I was saying is that it is irrelevant that a 2 year old has "manners." They have no comprehension of what please and thank you totally mean or what social "niceties" are. It's more important that children are intrinsically motivated to say these things. It is more GENUINE and honest when a child is enpowered enough to say these things on their own without adult intervention or drilling. This gives the child power to use these when he/she is ready and it is so much more joyful for the receiver when it comes truly from their heart.
Here are some links/information on improper and proper/secure attachments:
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs617w.htm
http://helpguide.org/mental/parenting_bonding_reactive_attachment_disorder.htm
I am sick today. My husband is with my kids at a homeschool park day:-)
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 12:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Seriously you think a 2 year old is so dumb that they dont know thankyou and please. My 2 year old knew it mind you she went to day care at 26 months so after 2. She knew exactly what it was because she properly used it over and over without me prompting and yes I taught her that I didnt drill it in her head, i showed her by example when she did something for me or i needed her to do something. Similarly my 2 year old at 15 months understood concept of me counting till 3 to give her a chance to behave before removing her from situation and she time and again proved that she knew exactly what I was about to do i.e do a time out and after the first 2 weeks all i needed was show her my hand and count 1 and she immediatly knew she is trouble and stopped shoving her head and hands in places she didnt need to or run out of mall play area while children older than her were absolutely a nightmare. I think you are failing your own argument here. On one hand you are so strongly talking about how THEY know when they are left alone with daycare staff and the KNOW THE DIFFERENCE bewtween quantity and quality at suhc young age and yet they are so DUMB they cant understand what thankyou and please mean. You are really not serious???
Oh BTW when i did those things with my DD i was SAH. Keep in mind SAH is not enough to show you are loving mom, again quality and quantity just because you spend all day with your child doesnt mean your child is better off or you are doing a good job. The quality of time you spend with them is absolutely more important than mere quantity, I mean really if a child at 2 doesnt know thankyou and please and has no discipline strategy in place,has no sleep play routine, isnt mentally more astute than a same child in daycare I really dont think he is better than being a structured environment where some one can may be provide the tools he/she needs to build those social skills. Because if a mom is not doing what she is suppose to do, the child still needs to learn and progress. Loving parenting is not just LOVING, its loving and so much more, investing effort and time which cannot be measured by how many hours a week you are with your child but actually what you child is getting out of you in even may be 4 hours a day with you before bed. I am not saying SAH is a bad idea or unimportant, i am just saying not all SAH do quality time management all the time for the kids and it just doesnt automatically means those kids are superior to kids of WOH moms.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 10:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Kids know the feeling of security from a young age. They learn that love is conditional by adults asking them to perform like a trained seal or dog by using "manners." They don't grasp these developmentally until they are much older. It only makes the adult feel good and powerful to force a child to use this type of language to satisfy his or her won needs when a child is that young.
I hear how defensive you are and I'm afraid that anything that actually makes sense will be over you head because of how defensive you are. I think that if you really looked closely that you fear that what I've said is true and that then you'd actually have to make arrangements to do better for your children. Wouldn't want to do that, would we? Sheesh....
If we, the parents, won't advocate for the best for our children then who will?
- Iknowbetter January 24, 2009 4:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So now you are even against the fact that SAHM can do better than average with children. Listen and read carefully I was SAH with my daughter who at 2 could speak clearer than many 3 year olds in 2 different langauges. And no it is not about forcing children or empowering yourself. Do you not believe in reading to your child, because a newborn cant for sure grasp reading but its proven that early reading develops neuronal connections and enhances brain development and learning skills, similarly saying thank you to your child from young age is showing respect to that child as an individual and modeling at same time. That is what i did with both my kids, appreciated them and showed them to do the same for every one, hence at 2 she knew what to do, again i was SAH and now that I am not I do the same for my son, tell him thank you when he smiles at me. And there is nothing wrong with starting early, its actualy more human than being a dog contrary to your belief. Guess what my DD could tell me via sign language at 7 months that she needed to eat, sleep, more, milk, what she wanted to eat or was she cranky etc. Did yours? and yes it was empowering because i gave my child power to not whine and use a method to communicate when other children usually just cry. Again SAH and now i believe above average SAH, proves my point, that not all SAH kids get all they can specially when many moms dont even think they can do more with them. Its you who is defensive in your lack of knowledge about how children are sponges ready tp absorb and learn from parents. Now at 6 months we are doing the same sign language with him, i m sure with my time investment he will "GRASP" and start communicating rather than whining, even though i m not home 24/7 like YOU
- Najma jay January 24, 2009 11:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think you are an amazing mom. Don't let it get to you. You are doing all you can for your child and you don't owe anyone any explaination at all. He is your son, he knows you love him and you know he is A-okay....so thats all that matters.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 10:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
that children are the most independent are the ones that have a healthy, strong attachment to mom and secondary equal attachment to dad.
Being in day care interferes with babies and toddlers' ability to obtain a normal and healthy bond with his or her parents (the main caregivers). It is not uncommon for day care children to become more attached to their main caregiver in day care than to the parent(s). I've known people who have had this happen. Many working parents have complained of this "problem" when it would be perfectly normal for the child to become confused about who is the main caregiver in their lives. That is a Huge PRICE to pay for a parent's independence.
