2 Year old Making her self throw up when dad leaves her at daycare
I have a 2 yo daycare girl that screams and crys and actually makes herself throw up when her dad leaves her here. She is perfectly fine a few minutes later and she does NOT do this when her mom brings her. I think she has seperation anxiety and her dad is making it worse by consoling her and picking her up, then telling her he is leaving, and picking her up again when she crys. He stayed for over 15 minutes today. What can I try to make things better for her? I even told the parents to try a new daycare and they don't want to so I am guessing that she does some of this at home to.
My son did this same thing we he started daycare. It was very hard on me to leave him and i would want to sit there with him until he calmed down. One of the caretakers finally suggested that i go ahead and leave even with him crying (to the point of making himself sick) They would tell me that he would calm down shortly after me leaving. So.....finally i listened (hard thing to do lol) left and stood outside the door observing where he couldn't see me. Within a few moments he stopped crying and was playing with the other children. One day he had stopped crying but i didnt move from the door quick enough and he saw me. He started crying again and I truely realized then that it was me. It is very hard for parents to not "parent" if that makes sense. Maybe suggest that he try this.....so he can see that his child is truely ok. I hope this helps a little.
Kristy in the above Post is correct, and that is absolutly the way to go, Children after a few mins go to play with the others, the little Tinkers ! I think its all put on to make Parents feel sad ,and it works doesnt it, Dads are just as soft when it comes to it. So tell him to go in Give her a big Hug then go,!!
it's all about routine. right now, her routine is to do this with dad. her routine is different with mom. the above posters are correct- you need to get him to leave. encourage him to stand nearby so that he himself can hear that you are telling the truth- that she calms down shortly after he leaves.
you can also encourage them to start a new routine. when i had toddlers, a sensitive little girl and her dad had a cute routine- a kiss, a hug, and a high-five. always in that order. then dad would leave. the end. once it became a regular routine, it was special to them, and drop-offs were much easier.
RockRose must be fortunate enough to not have to make a living or provide for her family. To post a comment like that one is completely ignorant in my opinion. "Train them so you can drop and run" "dull them to the seperation"????? So whenever a child has no social skills because he or she has been with Mom 24/7 and doesn't know how to interact or deal with things outside the home.....maybe she will wish that she cut the cord a little bit.
im not even going to counter what you said in your post because I feel it is a bit inappropriate for you to bring this debate to this thread. I do feel the stay at home vs. working mom debate is valid, and that all opinions are welcome when that is the question at hand. in general, i do not agree with your views on this topic and feel they are dated, but when revelvant, it is your place to express your views. You did not contribute anything but drama to this particular thread, especially given the wording you chose. it is a care provider looking for insight into how to help a child in her care. it is not a parent asking if she should take out her child. it is not any of us telling someone to put their child into daycare and go back to work. You contribute so much to many of these forums, but i wonder, how is anything you said helpful to the original poster?
I remember apologizing to you once on this site for my harsh answer to one of your comments. Now I realize that I was right and I take back that apology. You have no right to judge anyone unless you have walked in her shoes. And if you do have an opinion to state either chose the right and appropriate words or please keep them to yourself.
This is the reality. Children are bonded to their parents, and when they are dropped off, they often scream and cry for awhile. Parents are also bonded to their children, and they often grab and hug the children.
The society we have right now, where babies and toddlers are dropped off in the morning and picked up by harried parents in the evening, isn't the way it was intended by nature.
I know I look hateful for pointing this out, but that's the reality of the situation. Children don't want to be separated all day from their parents.
I agree with RR. It's an ugly truth, but the truth nonetheless. When you leave a child crying as a result of separation, the child will eventually realize that crying is futile--they aren't going to get what they want/need and they will give up and stop. It's simple conditioning. This is why crying it out at night "works". But the child doesn't suddenly become independent and realize they are fine without you, they just finally come to the realization that you aren't coming when they cry and they give up.
But if leaving them is what you must do (for whatever reason), it's much kinder to not go back and try to reassure--it will only intensify things. It will get worse because they will think there may be some hope of getting to be with you. So in this situation, if not leaving a child is not an option, it sounds like drop and run is the best advice you're going to get.
Yes, drop and run is correct. I have been a kindergarten teacher (now second) and that is exactly what I had the parents do. The longer they stayed and tried to calm and reassure the child, the worse the situation becomes.
However, there are ways of stating an opinion without having parents who truly love their children feel like they neglect them. Yes, lots have changed. When I was a child my mom stayed home, but we also were able to go outside and play with the neighborhood children. Kind of like "Leave it to Beaver". However, our WORLD has changed in more ways than just needing double incomes. Even if I was a stay at home mom, I would probably have my child go to some sort of daycare, day camp,whatever you want to call it, to learn how to socialize. Neighborhoods are not the neighborhoods that we grew up in. Everything our children do today has to be organized and planned, play dates, Mommy and Me, LIbrary Hour, etc. I know many moms who are stay at home, and if they do not socialize their children their children have a very difficult time relating to peers and other adults later on when they reach school age. So what is the answer? I do not know. I just know that as a working mom I do the best I can as well as all the moms on this site. I do not feel it is needed to be berated by those with different views. We are all in this together and are here to support each other. We are all trying to raise our children to be happy, independent and caring adults.
Are things perfect. No. But we all do what we must in today's world.
Suzi, I don't think it's a good thing to sugar coat things you feel strongly about.
I also don't agree that the world is a different place than it was last generation. We have more doodads, we're all still human and that has remained completely constant.
I noticed, as a teenager, that my grandmother could give me great advice about how to understand boys. Because teenage boys at the turn of the century were the same creatures as teenage boys in the 1970's.
I think one of the worst messages we can send our children, and the most erroneous message, is that the world is completely and totally changed in their generation - it gives them the false sense that they don't know what to expect in their adult lives. Many generations (the 60's, for example) felt like they were COMPLETELY different. They weren't. Nor are the children of the 80s. They just want to think that.
We are all in this together, that's true, and sometimes the best way to support each other is to express disapproval to people who don't recognize they're making mistakes. ;D
You are right that people don't change..but the times do. You feel that things are the same? You would send your children outside and not worry like parents did 20 years ago? You do not feel there are more drugs and weapons out there now then there were 30 years ago? SOCIETY HAS CHANGED. You wouldn't have seen Columbine 20 years ago either. The world has become a more dangerous place whether we like it or not. And many homes need double incomes, whether we like it or not.
When you say "making mistakes" are you implying that daycare for children for parents who do not have another option is a mistake? Whatever you feel, the question on this post is what to do with a child who vomits when being dropped off at daycare, not whether or not your approve or disapprove of it.
Our perception is, the world has changed. Would you be surprised to learn that the statistics for children being kidnapped and killed by strangers hasn't changed since the 1950's?
Some things have changed with society, not necessarily for the better. Some for the better, though.
I have never said daycare isn't an option for people who have no other options to support themselves. Like, if you can't breastfeed, by all means bottle feed. It's second best, but when you have to do that, you absolutely have to.
Hate to high jack this thread, August first was the anniversary of the Texas Tower massacre, here in Austin, in 1966. Charles Whitman killed 14 people and injured 31 others - including a pregnant mother who lost her baby.