Children with unhealthy bonds and improper attachment are not as independent as children with strong attachments to their parents. There are many studies that have shown this. So to say that day care equals more independence is just an outright lie. Children are more secure and therefore independent, when they have a strong bond with their primary caregivers.
- Iknowbetter October 2, 2008 8:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
My children have absolutely normal bonding with me, my older DD is indepent plenty for cryin out loud they are not dumb they know me, my son knows my smell, he knows I am the mom and he is not clingy, or whiney. he is a very happy smiling 6 month old who according to his teacher is such a ham that every one in the school wants to hold him since he is always laughing and smiling and is rarely fussy unless he is hungry and tired. He is the same way at home on weekends. My DD at 6 months was a handful (being my first baby i was so inexperienced) and i believe the difference in their tempraments is not because he is an easy baby but because I have more confidence this time around and I have managed 2 better than 1 even with working outside my home. Seriously stop trying to make a perfectly normal mom feel like her son is missing some "SPECIAL BOND" that you have with you children. I am sure she and her son are doing absolutely A-OKAY. It takes a lot of abuse, and neglegt to damage a childs pyche permanently for life. Just going to daycare b/c mom had to work doesnt damage the social dynamics of a society, otherwise in a few years most of the industrialized nations will be nothing but full of criminals and psychiatric adults since majority of moms now work so really we dont have very many so called "NORMAL" children anymore.
- Najma jay January 23, 2009 10:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm laughing about your last comments right now because I think I read a recent report that over 25-30% of our adult population has some kind of diagnosible mental illness. That includes depression, anxiety, etc. A lot of these stem from childhood. I think "normal" in our society does not necessarily equal "healthy." And can you really answer the question that your children are better off in daycare then with you or their dad with a straight face? If that is the case, then you probably should not have had children.
- Iknowbetter January 24, 2009 3:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Go away some where with your high horse seriously, you are a psychologist too now. How many years in med school have you spent? And BTW it took me 4 years to concieve my daughter so for some one like you who has never dealt with infertility, PPD and SAH and WOH, at all any of those stop judging people. B.c i am sure those mental illnesses you talked about are a result of moms like you, thins kind of bullying can only come from some one so deeply unsatisfied with their life that they need to lash on women who are different than them. I can assure you myw orking wont harm my kids as much as your arrogance and bullying attitude will your kids. I am sure it shows in every aspect of your life. GO please enlighten yourself with struggles of average american. OKAY now go on. I have to go my kids are up but you please continue to stay home and ignore them while youa re on line cuz that is your BREAK lolOh and change your name, you dont know better for sure.
- Najma jay January 24, 2009 9:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Personal attacks are NOT an argument. I can tell that I ruffled many of your feathers and hit a direct artery (not just a nerve). I'm sure that going through infertility treatments are traumatic, but really what does that have to do with staying at home with your kids being better than day care? None of your arguments hold any water and saying that I'm online a lot and neglecting my kids when you are doing the same and you work is laughable. My hubby spends time taking my kids places, so I can relax once in awhile.
I see through all of your guilt and I feel sorry for you and your kids.
- Iknowbetter January 24, 2009 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Really who started the personal argument. And no IF was not traumatic for me at all, It made me stronger and thankful for the gift of my children. Mention of my IF was at the nerve of you to say I should have never had kids, at least mine will be open minded and tolarent unlike you.
My only problem with you is that you are trying to justify your SAH and bullying moms who dont or cant stay home. You are very lucky if you can and many women are not that lucky and to assume they are destroying their kids is as stupid and ignorant as it can get. You are right you have hit an srtery bc I absolutely cannot stand people like you who are so self righteous that they are blind to anything else. Lets see the only reason that you are so agnited by my replies are that I have told you point blank that i dont think just bc you are home your kids are not better than a working mom. Why not relax with hubby and kids, why be online maam.
Of course answer is YOU NEED a BREAK admit it or not.
You think assuming reading with kids and teaching them by example is laughable, good for you, i wonder what else you do at home other than underestimating the true potential of your kids, bc you keep saying they cant grasp stuff at blah blah balh stage...may be you didnt try hard enough b.c trust me if you are devoted to make you kids excel they will....:)
As for you feeling sorry for my kids, my dear feelings are mutual, I hope when they grow up, u relax a little bit and then learn to listen to them if they disagree with your POV.
I am happy to say I am angry bc ignorance makes me angry and you are being ignorant and nothing else.
Unlike you My kids spend time with both of us on weekend and I am only on when they are taking a nap only on weekends, i prefer to spend time with my family and not look for people online to try to make them feel bad so I can feel good for myself.
The bottom line is you are a good mom for your kids and I have no doubt about that and so is every mom who keeps them in for 9 months and goes through pains of waking up at nights and crying with them when they hurt but if i can give you one word of advice try to feel for women who have no choice but to work and I hope to GOD you are never in that situation where you have to work to keep food on your table so your kids dont go hungry....trust me I have seen such women and their pain doesnt lessen when people like you start judging them....
May be you need to get out of your complex and hate towards other moms and really analyze why you are so self righteous b.c many times that is a sign of frustration and unhappiness with ones own situation. I.e wow how do they do it all, work kids etc etc. I feel so much for you, you poor soul....how about that reality check...lol
I hope you can find peace with in yourself and her feel free to waste your time here while you RELAX and fume at the same time. I dont have time to waste with people like you cuz you will never change
To all working moms out there....keep your spirits up and dont let people who dont know your situations bug you, b.c all that free time on their hands this is the best they can do
Good luck IKNOWBETTER...what a joke...:)
- Najma jay January 24, 2009 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My argument never has waivered and I do believe that kids with a stay at home parent are much better off than with some underpaid day care shlep. I see that you believe that day care worker is equal to mom and dad in the level of care given to a child.
Telling mothers to keep working and put their own needs first is detrimental to children's basic attachment needs. And you are taking away more time from them by arguing how you are so right in putting your children in a day care. Your baby would much rather be with you, your husband or (the least) your family. These are the people who have the most vested interest in your child. No one else can hold a candle.
Good luck with all of your rationalizations, projections, guilt, and associated anxieties in dealing with your children. I'm sure our society will be much better off for them.
- Iknowbetter January 24, 2009 8:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
While interacting with other children and learning to share and engaging in creative activities can be very beneficial to a child there are some negatives. My younger brother was placed in daycare while my mom went to school to become a nurse and he absolutely hated it. The other children were not nice to him and the caretakers were not very good themselves. He often came home complaining of what the teachers did to him that day. So while the concept of daycare may be useful the reality may not be be as strong as the conceptual idea.
- LeeLee February 15, 2009 3:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Although it varies with individual cases, daycare is not always a horrible idea. As the article says, daycare allows for more interaction among children at a younger age, which promotes socialistic behaviors. Increased interactions can help the child later in life, especially if the child attends pre-school. From these instances, the child is not hurt because their mother works, but benefits from the introduction of things outside their home. Although the child may also be introduced to illness, the children are generally better off by their preparation for pre-school and grammar school. Interaction with others and the ability to not cling to their mothers are two resources children need for later in life.
- Natalie Marie February 26, 2009 11:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While studies may show that children who go to daycare have an increased vocabulary and more advanced social skills than children who are not in daycare, it can not be assumed that a child taught at home could not enter preschool ahead of other children. I was read to at every meal before I attended preschool, and thus, I had an advanced vocabulary when entering preschool. This time also allowed me to bond with my mother and she also took me to see other children my age. So really,it would seem as though children at home with their mothers and chidren at daycare could easily enter preschool at the same intellectual and social level.
Additionally, not all daycares have a set curriculum. Some daycares provide simply an opportunity for children to socialize with other kids their age, while neglecting the opportunity to educate.
- Elle February 28, 2009 12:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This sounds like another "bill of goods" sold to women about how great it is to be a working mother. It sounds completely awful to work all day and then come home to more work and tired, fussy children. The working mom usually gets the children at their worst part of the day when they are tired, hungry and exhausted. Oh gee, where do I sign up?
- Iknowbetter September 29, 2008 2:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Children learn most by emulating the behaviors around them. By having good behavior yourself, using manners and expecting the same from your children they do the same in return. When choosing a daycare, I was careful to choose one that encouraged and taught my son the same things I would teach him if I were to stay home. He is incredibly well behaved, polite, affectionate and smart. I was also a child of daycare AND divorce and yet managed to still have manners, behave in school, and be happily married.
I am a working mother and I love it. I love my job and it DOES make me happy. And even better, when I get home I am greeted with hugs and kisses from both my husband and my son. I get to hear about their various daily activities and share my own. We talk and laugh and dance and it is actually pretty fantastic.
To be honest, I don’t think it would be good for my son to deprive him of his friends in daycare, the teachers he adores, and access to the activities that stimulate his very active imagination and structure that helps him learn routines. He is very shy in new situations and yet he is able to be comfortable and interact with the kids in his class and the teachers.
Being a working mother is the very best thing for my family. I agree it isn't for everyone, but just because it isn't the right thing for you does not mean it isn't right for me or my family.
- Kate September 30, 2008 10:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Studies have actually tracked that today's mom (working, career driven) spends 4 more hours per week with her children than in 1965 (think June Cleaver). So, maybe we spend 40 hours working, but we also are prioritizing the time spent at home to be more focused on the family than ever before.
I'm not sure who else it out there selling a "bill of good" about how great it is to be a working mom--I've actually seen the opposite. No one said that being a mom (working or not) is easy, but it's something many women choose to do. I chose to ADD children to my life, not replace my career with children. My career is an important part of who I am and walking away from it would be much harder than simply adjusting other priorities to make time for my family. Sure it's hard work, but to go as far as to say it puts children at a disadvantage is ridiculous.
- admom September 30, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think society in general has had this expectation that women should work outside the home to make a "real" contribution, like staying home or working from home and raising one's own children is of no value to society. That is what I mean by women being sold a "bill of goods." I even have seen working women looking down at non-working women. I wouldn't trade my job as full-time mom for any career. There could not be a career more important than my kids.
No one loves your child as much as you or your family. No one can take better care of them or raise them to be the human beings that you want them to be other than you or your family. Period. If a working mom can include the children in her work and not have to resort to daycare, I think the kids are a lot better off. The children should be more important than any career and the main focus. Anything less is neglectful. It is for such a short time that children need us. I don't think it is a lot to ask that parents spend the majority of their time and energy with their kids that they CHOSE to have. I don't see ADDING children to one's life as a burden, but a gift and one that deserves our full attention. Our society is full of unhappy, maladjusted, and angry people because parents have failed to "raise" their own children and have ignored their children's basic attachment needs.
Daycare is a poor substitute for family. Even the best daycare cannot meet a child's needs like family can. I think these kids are missing out.