The Columbine murderers killed 12, injured 23.
Yes, it did used to happen, back in 1966, nutsos got guns and shot up people.
Yes--the world hasn't changed all that much, but our perception of it has. And our expectations have changed, too (of our children and of other people).
Bad things happened in years gone by, it just wasn't in your face as much. Things were hushed, people didn't talk about things. There weren't 24-hour news channels, Internet news, news available on your personal cell phone. We have much greater access to much more detailed reporting. My dad (72 years old) and I were talking about this--he said that the same things happened just as often years ago, but if a child were kidnapped, they didn't give the gory details of what happened--they just said the child was kidnapped. You did not know the horrible details that you know today. And you only heard about local stuff unless it was a huge story.
We react to behavior differently. If my brother were a kid today, he would be evaluated, in therapy, diagnosed with ADHD, on medication, and in special classes. My mother always received notes from school about his behavior (he was even paddled by the principal a few times), he would do really stupid and sometimes dangerous things and he struggled academically. Well, he's now an adult and he has a great job, owns his own home, is happily married, and trying for a baby--despite not being diagnosed with and treated for anything.
We are more protective despite having much better access to our kids. My husband argues that it's safer nowadays because of cell phones. He said that when he was a kid, he'd leave in the morning (at age 8) and his mother didn't see him until dinner time and she had no way of contacting him and he had no way of contacting her. My uncle (now 70) said he would take off in the morning at age 11 with his friend and they would hitchhike 15 miles to a public pool and sometimes when they would hitchhike back, no one would pick them up and he would get in trouble for being late for dinner.
The main thing that has truly changed, imo, is that parents don't spend as much time with their kids as they did years ago and I think they try to overcompensate for that somehow. Babies and toddlers are off at daycares (and please spare me the whole "socialization" rhetoric), kids are home after school for hours before parents get home, and teens have much more money and much less supervision which is a very bad combination.
Sorry...got very long-winded. Apologies to the original poster, too...maybe MedHelp can break this off into a new thread?
I definitely agree that many parents do not "parent" anymore. I do believe that many feel that society should raise their children. I am a teacher and I see that with the free breakfast and lunch programs that continue throughout the summers. Babies (4 years old) being put on buses, being brought to school, staying for after-school and not brought home again until 5:30. YES, I feel that not enough responsibility is placed on a parent today. HOWEVER, because my child HAS to attend day-care while I am working should not constitute me, or those like me, a parent who does not want to raise her own child. I work because I HAVE to work. Many moms and dads have to. I spend as much time as possible with my daughter. My daughter is MY responsibility. And I consider myself a DARN GOOD MOM.
On the other side of the coin, I know many children who have SAHMs and they do not get the same amount of attention and care as MY daughter gets. They are placed in front of a television and that is it. Because that mom is home, she is considered a better mom than someone who sends their child to daycare? I think not.
And also as a teacher, that "socialization" rhetoric, is NOT rhetoric for many. I have had many mal-adjusted students who come from families with SAHMs. The students who have attended early intervention and day-care programs are more independent and ready to learn.
I am not saying that all SAHMs are this way. There are good and bad in both. I find that many posted seem to generalize the quality of a mother by her either being a working mom or a stay-at-home mom. Everyone and every situation needs to be looked at on an individual basis. I find too many of you spend too much "judging" others. Stick to the issue and don't get personal judging a person that you don't even know.
I think the whole "socialization" thing, by today's standards, has been created--many 2-year-olds know the drill and how to line up and sit at circle, etc. simply because they are in daycare and are trained to do that. But developmentally, they will "get" interacting on a purely social level at different times, regardless of being in a daycare setting. Surely, as a teacher, you know that children play autonomously for quite a while as small children. They don't interact--they play independently side-by-side.
Years ago, before daycares became so prevalent, ALL 2-year-olds would not know how to "socialize" in that manner (in a daycare environment) because they didn't have to--they didn't have to line up to go outside and raise their hands to speak during story time. So, when you have a child who has been home with his mother until kindergarten and the first time they are in an institutionalized setting the child doesn't jump up and get into line or he speaks without raising his hand, it's not because he is poorly "socialized" or sat in front of a tv all day--it's because he doesn't have to raise his hand to speak at home or line up to get into the car. It's not about being "socialized" or "not socialized", it's about interacting differently and learning different rules in different environments.
I think often times kids are "busier" at daycares--daycares and they go from one organized activity to the next on a strict schedule all day long. And some kids may seem to enjoy that, but unless abuse is involved, no matter how fun it may be at daycare, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a child who would not prefer to be with his mother, whether at the water park or snuggling on the sofa watching Sesame Street.
I don't see anyone as being judgmental, just pointing out what we view as obvious. People do what they need to do in life and if people have to leave their children at daycares, I'm glad there are loving child care providers who are willing to work lovingly with those children.
Save your breath, Suzi. There is little tolerance about this particular issue on Med Help, home of the perfect mothers.
My apologizes to the OP. I think that everyone here has the right idea. Don't let Dad drag things out. A hug, a kiss and a "I'll see you after school"! Dragging the separation out will make the upset worse. And some children vomit when upset.
For everyone else:
Your very choice of words and phrases do make mothers feel badly if they have to go to work. Or choose to go to work before their children are old enough to leave the house at age 18. Your voices literally drip with disapproval and distain. And that can make people feel badly about things they do. This seems to be the desired outcome of these discussions--to feel good about yourselves and your choices, while making everyone else feel just a little dirty, uncaring, and ignorant.
Apparently, according to some opinions I've read on MH, there would be no problem if there were no more working mothers. Think about the professions that are predominantly made up of working women/mothers...guess we won't need as many teachers or nurses, eh? I'm sure some nice man will come along to take over our unecessary jobs for us. And that's just 2 professions out of COUNTLESS others that are performed by women who have children.
Apparently, Suzi, women should not plan for a profession, because someday they may have a child and should really stay home. Guess I should have not gone to nursing school, because I did work when my children were little. I'm sure some man would have done the job just as well without ruining his childrens lives like I did. Ooops, no! There are few male labor and delivery nurses, it turns out! Well then...I guess women giving birth would do just fine all alone. There are few male nurses of any type, compared to female nurses. Next time ya'll are in the hospital, look around and see how many women are taking care of you. Most probably are working mothers. Now imagine them...GONE. They are at home with their children. Who's left to take care of you?
Suzi, you should have not been a teacher, since you are abandoning your child by working outside the home. Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of men who could do the job just as well. Ooops! No?? Turns out there are not as many male teachers as you would think! Guess they all want the higher paying jobs. Ok...so our children will be in bigger classrooms, no biggie. Taught by the few men who feel called to be teachers.
(except for Med Help children who are usually home schooled).
Not that it really matters...you have a little girl, and since she may someday have a baby, she really should just stay home and not bother her pretty head with all that educational stuff, anyway. Who needs that? It's not like she should work or something!
Yes, Suzi. Save your breath. There is no need for any woman to work. Its been pointed out here on Med Help time and again, that if you were to economize by cutting out your cell phone and internet usage, you can live on pennies per day. And no single woman should have sex, lest she get pregnant, keep the baby (because all good Med Helpers are pro life), and then she would have to go to work and ruin her baby's life.