- Iknowbetter September 30, 2008 2:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
These are very interesting arguments. However, I have been witness to how children in my neighborhood who attend daycare are further advanced than the majority of those who stay home with their mother(s)/father(s). I used to teach in the toddler class at my church and noticed that my son, who attends daycare, fought less with the other kids, knew his colors, could count to 8, and spoke more clearly than his two-year-old peers. This statement is not out of pride or to prove anything, it simply is what it is. He is more advanced.
- WorkingMomof1 September 30, 2008 3:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The one thing that comes to mind is that compliance is a necessity in any setting that has a big group of kids, so your child has been exposed to learning the "game" (i.e. doing what one is told and receiving group consequences when non-compliance happens) earlier than those kids that are home, (although my kids knew their colors and counting to 10, and their abc's by age 2, so I would say it would depend on what the parents exposed their kids to). I believe that learning total compliance is a negative thing for children. I believe it leaves a child vulnerable to an adult's whims. But that is for another debate;-)
Studies have shown that children who learn to read early (or other things early) are no better off than other children at later ages. A lot of times, they are not reading for comprehension, they are just parroting. So just because a child learns a set of skills earlier than peers do, it does not necessarily equal better or mean that they are better adjusted ( 2 totally different things, btw).
Also, how do we know that your child wouldn't do much better, if home with a parent or family, instead of in day care?
- Iknowbetter September 30, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
My son and my nephew were born 3 days apart. My son was 9 weeks early and my nephew was full-term. My nephew didn't go to day care the first year, he was cared for by my mom. My son was in day care from the time he was 8 and a half weeks old (only 3 months cared for by family). My son speaks clearly and is very outgoing while my nephew is hard to understand and very shy. My son likes to play with other kids whereas my nephew likes to play alone.
And since you posed the question, Iknowbetter...how do we know YOUR kids wouldn't do much better in a day care setting?
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 7:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Children are all different and develop at their own pace. I understand that your son was a preemie. How old are the kids now? That first year that your nephew was in your mom's care may have been better for him when compared to your son's experience at THAT time. Maybe the day care that he was in after was not as loving or supportive. There are lots of reasons to consider why they are different. Temperment and personality also has a lot to do with it.
And the reason that I know that my kids are better off with me is that I see them everyday and care more about them than anyone else ever could. It's really a no brainer.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 10:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The boys are 2 and a half now. I didn't just drop my son off at any day care. I took my time, visited the centers, asked questions, etc. Found one I loved and that my son loved too.
I see my kids every day and care more about them then anyone could, but my son loved the day care he was at, we were sad to leave them.
So, do you send you kids to school (or will you) or do you plan on homeschooling them? I see no difference between day care/pre-school and grade school.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 11:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When we lived near family, family cared for my son. We moved and don't have family who can care for my kids. If you choose the right day care it is by no means a poor substitute. I think kids that are only cared for by family are missing out on the socialization day care provides. When my son was in the hospital for his asthma, he missed 4 days of day care, someone from the day care called everyday to see how he was doing. My parents only called once.
I only look down on the SAHM's who feel then need to be superior and tell me I'm a bad mother and that I'm neglecting my children by putting them in day care. I would bet most working mom's feel the same way.
- candlemomma124 October 1, 2008 7:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you mean exposing your kids to other kids bullying and behavior problems earlier than they'd get at school then yes. Also, if you mean learning group compliance than yes. If you look at my above post, you can see that I believe that a child's total compliance is not desirable.
If you mean socialized in a positive way then kids are much better socialized by their parents and loving family. A day care cannot be on top of everything that happens in the interactions between children like a parent can be. How could they be? They have so many children to watch and usually hardly make any money.
I think a lot of working women are ignorant of the ramifications of day care and working full time. The effects of these last a lifetime for the child. I think others are just too selfish to have at least one parent stay home with the child and actually do the work of "raising" the child that they chose to have. The dad can stay home too. That's better than day care for most children (except those in a very low economic status). I think many of our society's mental ills have to do with poor attachment during childhood and lack of social boundaries. Those cannot be "taught" in a day care. So yes, I think to have children and to do it "right" one must sacrifice certain things for the good of their children. This does not last but a number of years, but that is hard to get through to an instant gratification type of society.
- Iknowbetter October 1, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
i just have to interject with my applause for your patience in taking this argument on. i don't know anyone that dare defend it anymore in the face of such wrath, and it is a position well worth its defense!
- undecided January 8, 2009 1:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What do you call prioritizing? I think working moms have made it clear what their priorities are.
- taco October 1, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I don't believe that the research supports your assertion that today's working mother spends more time with her children. Can you provide evidence? I also believe that many recent studies clearly demonstrate that babies and young children do not get the closeness and bonding that they need to different day care workers looking after them each day. Some childcare centres are attempting to address this by assigning a primary and secondary carer to promote continuity.
Unfortunately I believe that many parents run out of time - meeting work commitments, housekeeping, shopping and maintenance chores etc mean that many working parents may spend their non-working time in the presence of their children but not really "with" their children, simply because there are so many demands on them. In the end, many children will do what they must(positive or negative) either at a young age, or as they get older, to get mum and dad's attention.
- cath7472
October 2, 2008 3:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In May, the Washington Post reported on a University of Maryland study that I referenced in my earlier post that working moms today spend more time with their kids than 40 years ago. here is an excerpt from the story.
In 1965, mothers spent 10.2 hours a week tending primarily to their children -- feeding them, reading with them or playing games, for example -- according to the study's analysis of detailed time diaries kept by thousands of Americans. That number dipped in the 1970s and 1980s, rose in the 1990s and now is higher than ever, at nearly 14.1 hours a week.
You can read the full article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901972.html
I'm not saying that ALL daycares are the right environment by any means. In fact, I drive by several centers much nearer our home every day in order to take my son to a daycare that offers college-educated teachers, healthy meals and a loving, nurturing and educational environment.
To address the time comments you've made, sure there are time pressures on working families, I think the same can be said about stay at home parents as well. My original post also talked about prioritizing other things. For instance, I don't do housework from 6-8 except for cooking dinner because that is our family time--one of us is usually physically on the floor playing with our toddler from the time we get home until bedtime. I don't think that staying at home all day necessarily means you've spent 8 hours nurturing your child. I would say that a child in a good daycare may get as much dedicated attention put toward his/her development than a child that stays at home.
- admom October 2, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thanks for that link. A very interesting article and reassuring. Perhaps it explains why no matter how many hours I spend with my daughter (7), she still continues to request more - what she seeks is engagement not time. Personally, even if home all day with my child, I would never engage with her all day.
I suppose I'm more concerned about very young children - babies and toddlers. I think if I left my young child at childcare for long periods of time every day, she and I would have been very unhappy with that arrangement. Most children I know prefer greatly to be with a parent, more often than not the mother. I would have preferred my daughter to have been more clingy to my husband, but she just wasn't. I think the guilt, too, of putting her for long hours in daycare would have been damaging long term. Perhaps that a reflection that I was in a position to make a choice rather than under the huge financial pressures some are under.
- cath7472 October 2, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I think you hit the nail on the head. Children want their parents to be engaged and being employed or not employed is completely unrelated to how children connect with their parents.
As for the guilt, don't all parents bear the guilt of doing enough for their children? I've yet to meet a mom who thinks she's getting it right, whether she's working outside the home, working from home or "staying at home" (which by the way, is not all bon-bons and fairy tales).
- admom October 3, 2008 6:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I love how some working moms say that they are happier because they are contributing to society and enriching their careers. It's code for GUILT. And if they don't feel guilty, then somethings the matter!
I maintain my identity and confidence just fine by staying home. It isn't easy, either. But I SACRIFICE every day, for the good of my children. That actually makes me feel fulfilled. Why working moms are "out there" fulfilling themselves... I stay home and do the dirty work of raising my kids. Yes, lets just say it...it's sucks sometimes! But I am not BITTER! In fact, I feel blessed. Because I know there are some women who would KILL to stay home but they cannot for financial reasons. I know I am doing the right thing. Do you know why? Because of the fact that my children know that mom wants to raise them herself and not some daycare worker. The evidence is that all 3 of my kids thank me all the time for being there for them when they need me. Even my 3 year old. Yes, he does actually have a good vocabulary without going to daycare!
- taco October 1, 2008 1:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I am quite sickened by the fact that women who choose to stay home feel it necessary to judge women who work full time and then come home to their all-the-time jobs of being moms.
I did go back to work because of financial reasons, but does that mean that I have to listen to glorified taxi drivers tell me what a terrible mother because I am not raising my son the way you think I should??! Give me a BREAK! I am FUMING!
FYI to you SAHMs out there, I don't go around preaching that everyone should go to work, so quit preaching to moms to stay home!!!!
And another insight for you, my son actually sees his dad more now that I work. I work 4/10s 7am - 5:30 M-Th and my husband works 11am to 11pm M-th. Guess what that means?? My son is with his dad in the mornings spending quality time with him and in daycare from 11-5:30 (not even a full day) M-Th only. He's home with us Fri - Sun. My husband is less stressed out, which means our marriage is better creating a better environment for our son.
How many of your husbands are working 2-3 jobs so you can stay home? Do you not feel it's important for fathers to be in the picture? My guess is no.
I already have guilt about not being with my son full-time. And there will never be anyone who will love my son more than me, but does that mean that I should begrudgingly go to work and hate my job or feel guilty for liking my job??
I took the time to interview and investigate numerous daycares before choosing one,and believe it or not, there are many good quality daycares out there. You just probably couldn't afford them. If none of you has ever had your children in daycare, what makes you such experts on them? This is absolutely ridiculous!!!
- WorkingMomof1 October 1, 2008 9:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
and I feel for you. It sounds like you actually WANT to stay home. Usually, unless you make lots of money, it is cheaper for one spouse to stay home. If you are the main bread winner, can your hubby stay home?
You're angry outburst of calling SAHMs "glorified taxi drivers" made me giggle. If being a SAHM was easy then all women would take that job in the first place, lol. It's much easier to hand one's children over to someone else to raise, that's for sure. Now whether it's better for the children that's another story. It's hard work raising one's own child. Sometimes it is completely hard. But I wouldn't change it for the world. I'm thrilled and honored to be my kids mom and they deserve the best, not some underpaid day care schlep drilling my kids head with whatever propaganda that they see fit. I think because we all have to live in this society together that it's in everyone's best interest that happy, psychologically sound people are being raised. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Hopefully, that can change with people coming to terms with their moral responsibilities to their own children.