And no woman should ever choose to go to school and learn a profession, lest she get pregnant and have to drop out for a decade. Not all professions are easily dropped for that long.
So ladies...back to your discussion. I have to work tonight. Good thing I raised my children and damaged them irreparably already, so I can work with a clear conscience that I'm not "dropping and running" away from my child. Too bad that about 90% of my fellow nurses tonight are working mothers who are busy damaging their children. I feel sorry for those poor, poor children.
If a woman can comfortably afford to stay home and raise her child, AND she wants to do so...FANTASTIC!
Do NOT sneer at those who either cannot afford to stay home, or who have careers that they want to continue.
Thank GOD there are working mothers. Look around you the next time you run some errands. You will predominantly see working mothers out there in the community. Look around you when you take your child to school. Working mothers are teaching. Look around you if you have to be hospitalized. Working mothers are helping you 24 hours a day.
Thank God for them. I shudder to think of a world where men, by basis of biology, were deemed "better" equipped than women to have a job. Ladies, we'd be in a world of hurt.
Peek, as always, I feel you have a valid point, and interesting things to say, and you say it well. And on a personal level, I like and care about you.
I have been totally misunderstood here, I think. I don't sneer, nor do I feel disdain in my disapproval. I really feel sadness. I have been, and will be again, a working mother - but not of preschoolers. I draw the line there - although I've taken small part time jobs that require a couple hours away here and there and most of the work done at home on my computer.
I'm not sneering and disdaining when I say I don't think babies and small children should be separated from their mothers all day long 5 days a week. I find it sad, for both the mother and the child. I don't think any old woman ever went to her grave saying God, I wish I'd worked more hours in my life!
To Aggiesmom- "surely as a teacher I know all about parallel play" and then some. I know child development according to Piaget, Erickson, Freud, just to name a few...I know about cognitive development, social, emotional, behavioral, and then some..so please, don't try to get into a "debate" with me...you will surely lose.
Not being judgemental? Pointing out the obvious? Probably obvious to you and those who think just like you. No room for others opinions.
To Peek-a-Who....thank you for your comments. What a breath of fresh air to see that someone on this site lives in the 21st century! So many have not yet matured enough for they are too busy making kool-aid for their well-adjusted, perfectly behaved, NASA-focused children. I will no longer dignify their tunnelled visioned thinking with any response. Now, let me go back to damaging my child.
Here is what you said. If this comment is not full of distain, I don't know what is:
"This thread makes me feel sick to my stomach. It IS all about routine, and the baby knowing that parents are about to drop and run, and that makes kids stop crying because it doesn't help.
Babies are meant to be with their parents, is the thing. But, you can train them to not cry if you drop and run.
So drop and run. That's the way to dull them to this separation."
How can you say that you were misunderstood? Oh, I understood perfectly. "Drop and Run". Yes, that's the way to help women feel supported in their decisions. Accuse them of "dropping and running" away from their children.
Please do not pity working mothers and we do not need you feeling "sad" for us! I know that WE will go to our graves saying: "I did a great job providing for my child my whole life so now he/she is able to persue his/her dream the same way I was able to!"
Peek, "drop and run" is actually the term used by the preschool my kids were in when they were 4. They actually called it that - drop and run. You don't linger in the hallway chatting with other mothers, you don't come in and discuss things with the teacher that you have concerns about, you hug the child, put him down and turn and walk quickly away.
Suzi-q, my comments were about "socialization" and the perception of what exactly that is--I'm not sure why you became so defensive and felt obviously challenged with regard to your education, while chosing to end the, what I thought was quite civil, discussion.
Back to the original post--again, in this situation, the parent should say good-bye and leave quickly.
I'm not sure what your experiences with daycare are, but I did want to mention that what you describe is not reality, especially for toddlers.
A developmentally appropriate toddler room does not expect 2 year olds to line up and walk quietly down the hall. They may play a game or sing a song to get the entire group to our destination safely, but it's not the miniature army you describe. or at least it shouldn't be. They do not go from one structured activity to the next. Yes, there is a schedule and routine they follow- ex: snack at 9:00, playground at 11:00, lunch at noon, nap 12:30, etc... but in between, is "freeplay." While teachers do give young children optional activities, and provide scaffolding to children's play, freeplay is just that- the children decide what to play. The teacher is there to extend the child's learning through play. For example, if a child builds a cool tower and puts a truck on top, the teacher may say "What a great building! How do you think the truck could get up there?" They encourage the child to expand on his/her thinking and explore.
Even in my 4 and 5 year old preschool class, where we are working so hard to prepare the children for kindergarten, a large chunk of the day is "interest area time." Which basically means, every area of the room is open and available for the children to explore at their own pace. The teacher very carefully plans activities and places materials in the interest areas to help the children learn skills, but the children ultimately decide what they are learning. For example, when we study bugs, i put bug catchers, magnifiers and specimen in the science area, bug floor puzzels on the rug, plastic bugs in the sand and water tables, pictures of real bugs in the art area to inspire children, books about bugs in the library, a bug game on the computer, bug counters in the math area, bug puppets in the dramatic play area, etc... The children spend much of the day PLAYING, whereever they want, with however they want. While they play, they learn and explore. it's actually a remarkable thing to see. They learn to write the names of different bugs because they want to and are interested. They compare, measure, analyze, etc... A bit morbid, but I even had one little boy conduct his own experiment on the playground. He experimented by putting different bugs in a container to see which ones would attack each other.
I was trying to avoid this debate, but I wanted to put this out there so that people reading this don't assume that daycares are this overly regimented mini-armies. If it is, it's not a good daycare. That being said, it can be hard to find a good daycare. I know too much of how it SHOULD be, so I actually pulled my daughter from the place I sent her initially. I am lucky to have found a wonderful in-home provider. So i would encourage any parent who is uncomfortable with their choice to keep looking. You HAVE to be comfortable with where your child is. Trust your gut.
PS- thanks again, peek, for putting it so eloquently.
PPS- not that i have to justify what i am doing, but i hope to perhaps give someone insight into why I am a working mom. We have a house and mortgage. I recently asked DH if i could stay home when we have baby #2. He said we would need to have $30,000 saved up just for that, in addition to cutting ALL additional expenses. I would lose my pension, and our fantastic benefits- including an insurance that is great and costs us nothing. During this time when i am home, nothing would go into savings or retirement. Every little unexpected incident would cause tension and anxiety. I just can't bring myself to do that. I am terrified of what would happen if my inlaws became ill, because they are aging and have no savings. I can't care for them! I would never want to create such an unstable situation for my children. They can get loans for college, but I can't get loans for retirement. Of course, i am lucky. I am off all summer, home early, and have all the extra vacations. When my children are school-aged, I'll be home when they're home. Even now, she stays home 1 or 2 days a week with DH.
Congratulations to all of you who married well or inherited a large sum of money. Enjoy your time with your children and make the most of every moment. I know that we working moms definitely do too!
I've worked at a few daycares (all with 2 yos) and they all scheduled fun activities and expected the kids to line up to go outside. That aside, your interpretation of what I wrote was skewed--I did not intend to imply that daycares are mini-armies, just that they are scheduled and have lots of fun activities. For some reason you hyper-focused on a phrase and spent a lot of time defending something unnecessarily. And my point was totally missed--that despite all the fun and being busy, you'd be hard-pressed to find a kid who would not prefer to be with his mother. My sister's sons do this all the time--when she has a day off, she'll ask them if they want to stay home or go to daycare, reminding them that they will miss going on a fun outing they'd been looking forward to--they always want to stay home.
Not sure why there seems to be a recurring theme of jumping on a single phrase and ignoring the point, but there truly is a LOT of defensiveness. People keep trying to turn this into a working mom/stay at home mom debate, but it simply is not that. At least not to me.
There is not a right or wrong answer because every family situation is unique. I would say that 75% of the women I know stay home with their kids, or have really flexible jobs that allow them to be home half the work week. But I also know women (myself included) that like to work, and like their jobs. I work so I can help to put my kids through college, and so that I am contributing to our bottom line for when my DH and I want to retire. There are lots of reasons why I work. Part of the reason is from the instability of the finances in my own home when I was growing up. It wasn't fun, I could feel the stress in my parents.
To the OP, we hit jags with our youngest daughter (who will be three soon) of being very independent or being rather clingy. My DH drops off, and he does his best to have the same routine with her every morning. It seems to work pretty well. Our youngest has bad days, just as I have bad days.
Yes, I did get defensive. All of your posts were definitely "put-downs" and quite a bit of sarcasm. It seems like you and RockRose are a tag-team.
I have no problem discussing issues and the pros and cons of day care, etc. But you seem to get very personal. I tried keeping it a civil conversation, but you seem to only have one opinion, which is fine, but do not put down others for having a different one.
I think this post has gotten a bit heated and lets all agree to disagree. That is what makes the world an interesting place. I wish you well.
well, it's not so much defensiveness as a desire to have information conveyed accurately. This is clearly a debate that is very common, including on this forum. and as we have seen, people often come to this forum seeking answers and read old posts. so when people express one side so strongly and with such judgement in their tone, i feel obligated to present another view.
I did not once argue that many children prefer to be home. i'm not telling people that they must send their toddlers to daycare. i AM saying that it's OK if that's what you have to do. The children do well and thrive- they genuinely do. After working with hundreds of kids, I have only seen one or two who i genuinely feel would have been better off staying at home with mommy. of course most kids would do well at home. just like most do well in daycare. which is better? both sides have their pluses and minuses. i just don't like to see posts on this topic that are onesided or that present information that is contrary to my experiences. i also like to be thorough. so instead of saying, "kids do OK in preschool or daycare" i provided a specific example. I'm not trying to convince or sway you. we all know how you feel. Just trying to provide a more complete picture for any "lurkers" or people facing a tough decision or situation in the future.
by the way, it turned into a debate as soon as someone's lifestyle was attacked.
It's not the subject that enrages me. Its the distain. The "superior" tone to the posts, as if your way is "right", and all other ways are harmful.
There are different ways to raise children. For many reasons, parents choose to work...and it they want to or need to, and it can be done with child care activities that are suitable and appropriate, there is no reason for Rock to have said "This topic sickens me". One would only say that when they feel that the other person is far into the "wrong" side of the debate.
Agiesmom...I'm not seeing one side of this. How many frigging times do I have to say it??? IF SOMEONE WANTS TO STAY HOME, AND CAN COMFORTABLY AFFORD TO, AND IS SAVING FOR THEIR CHILD'S FUTURE, THEN FOR HEAVENS SAKE....STAY HOME IF YOU WANT TO ! Its great to be able to stay home with your child! Kudos! Muy Fantastico!
No one in the world can argue with that.
But children will not be "damaged" by "second best" inferior, childrearing if women choose to or have to work outside the home. Don't make me go back and pull out all the snide references that have been made in this thread.
Why does everything here have to be about "right fighting"? There is no "right" in the SAH v Work outside the home Mom battle. They are both choices that are valid, choices that families can thrive with, and choices that should be supported if they are needed and desired by the families involved.
What I resent, and what "enrages" me is the inference that working mothers are "settling" for a lifestyle that will damage their children, and that there is a better way. Parenting by working partners does not always lead to a good outcome. Neither does being a stay at home parent. All I'm saying is be flexible, people.
That's the thing--I never wanted to discuss the pros and cons of daycare. I posted about separation anxiety (nothing to do with working/SAHM debate), then when someone commented about kids being home with mothers having no "socialization", I replied about that (socialization). And then when someone commented on how the world is so different, I posted my thoughts on the perception of the world over time. For some reason, people seem determined to make this a daycare or SAHM/working mom debate. Seriously...I'm not sure why that keeps happening. This isn't a debate about daycares, from my point of view, despite people desperately trying to make it so.
The ugly truth was about separation anxiety--I even commented on crying it out at night, not exclusively a working or SAH mom technique. Again...you desperately want to argue, but I'm honestly getting bored with this.
I think people had this reaction about breastfeeding, too. No one wants to hear that someone else believes what you're doing isn't the best for your child.
In the early 70's when there was a big push back to breastfeeding, and even in the 80's and beyond, grandmothers who bottle fed loudly argued that they did the best by bottlefeeding, tied to bully their daughters and daughters in law into bottle feeding calling breast milk "thin", or worse, that there was something disgusting about breast feeding.
It does cause a stir, and a debate, and hurt feelings. That's the way it is when you have strong beliefs about raising children.
I don't mean that in a nasty or sarcastic way, I really mean it.
I don't think, for people who have a choice, that they should put their kids in daycare full time while they're in preschool. I recognize that in certain situations there isn't a choice, but I believe where there is one, a parent (either parent) should parent the preschoolers, not a full time day care.
I do allow that there are unforseen circumstances and babies have to eat, so there are mothers who have to leave their babies in daycare, and prayers that they find a loving and safe situation.
But I don't think that's a good plan, for mothers who are trying to get pregnant, to PLAN this.
And if you told me that you think my children are being raised badly because they aren't in daycare, I'd kind of look baffled, and go on. I wouldn't insist that you state that you approve of my choice. Because I know I approve of my choice, and I know in my heart that is nature's plan.
This is getting long-winded.
So. When someone posts saying there is a two year old who screams and vomits when Daddy drops her off at day care, I think the answer has to start from the foundation that this is normal and expected because you are asking the child to do something that children aren't geared to do. It's like stepping in between a mamma duck and her little ducklings. They freak out.
If you read my history of posts, I post on a huge variety of topics, and usually make statements like "hm, well it sounds like it might be" or "have you tried . .. " so it isn't like I'm rigid about everything, Few things, really.
1. Young women who aren't married shouldn't be purposely trying to get pregnant.
2. When you can choose otherwise, don't put a baby in a full time day care setting.
Those are my rigid points. And frankly, I like people who have a few rigid points better than people who say nothing matters at all, it doesn't matter what you do.
It isn't that I am looking for your approval. I would just have liked you to admit that there are different opinions and that, at times, there is more than one right answer.