- Iknowbetter October 2, 2008 5:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Does working moms produce a happy baby/child? In the majority of the situations i've witnessed through family/friends the child who was able to stay with mom had a significant amount of benefits as opposed to the child who was not able to do so.
- kim42 October 2, 2008 3:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
“If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do matters very much.”
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
- Iknowbetter October 2, 2008 8:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis DID bungle her children. Ironically, as a stay at home mom.
Regardless - shouldn't women be spending more time building each other up, than on blogs like this tearing each other down? Iknowbetter, does this actually make you feelbetter to hurt other women who are honestly trying to do the best job they can? Regardless of what you think the definition of "best job" is? Back off ladies, let's just all put down the swords and be friends - I mean is it really worth it?
- earlythebird November 12, 2008 10:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm not sure when our lives told us we needed to give our children away for 8-10 hurs aday to be ourselves and to be happy. When I worked I made a ridiculous amount of money and LOVED my career. I had worked very hard to get the education and promotions to get where I was. When I had kids I hated every minute of it. Someone else was raising my kids...why did I have kids to hand them over to someone else for hours a day??? It didn't' make sense to me. I got off at 4pm, picked my baby up at 4:45, then was home at 5:30. Got our bags unpacked from daycare, tried to play and cuddle with a cranky hungry baby while I threw some food together, hubby got hoem around 5:30 and then baby got passed off to him until dinner was ready around 6:30, we eat, clean up and start bedtime routine so he is in bed by 8:00pm to get up at 6:30 am to do it all again...how is that raising your kids? Its not.
As a kindergarten room helper i can always tell the kids who stayed home with mom or dad or went to daycare. The ones who were in daycare are "mostly" selfish, bossy and rude. The ones who stayed home are "mostly" quiet, polite and very much more sensitive to "bolder" children, but by january they are all pretty much the same and I don't think anyone could tell the difference then.
- sherri
December 10, 2008 7:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
as someone facing the same decision this second, i thank you for sharing yours. it is SUCH a hard decision; i can't believe how i waffle. i feel both sides of the argument poignantly, and don't know which voice is coming from my heart. it means much to hear from someone that has been on both sides of the coin.
i wish i could take out all of the opinions from those that didn't have a choice (because they are making a different decision really, and the path that is best for them is obvious), and only hear the ones that truly had to choose between a career that they LOVED that made excellent money so that only the very, very best childcare would be allowed....between that and, on the other side, sacrificing it all to still stay at home all hours with then just enough money to get by, (so no nanny's, cooks and housecleaners, people)...to be present in the raising of your children during their formative years. ..even if mom no longer has the immediately evident and short path to success and happiness of having all of the same things that made her happy before...EXtrensic motivations of the societal nod when you have the strength of your brilliant self and successful career, powered by buffered bank accounts and time for your original intellect and social pursuits and adventures.
ohhhh, i want all of that easy stuff so bad again, and i want so badly to be with my baby as my birthright and his to stay together as he discovers he is here. like everything else, you can't take the good and leave the bad... i think every mom has desires in both directions, don't they? maybe you don't desire to give up your work, but you would love to have a couple more hours a day with your wee one? or maybe you could never part with your baby(ies) 8 hours a day, but gawwwd, if you could just have a couple hours to yourself? ..or if once you had your child, your job was protected for you for two years, instead of three months...and in the meantime, your salary continued at 2/3rds... see what i'm saying? i think all of us mothers have more in common than not, but have had to fall on opposite sides of a very sharp cut...and then be happy with the outcome and point to its benefits, which are many.
it is a HUGE decision, and almost all of these women's voices exist in me right now. i truly want what is best for my child. period. ..but it is not easy to figure. it seems the information is so pulled over on both sides by so much passion. here or on the street, either the mother is faulting on the side of protecting her own decision or trying to be too careful in not offending the opposing, and knowing its audience, publications are accordingly made impotent. we all know the last audience you want to threaten are protective moms. ever been caught between a bear and her cub?
so, thanks sherri, for being in the trenches on both sides and sharing your insights. i would love to hear more on how you came to your decision... meaning, did you consult with anyone? online? life coach? incubater?? ..or did you just always know in your heart? ..anything would help. ...for that matter, not just from sherri, but anyone still listening and sympathetic.
thanks
- undecided January 8, 2009 12:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If a woman graudates from college with a degree she is passionate about, wouldn't she be happy when she works at a job that is in the area of that degree? Yes. I belive working mothers can be happy. Now on the other hand, mothers can really hate their job, which eventually will make her a sad mother.
- GraceG January 25, 2009 4:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree that working mothers can be happy in a career they chose. But there are differences between college and an actual job so someone who goes off to become a teacher may find out later that they despise working with kids from a certain age group.
- SweeneyToddInc March 1, 2009 10:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The fact that mothers decide the happiness of their families is totally true. If a mother is stuck in a job they highly dislike than that mother will certainly unhappy making her family the same way. This situation is horrible for a young child to be in. This is definitely is not always the case, many women love the profession they are in. To work or not to work is a tough question for struggling families and varies from family to family, mother to mother.
- littlekidlover15 February 3, 2009 10:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Although it is true that a happy mother makes a happy family, working could also have the opposite effect. No matter what type of career it is, stress is there and too much can a bad thing, especially when the mother comes home to a stress-filled home. While I do agree that working has its advantages, it can also cause problems that later on affect family life.