Of course you are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine, but it annoys me wihen you comment like "this sickens me"...those are the things that are uncalled for. If the parent was asking "to daycare or not to daycare" by all means, state your case. But in this particular situation, the question wasn't IF they should put their child into daycare. It was what to do with the child who was vomiting. This parent was asking for advice, not to be put down because the child was in daycare.
How do you know that what you believe is "nature's plan"? Are you making a comparison to animal behavior? Because some of them eat their young and I don't think that would be a natural thing for homo sapiens to engage in. I don't mind that your opinion on this differs from mine, but to say it's nature's plan...it reminds me of some of the people on MH who discuss their interpretation of the bible and then say that anyone else's is wrong.
I'm not trying to stir the debate back up but that's the second time I've read that from you and I was just curious.
I keep making this too long and having to wipe it out. It's too wordy.
Mothers and babies bond like no other bond in the human experience. Both panic if they can't be around the other.
Mothers have two breasts, and secrete from their bodies the food their babies need for the first 6 months of life. Nature intended those babies to be attached to the mothers, and reliant on them and only them.
Otherwise daycare workers would have 8 breasts and lactate on demand.
We can circumvent mother nature by using refrigeration and pumps and nipples and tubes, and by getting our child used to detachment with different strategies but we have to recognize that babies are supposed to cling to mothers, and mothers are supposed to cling to their babies by nature, and to cement that the mothers have the only food the baby needs coming out of their own bodies.
Before anyone questions if I believe in modern medicine, I do, and I believe in going outside of nature when necessary, but I think when we look at all the complaints parents have about leaving their babies at daycare, and all the complaints they have about the care they get, and how many wailing babies are left at the daycare center, we have to say well, it's because leaving your baby in a child care center isn't the way nature intended.
We can make it work, but we're going against our bodies and brains when we do it, and that's an important aspect to considering it.
Did anyone notice that the Daycare worker suggested that the parents try a new daycare? Doesn't that make anyone question how easy it is for the daycare worker to suggest that? She obviously doesn't care about that poor kid or else it wouldn't be that easy for her to suggest sending her off to another daycare. More or less saying "let her be someone else's problem, let someone else listen to her cry for 15 minutes". How sad that is! She'd rather the parents find a new daycare than to talk to the father one and one, adult to adult about his decision to keep picking the baby up and putting her back down.
"but I think when we look at all the complaints parents have about leaving their babies at daycare, and all the complaints they have about the care they get, and how many wailing babies are left at the daycare center, we have to say well, it's because leaving your baby in a child care center isn't the way nature intended."
Look at the number of complaints on Maternal Child from women who have NOT EVEN returned to work (if they plan to) or who are planning on staying at home. "The baby cries all the time". "The baby won't sleep". "I'm supplementing the baby b/c he/she is fussy", "I'm tired", "The baby always wants to be held", "I can't go anywhere", or other frequent expressions of frustration with the 24 hour a day care a new infant needs. If you can't find any, I'll go pull up about 50 if you would like. From women who are at home full time.
You and I can both point out these complaints forever! It seems to be part of the experience here to complain, or vent, or express feelings, or whatever you want to call it. There are JUST as many "complaints" about infants at home full time with mothers. Motherhood is hard. Mothers get tired. Mothers come here to ask questions (although the OP here is a child care worker). And mothers of all types come here to express concerns and frustration.
According to your theory, women who work outside the home and utilize child care complain about wailing babies and poor care because they are not doing what nature intended.
Why then, so many complaints from women who are doing as you insist nature intended? Why so many women AT HOME full time with their babies, complaining about their wailing babies, their fatigue, their sick babies, their isolation, and their husbands who either will not help or give poor or little help? If they are doing what is right and good, then why the complaints from them?
And you have not satisfactorily explained how we should deal with the massive, devastating blow to the economy if every working mother decided to stay home. I'm being a bit absurd, because it would never happen, thankfully for our economy.
But if fewer and fewer women of childbearing age were in the workforce, we'd be facing a sobering and unhappy reality pretty soon. Healthcare alone (which I'm commenting on because its what I'm most familiar with) would be in an instant and devastating crisis if there where no working mothers.
We are not necessarily living "as nature intended" any longer. We walk on two legs. We have opposable thumbs. We use tools. We cook. We plan. We write. We drive cars. We have houses instead of caves. We go to movies. We have bank accounts. We pay bills. We have computers. We cure people of illnesses. We fly in airplanes. We shoot each other with guns. We have domesticated animals. We write lengthy, pointless essays on SAHM v WOTH mothers.
Nature did not intend any of this. We had to adapt when we became cognizant creatures capable of manipulating our environments. We do what we have to do to survive in a world that has changed vastly from when humans first evolved.
It great when a mother has the means to comfortably stay home, and WANTS to stay home. Who would want otherwise, if conditions were perfect to do so? But in our world today, which is definately no longer lived "as nature intended" we have the ability to do what works for our families. I'm very glad you have strong feelings--it gives me an outlet to drone on and on endlessly.
"We need these women in the workforce" is a valid argument, but it doesn't address at ALL that most children do better at home with their mommies. Most babies would rather be home with attentive mommies than in the "baby room" at a daycare, and that's what I'm saying.
If we were writing legislation that mommies have to stay home, all this would be tied together and we could argue that although babies like being home, we are willing to give that up to keep the stable workforce. I'm not tying them together. I'm saying babies do better with their mothers than in group daycare.
When I talk about families, both working and not working, I'm not talking about people on this board (and I know you too have much more experience with people than just reading this board). This board is for people seeking help - so they are a different population than the regular population.
If we thought he child behavior board was representative of families in general, good God don't have kids, because most of them would appear to be screaming, kicking, cursing, defacating, spitting, door slamming brats. We know that's not true. Most kids are fairly easy to control, and are agreeable with their parents, and are fairly pleasant to be around if you enjoy high activity levels. This board isn't representative at all.
And the Maternal board isn't representative, either.
Again this is getting really long.
I believe "nature intended" that we build homes, and walk upright, and use our creativity to better our lives. I don't think we humans were meant to live as base as the animals, by nature's design we have better brains. When I think "would nature intend this"? You have to pass it by the "does this make people feel comfortable and happy?" Houses, yes. Plumbing, yes. Walking upright, yes.
Daycare for babies? My vote is no. It doesn't make anyone happy. And, it appears to go against physiological nature. So, I'd say not as nature intended.
I just had another thought, and this may distill this argument down to the very finest point.
There is an economic saying, "What's good for the economy is rarely good for the individual, and vice versa". Economics 101.
For example, saving money. For the individual, it's great advice to buy as little as possible on credit, and put substantial amounts of your paycheck in long term savings. That's very sound advice for the individual, and will lead to a life of financial security. If everyone did this, our economy would buckle. Our economy would be completely gutted if most people followed that advice - as it is, we're zipping along best when eveyone spends every penny they earn, and even carries debt, putting nothing at all in long term savings. But that lifestyle, everyone agrees, isn't the best for the individual.
Same thing, in my opinion, with putting babies group childcare. Getting mothers back into the full time work force as soon as the baby is 6 weeks old, and hiring out child care and all the extra peripheral spending that goes along with that - maybe a separate car seat, separate items for daycare, a media system you can watch at work, all the economical spinning up that goes with paid child care. So, I'll grant you, putting infants in child care so mothers only miss 7 or so total weeks for a pregnancy is good for the economy. I think it's the absolute wrong thing for the individual, though.
I think the Maternal Child board is as close as we can get in our little Med-Helpian world to a cross representation, Rock.
We have working moms, SAHMs, and everything in between on that board. All are doing what they think best to provide for their children. Most complain quite loudly when things don't go according to Hoyle. SAHMs and WOTHM's alike complain.
(There are a precious, precious few who you DON'T see complaining about sleepless nights, teething, laundry, crying, fussiness, gassiness, and life in general.)
If we do need working women of childbearing age in the workforce, where do you expect their children to be? Have you seen many nurses in the hospital walking around with their kids in tow? Lots of female CEO's with their kids running around at board meetings? Would you go to a hair stylist who had her children at the salon running amok with the curling iron?
Child care exists for people who work. Plain and simple. No child care, no workie-workie.
As nature intended. You have said nothing that invalidates my contention that we are human beings, adapting to a changing world. And you'd better get ready for more changes, as the worsening economy forces more and more women out into the workforce.
We all do the best we can, according to our unique situations, to survive and flourish in the best way we know how. You wll not agree that flexibility and adaptation is vitally important. You seem to only advocate one way, which is not realistic in todays world. It CAN BE, for some. It IS NOT, for others.
How many effing times does it have to be said? Stay at home if you can comfortably afford to, AND want to. Its great if you choose to do so. Work outside the home if it is necessary, AND/OR you want to. As long as you love your children, are providing responsibly for them, and taking care of your own needs and the needs of your children...that's how we flourish as a society in general and as a whole. WHY IS IT WRONG FOR ME TO SAY THAT? Why is it only right for you to have your singleminded belief that all women should stay at home raising babies instead of getting educations and working if they so desire or need to?
Don't start handing down edicts about what nature intended. Nature probably did intend for women to run around naked, pregnant with one while suckling another. Do we do that? Not in my neighborhood. Perhaps in yours.
You have said that "babies do better at home than in daycare", have you, yourself done a longitudinal study showing this? For any study that you have showing that kids "do better at home" I will have one showing that daycare has developed children who are more independent, and better socialized.
I am not "giving anything up" by working outside the home and sending my daughter to day care. And how do you know that daycare doesn't make anyone happy? It makes working parents happy knowing their child is well cared for. It makes those who want BOTH motherhood and a career happy...and most importantly, it makes many many children happy. My daughter enjoys going and playing with her friends, making art projects and is beginning to learn readiness skills. She is HAPPY.
When you continually say that children would rather stay home than go to daycare or anywhere else, well then, let's all give in to everything!...My daughter would rather not take a bath, rather not eat her vegetables, rather not go to the doctor, or brush her teeth, rather not go to bed early, there are many things she would "rather not" do. BUT we make them do it anyway. All because a child may first be adverse to daycare, it doesn't mean it is damaging to a child. I have no problem with children who stay at home, nor those in daycare...Your "dark age" point of view is starting to "sicken me".
Show me how the economy can flourish with no working mothers. Look around you the next say...10 times you leave the house. Everywhere you go, every bank, every grocery store, every Starbucks, every drug store, every dentist office, every dry cleaners, every library, every fast food place, every pet store, every clothing store, every restaurant, every mall, every courthouse, every police station, every doctors office, every emergency room, every post office, every architectural firm, every legal firm, every SINGLE WORKPLACE IN THE WORLD depends on working mothers. And yes, many of them go back to work relatively soon after birth, within the first 3 months in the US. Later in other countries.
Imagine if suddenly everyone agreed to do as nature intended According to RockRose.
Your world might be more than a little upset, Rock.
One more thing...PLEASE do not refer to daycares as "baby rooms"....you have NOT seen baby rooms. My daughter is adopted from China. She was in an orphanage. I saw first hand a baby room...it is in no way comparable to daycare.
Just like you have "hot topics" this one is mine. I take offense for it to be called that. Please choose your words more wisely.
Peek, since you stated that I need to accept that more and more women are entering the workforce, I think you might find this article from yesterday's CNN interesting. I don't advocate it - in my own humble opinion it's a misspent life - but it does add to the discussion that you believe the pendulum won't be swinging back to more women staying home. The pendulum does swing back when it swings one way.
And now, I'm taking a break from this. I've tried to be reasonable, and respectful, and clear and fair in what I'm saying, and I'm being kicked in the teeth. I don't mind debating, but you're being rude. So, you think what you think, I think what I think, and I'm tired of this bickering about what should be an open, valid debate.
Suzi - go look for the studies yourself. If you actually look for fair published studies, and not ones meant to make women feel good, you'll have your eyes opened.
First of all, let me caveat my two cents with the fact that I don't have children and probably won't have any in the near future, so perhaps my opinion will change when I do have them. For now, I feel very strongly in these opinions.
I finished business school at a top 10 school last year. I mention this because the women I went to school with will likely have very distinguished careers (and make me feel inferior) or at the very least they have already self-identified as very ambitious and aggressive women...perhaps the women leaders of tomorrow. Almost all the women were around 29 give or take 2 years and did not have kids (there was one woman who had a kid but she was in her late 30s and this was her third or fourth degree). It was my assumption that these women, like me, preferred to have a career and when they did have children, they would learn to juggle both. After all, I would always say, you don't drop $100k to go to business school to be a stay at home mom, right?
A business school friend of mine (who did drop $100k to go to school) wants to be a stay-at-home-mom, something I didn't understand. But as she pointed out, we went to school so that we could do whatever we want, to be successful enough that we could make our own decisions. And she's right. She may not be using the skills she learned in business school when she's a SAHM, but if and when she decides to re-enter the business world, she can do so. It won't be as easy for her as it is for those of us who never left. But there are no easy paths...just hard decisions you make in order to maximize your own happiness.
If and when I have kids, I will not be a SAHM. I will likely have the option of not working if I don't want to, but I will do so anyway. I enjoy working and it makes me happy. And I think a happy mother (whether she stays at home or works) is the best thing for a happy child.
I understand that not everyone gets to make the decision that they would have wanted...having to work when you'd rather stay at home or having to stay at home when you'd rather work. In that case, just be happy knowing that you're providing for your children and family in one way or another. It's probably not in the same way as another mother, but it's still something. Be happy with your decisions...there's nothing wrong with either choice.
On a separate note, separation anxiety will have to occur at some point, whether it's daycare or kindergarten. Unless the child is home-schooled, this is inevitable. When I was a child, I cried like a maniac when my mom left me at pre-school at the age of 4. Since I basically stayed at home for the first four years of my life, I don't think that I got the early socialization skills from attending day care and wish I had. My dogs (having attended puppy play groups) are better socialized, more confident, and more secure than I am!
I have to go to sleep now. Thankfully, we had a relatively good night at work last night. I, incidently, was the only nurse in our unit (8 nurses on last night) who is not a working mother.