- SweeneyToddInc February 26, 2009 7:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
When a woman makes the decision to become a mother and raise a family, those should be her main interests, ambitions, and goals. If a woman is not happy with “just being a mom” then perhaps she shouldn’t be a mother at all. Raising a child requires 100% of a mother’s time, effort, and devotion. A child does not deserve to be put aside for five days a week so his mother can do what she actually enjoys doing. Having a child is a miracle in and of itself; having the honor to bring another human being into the world and raising him to be a strong and capable person is rewarding enough that a mother should not have to leave the child in order to become happier.
It is also important that one does not associate happiness with money. Doing well at one’s job typically means receiving acknowledgment from others, especially in monetary terms. It is less often that a woman will be acknowledged for her exceptional child rearing skills and the devotion she shows towards her family. Women need to realize this, and acknowledge and praise themselves for providing a safe and loving environment for eighteen plus years of their children’s lives, and for preparing their children to have successful lives of their own. This is where a true mother will find happiness.
- kas43091 March 1, 2009 1:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think it's a hasty generalization to say that working moms are proud and happy to be employed. What about the mothers who have to work in order to support their families? I'd imagine that that would put an immense amount of pressure on the mother and could cause her to lapse into depression.
I understand that some women have more flexible jobs than others but for those businesswomen who work everyday like my aunt, the work day is long and stressful. On top of that, these women have the pressure of making healthy dinners for their children and making sure that they succeed in school and extracurricular activities.
Additionally, not all women have careers or jobs that they are proud of. Some parents today are still from the generation who did not see going to college as a necessity, so not all mothers are college educated and have a job that they truly love.
- Elle March 1, 2009 8:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Some studies that show that children in daycare develop health and behavioral problems are skewed and biased. If one only applies these studies to certain daycares of low quality, one does not receive the proper and honest results. There are numerous Daycares that provide healthy, safe and fun environments for their children. These children turn out fine. It is my belief that the problem lies within the daycare system itself, not working mothers. Some daycares are unable to provide the proper care children need. Instead of blaming working mothers we should do more studies and see if improving the daycare system will eliminate some of the problems children of these mothers are said to face.
- Zeusthewoman February 9, 2009 7:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Any study done is likely to have some bias as Zeus points out. I agree with the idea that what one should look at is the daycare system, not at the working mothers. Even if a working mom desperately needed somewhere for her child to go while she is at work, she would not risk that child's saftey or well being if she had any knowledge of that daycare being inadequate. Ideas expressed in the article say that behavioral issues or attachement issues can become created but these issues can manifest themselves if they are comstantly at home with thier mother too. There are good and bad points to daycare but, like Zeus, I believe it is not the mothers fault.
- Shay March 1, 2009 5:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The author acknowledged that “awareness of these issues won’t change their decisions to work, but may make them more vigilant about looking for warning signs in their children for problem behaviors.” I totally agree with her. The mothers will be better educated on the symptoms of harmful effects of the daycare on their own children and take action quicker. Like the author said the awareness of the cautioning indications may not alter the mother final stand, but will give her an extra edge.
- GraceG February 11, 2009 9:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
As the author of the argument stated “many families rely on extended family or close friends to provide care.” I know from a first hand experience that extended family’s care is close to being the same as a mother’s care. My mom, a new grandmother for five months, keeps my nephew during the day as my sister works. This care is not different than my sister’s care. If my mother reared my sister, wouldn’t my mom care my nephew the same way? Most mothers agree that they would choose their own mothers to care for their children than total strangers. Some media shows display the idea that women don’t want their children to be raised like the women were, but this is not want I have experienced. Most hard working women I know that have children admire their mothers and love to have their mothers take care of their own children.
- GraceG February 11, 2009 8:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In today’s efforts to both support equal rights between men and women and the current state of the economy, it is no wonder that mothers are torn between staying at home with their children and getting a job outside of the home. I agree with the post in that the mother is providing for her children by getting a job by adding money and independence to a household. Because a child has a working mother does not mean that they will be raised poorly. A working mother has many options in which she can put her child in a safe and healthy environment. As the article stated, extended families and even the father of the child are both viable options. Mothers are not the only caregivers of a child.
- Natalie Marie February 25, 2009 10:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Do Working Moms Put Their Kids at a Disadvantage?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The question is sexist
What about working dads? I can't believe how backward and sexist this question is.
- Eric Prescott
October 1, 2008 9:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Working Dads
As a working mom, I also find this question sexist and backward. I work because if I didn't, my children would not have food, a home and health insurance. My husband left me five years ago with a 4 and 9 year old and because I had a steady job, I was able to care for my children. They stayed home with one of us until they started kindergarden and when he had to go back to work, he decided that he would leave the marriage instead. I am a registered nurse and love my job and my children see that I am good at what I do and I do it because I want them to grow up to self-sufficient as adults.
- NoCircRN
December 1, 2008 5:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The mother matters
I can't speak for anyone's circumstances, only my own. My mother was a single mom, having been left by my father when I was in my early teens. My mom was getting an advanced degree at the time. She could have taken a regular job to make much more money than a full time student / part time teaching assistant but she didn't. She pursued her goals and even though she wasn;t around a ton, she made sure the time we did have was special. She also taught me dedication and hard work can overcome all obstacles. She was and is an inspiration to me.