I'm glad those other women were there with me, or it wouldn't have been pleasant for anyone, least of all the women there to have babies "as nature intended".
I guess I'm not going to get the mother-of-the-year award because I work. I hope my children don't end up in years of thearpy over my choice. I hope they can bare the burden of the pre-school memories and the love my two day care ladies have shown them throughout the years. I hope they are okay with the vacations we take and the fun family outings that we do. I hope they are okay and can deal with the fact that mommy and daddy don't argue over money.
I know a few SAHMs that are far from even running for the title of mother-of-the-year. Their idea of staying home is parking the kids in front of a movie while they spend hours online.
Well, I HAVEN'T heard the term "baby room" and the ratio at my day care is very small...not like the orphanages in China...which is 20 to one...which you would NEVER have in a competent daycare. So therefore, please refrain from using that term...but you obviously won't because you know best about everything.
And of course, Rock, your studies are better than mine...and everything about you is better, and you are just...better....HEY IF THAT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD, than go for it!
Its up to the women and to the family, to make wise decisions about what to do to best achieve their family goals. To use our brains and our educations. To do what we need to do and what we want to do.
That's all I'm saying.
I'm just not understanding why RR feels its so wrong, for women to make decisions and not be led by her vision of what our breasts and our ovaries "want" us to do. We are strong women. We can do what we choose to do.
Also, another comment to make...my daughter was in an orphanage from one day old...until 10 months...No mother/daughter bonding...just institutionalized...should I have NOT adopted her? Was she totally damaged at tender age of 10 months? I guess adopting a child isn't the natural order of things either....
BUT I DID ADOPT HER...AND I LOVE HER...AND SHE GOES TO DAY CARE A FEW DAYS A WEEK AND SHE IS THRIVING.......
Who knows what the future holds for any child..we do the best, we hope for the best...and hope it all turns out right....only God knows...but that is another debate....
Great points by all really. Standing back, and not being involved in this passionate discussion, I see some validity in many peoples points and opinions. That is what is so wonderful about open forums.
Getting back to the original discussion, I agree with BabyHardiman. I do not think the right solution is to ship the toddler off to another daycare. She has an issue with separation and that will occur no matter where she is played. My 3 year old has similar issues when my Husband leaves for work in the morning. She is very close with him, so to see him leave (paired with the fact that she tends to be a bit on the dramatic side) really gets her upset, crying, so on...
Do you think she ever does that with me? No. The reason being is that I do not prolong the leaving process. My husband will leave, close the door and as soon as my toddler turns up the volume in her screams, he is right back in. This could go back in forth for 10 minutes or so. So I almost daily in a position similar to the OP, however it is a bit less traumatic since she is at home with me in the mornings :) Its ok when he finally leaves, I tell him every morning just to leave, because she expects him to walk back in a play this game for as long as he permits. He's getting better, but he really is such a softy :)
To state my opinion. Being in the position as a SAHM (I do have some part time work) for the most part, I think it is beneficial for the position of my family, because any job I would get, the money would not outweigh the cost of the gas it would take to use my SUV back and forth and paying the proper daycare for 2 children. However, I consider myself very fortunate. I think many mothers would love to be in the position I am in. I know so many HAVE to work and would rather be at home with their little ones. To them, I applaud. I can imagine how difficult it must be, even when they have a career they love. I would never look down on a mother who chooses or out of necessity has to work outside the home. I am sure any loving mother wants what is best for their child, no matter what. I know I do.
I hope all can come away from this post enriched to some degree and not entirely enraged.
From a stay at home Mom. Unbelievable what we've become, judging, judging, judging. Let's all stop and just be thankful for our children wether we stay home with them or not. I left a 23 year career to stay at home, not because I had a disdain for daycare etc. It was a personal decision that I made from my circumstances. Never in a million years would I accuse anyone of not being the mother that I am if they placed their child in daycare.
Instead of judging, let's do as many here suggested and offer ideas and suggestions to help the child.
Right on, family time, vacations, time spent together is what is most important wether it happens at 10:00 am or 8:00 at night or even gasp, on the weekend when Mom and Dad are off. Time and love are what is needed wether its 1968 or 2029.
Ugghhh, I'm sorry. I just feel so strongly about a mother's love. To even attempt to tell or indicate that a mother who works does not love her child as much as one who stays home is wrong. May not be said upfront here but from an outsider, that is what the hardened posts imply.
I just wanted to add my experience with this as a working mom. My son is my world, the highlight of my life, and I've fought and continue to fight a lot of uphill battles to provide for him and shape his little world into one that will give him the best opportunities in his future. This is just my experience and it's worked for us, and I wanted to share.
I've had Trevor in daycare since he was 6 weeks old, and I intended on having him there, even if I could have been a SAHM. First of all, I thought he'd benefit from being around people and learning to trust adults other than immediate family and be around children his age so he could learn from them (like by watching them crawl, learn to walk, etc). I also wanted him to not have separation anxiety with me, so enrolling him at such a young age has ensured that I've never once had a problem with this issue.
I also breastfed him exclusively for his first 6 weeks, and then supplemented him with formula, but sent him to daycare with half a day's worth of pumped milk every day. I co-slept with him until he was 6 months old, and breastfed him during the nights and early mornings before daycare. I breastfed him exclusively when we got home until he was 7 months, and then at 8 months he weaned himself (mainly because I got reluctant to breastfeed him from 7-8 months because he developed a biting habit).
So I feel confident that I never compromised any bonding opportunities, and certainly did my best to keep things as "nature intended."
He's been to three daycares in 3½ years. The first one he was in for a year and a half, the second for three months, and the one he's in now he's been in for two years. I wouldn't change a thing if I could, because all his daycares have never given me or him a problem with anything.
Not only that, but Trevor is one of the most social kids you could ever meet. Everyone can be his friend as far as he's concerned. He's ALWAYS played well with other kids and been complimented by countless adults who are impressed with his obedience and bond to me, his social skills with other kids, his tactfulness to adults, and his intelligence, speech, and enunciation.
I actually don't think he'd be thriving so well if he was always at home. I don't have the time or energy to provide all of that for him just by myself. And to be honest (and maybe call me a bad mom), but I had no issues whatsoever with leaving him at a daycare when he was 6 weeks old. I really didn't want to stay at home with him or have him ALL DAY LONG, because heck, it's not like I slept at night! I spent nights up with him, either awake or in a light sleep, tending to him if he was sick, hungry, or just awake and wanting to play. I wanted and needed time away from him for a few hours to put my mind into adult things (college and homework) or just to get a few hours of rest or a few chores done.
And now, I have no choice but to have him in daycare, so it's a darn good thing he's used to it and loves being there with his teachers and friends. I have to work to provide for us because there ain't no one else who's gonna do it! Lol, besides, he's learned SO much there, and looks forward to events like swim day (the daycare has a pool, so he's also learning to swim) and show and tell, so I can't help but think he's getting more than second best from me--I've giving him what IS best without a doubt and he's thriving. I don't regret a thing.
i think the problem is that due to the way you word things, it does seem as if you are not being respectful. this is evident since it is your comments that started the whole debate. it also does seem as if you are both judging and implying that mothers who put their children into daycare are not good mothers.
you may not mean it that way, but a whole lot of people read it that way.
there are plenty of people on this forum who feel it is best for women to stay home. they manage to express this without causing such a controversy.
and i'm not looking for anyone to sugarcoat things or change their beliefs.
for example, i feel VERY strongly that breast milk is best and that moms should at least attempt to breast feed. but if someone asks a question about how often to feed formula, i would not respond, "you should have breast fed. but since you have already decided to feel your baby something inferior, you should offer a bottle as needed."
essentially, that is what you did here. the question was answered, but is the rest necessary? what is it accomplishing?