Even before my father left, she worked yet I never felt unloved or neglected and I learned an immense amount of independence.
But again, I think there is no clear answer to this as it depends on the person.
- Pliskin
October 2, 2008 10:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why either/or???
I hate questions that are all or nothing. I believe that, if your kids are in daycare more than 40 hours a week, than yes it is wrong. But there are so many choices now. I work at home part-time and at a company part-time. I've worked it out so my kids are taken care of by family and friends. Even if you don't have family around, there are so many choices. Work when your kids are at school. Do a swap. Kids don't have to spend all day in daycare.
- rahcarpenter
November 19, 2008 10:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is terribly unfair
I think its terribly unfair to assume that a working mother is not also a full time mother. Or that a mother who works and does not still devote all she has to her children would somehow morph into a good mother if she didn't have to work.
Working mothers give just as much to their children as stay at home moms, we just are doing twice the work because we have a job outside the home as well. Any mother who is not giving their all for their children is not going to give her all to her children no matter what her employment situation is.
I wish more than anything I could stay home with my child, as I'm sure many women do, but its just not financially possible for me, as it's not for many women. Furthermore, every mother needs to have her own time, her own space, her own life, at least a little bit, or she is going to compromise her relationships with her children and other loved ones. For many women, that bit of their own space is their job. Constant self sacrifice is not good for anyone's health, physically or emotionally, and a physically and emotionally unhealthy mother is much worse for children than a mother who works. To say that a mother who works is harming her children is exactly like saying a mother who has a hobby is harming her children, or a mother who goes on date nights with her husband is harming her children.
My son comes before my job, always. I work because I have to in order to feed my child. Even if I could quit my full time job, I would still work a part time job in order to maintain a bit of self and sanity. But my child will always be my top priority, and I will always give him all the love and nourishment he needs and wants. Any woman who does not put her child first is mentally ill, and would not put her child first whether she works or not.
And I agree that this is terribly sexist. What about working fathers? What about stay at home fathers? I believe a stay at home dad is just as good as a stay at home mom.
- jessimonster
December 23, 2008 10:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This is a difficult argument to have.....
Juno makes a valid point when she says this topic is too vague and also too specific to argue.
When looking at a young child, specifically a child before school-age (around 3 or 4), yes, I do think a working mother could potentially put their child at a disadvantage, especially a mother who works a full work day. I was fortunate enough to have a stay-at-home mom when I was young. I was read to at every meal and practiced the alphabet, my phone number, how to spell my name, and my address many times a day. I do think that this put me ahead when I was younger, since I was more advanced when I entered preschool. It also allowed me to establish a healthy bond with my mother. I do think that there are certainly ways for a mother to be involved in their child's life and be career women, but a stay-at-home mom would certainly have more time to devote to their child. It would depend on the mother's schedule and flexibility of their working hours.
Since my mom does not work, before I could drive myself, I was guaranteed a ride after school or any time of day for that matter which allowed me to take part in a number of non-school related extracurriculars that some children may have had to miss out on due to lack of transportation. Again, a working mother could certainly pull off playing chauffeur if their hours were flexible, but if both parents work until, say, 5, alternate transportation would have to be arranged, which would not be possible for all people. I would not have had 5 days a week of dance classes if my mom worked.
Certainly, when a child is older, it would be a positive thing for a child to see their mother working AND being a mother. However the assertion that "working moms make happy moms" is certainly a hasty generalization. This could be true if a mother is working for pleasure, however if a mother is working because the family needs two incomes, there would be a significant stress factor. Not all working moms work because they didn't want to give up their career to have children. Some, I'm sure would love to stay home with their children.
- Elle
February 8, 2009 1:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
working moms vs. non-working moms
I don't think that it's necessarily about moms who work, but how they chose to spend the time with their kids. A mom who works from nine to five may come home and stay with the children until she leaves again in the morning. A mom who does not work may have all the time in the world but choses to go out with friends, shop, etc. Also, fathers play a big role in family life so just because the mother is out does not mean that the children are all alone.
- SweeneyToddInc
February 8, 2009 3:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Garbage!
How can someone state definitively " children 's sleep is severely compromised" when both parents work? My husband and I both work, and my 3-year old goes to bed every night at 7, and sleeps until 6 am, when yes, I wake her up. I don't think it severely compromises anyone's health to be woken up after eleven hours of sleep! On top of that, she sleeps seven days a week from noon to two - it's called a nap, and it is rigidly enforced by our daycare , which is a phenomenal place! That's what I pay them tons of money to do - take care of my child, look after her health, safety, and welfare, and make sure she is eating nutritious food , getting her nap, having fun, and learning. I think my husband and I are phenomenal parents, and my daycare is exceptional. My daughter not only gets the maximum love and attention from her parents, she also gets the advantage of socializing with other children, having lots of great experiences, and learning how to interact with other adults and authority figures, become a member of a "team," share, clean up, and otherwise participate in group activities. And because my husband and I both work, we have the resouces to take her on a 7-day Disney cruise in October, even in this terrible economy .
I don't consider my daughter to be "severely compromised" in ANY way. Shame on anyone for trying to make working parents feel guilty!
- holvalholval
March 25, 2009 11:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
this is gr8
The initiative taken for the concern is very serious and needs an attention of everyone. This is the concern which exists in the society and needs to be eliminated from the society as soon as possible.
working mums
- bradpiit
May 21, 2009 2:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.