A point was made here that was a very valid one—if you are secure and confident in your decisions or choices, you just don’t get crazily defensive. You just don’t. If someone told me that my 17-month-old needed to go to daycare for “socialization”, I would totally disregard the comment because it’s not valid, imo. I have no desire or need to convince that person that I’m doing the right thing. That's how I think you naturally are when you are secure and confident in your decisions or choices.
When you have a strong opinion about something regarding childrearing, you cannot say, “Yeah…you know…I totally see your point and think you may be right.” To do so would mean that you would have to do one of two things—admit it’s not the best thing for your child and continue to do it anyway, or you would have to make changes. Neither option is very attractive.
So this debate usually just gets ugly (like it is) and there’s never a nice end to it or an intelligent discussion of topics (like socializaiton, separation anxiety, etc.). Too many emotions involved.
I think the thing that annoys me most is that you injected the SAHM/working Mom argument into a post that had nothing to do with that subject. And in my opinion you did this to be divisive and to feel superior. My goodness don't we women have enough obstacles in life....shouldn't we be supporting each other as much as we can rather than tearing each other down. We are all mothers....why are the labels necessary, what purpose does it serve?
It doesn't matter how things are worded. I was very careful about how I worded things...I even ended one of my replies with, "...People do what they need to do in life and if people have to leave their children at daycares, I'm glad there are loving child care providers who are willing to work lovingly with those children." And I was still jumped on and accused of tag-teaming with RR. It simply doesn't matter how it's worded. It's a hot topic filled with emotions on both sides.
"If you want your child to scream less, drop and run. The more the separation is prolonged, and the parent returns for goodbyes, the more the child screams.
Drop and run. That is the solution for this dad. Plop this kid down on the floor, turn, and walk away swiftly. I swear, the child will scream less."
Your very next post?
"I agree with RR. It's an ugly truth, but the truth nonetheless."
I've said it at least 6 times on this thread. Its about choice. Why is that such an ugly word, such a frightening concept, on this website? If someone can comfortably stay home with their child, AND wants to, THEY SHOULD!
Everyone needs to consider their family's unique situation and needs. If working outside the home is the best solution to meet those needs, women who do so should not be made to feel ugly, or that they are "going against nature".
No one can make you feel anything. You have to allow that to happen. If someone tells me that they believe that daycare is great for babies because it teaches socialization, that statement cannot in any way make me feel like a bad mom for keeping my baby home because I simply don't believe it. If I felt insecure or uncertain about my decision, then it would likely make me feel bad.
peek, you see it as a pure and simple choice because in your opinion it's not harmful to the children. So, of course it's a choice to you, up to each parent to make.
What if this were a debate about putting cereal in a newborn's bottle. Some people were for it, some against, and the ones for it said hey, it's a choice. You do what you want, let us do what we want, and stop telling us what to do, we want to put cereal in the baby bottle. MYOB.
This is how I feel in this.
And to AJ, thank you for sharing your story. I think you're right, your son is well adjusted and happy, and you should have no regrets. Sometimes it works out great.
you seem to mistake my desire to have my views expressed as defensiveness again.
I never occused you of tagteaming with RR. i didn't even "jump on" on you. the only reason i directed a comment towards you was simply because what you described didn't match my experiences. i even stated that. how was anything i directed towards you an attack? you are right- you have managed to express your views without much judgement- at least to the point of the posts earlier in the thread. i've read so much since, i don't clearly recall who said what. you keep coming back here and accusing me of attacking you and being defensive, when i have not initiated anything with you. i read your post about staying home on the other forum as well. again, you managed to say things well. i didn't "attack" or "jump on" you there because you stated your views without trying to demean others. that conversation, until i last read it, managed to stay civil and helpful. the main difference? no low, rude, snide, or demeaning remarks.
No--I didn't mistake anything you said. I wasn't specifically talking about you--just pointing out that even though I carefully worded what I said, my points were missed, phrases were hyperfocused upon and taken as attacks, and other comments (like the tag-team one) were directed at me. It wasn't by you and it wasn't a big deal--I was just pointing out that it doesn't matter how you word things--if someone is going to take offense, they're going to take offense. This is an emotional topic. People get passionate. That's all.
tired, go back and read through some of the comments on this thread and see who is being snide and rude.
Read Suzi Q's comments (especially telling me never to use the term baby room again, geez, when I order diapers for the church nursery "baby room" I guess I'll have to think of something else for the church to call that) and read Peek's comments.
Who is being snider here? I read through my post, that inflamed so many, and it's not nearly as hostile as Peek's and Suzi Qs are to me.
You may not see it if it isn't being said to you, is the thing.
If it means anything to anyone, the OP posted this same question in the Parenting forum in the expert section of this website. She received excellent advice from an expert, so hopefully that will direct her on what is best for the 2 year old that sparked this passionate debate. I hope she is able to help this little girl and her parents make the transition of separation that is never easy for any child or parent, no matter what the circumstance behind it is. I think that is what is most important here. Have a good evening all!
it isn't the term "baby room" like you would use at a church....it is the context in which you used it. How daycare has "babyrooms" as if they are cattled in. It was the context, not the word itself. Just from the tone of your other posts, I took your terms with negative conotations.
Yes, I used snide remarks, only in response to yours and your "superior" attitude in your posts. If you go back to my first posts, many times I tried to make peace with the subject, but some wouldn't let it.
Gosh, it I were the OP, I'd change my name to "FrustratedMHMember"-I am glad a professional gave her some good advice. Any good advice here would be hard to find in the cloud of hostility that permeates this thread!
this whole thing reminds me of wifeswap- that silly show on ABC.
these moms go into this proclaiming that they have the best idea of parenting. the drama can be intense, and in the end everyone leaves with at least a changed perspective. it's also funny how those moms think that they can simply apply the rules of their homes and expect it to magically work in the new family.
Interesting- there was a family in my neighborhood who participated in Wife Swap. I don't know how many you watched but this was an episode with a Black Christian conservative family matched with a family with one daughter and lesbian parents.
It was an absolute nightmare for both families - both were threatened with being sued for the 1 million bucks production costs if they backed out at any time, and the network purposely matched hopelessly mismatched families. I knew way before the episode aired that this was going to be a total train wreck - and it was. So sad.
Yeah...I've seen it a few times and the ones I've seen were the most extreme of the extreme. I personally have never met people like any of the families I've seen on that show (fortunately). Whatever it takes for ratings, though.
i agree- they pair extremes to create conflict.
i can't help but wonder how much of it is genuine. are these families for real? are the shows edited to show only specific aspects? rockrose- do you feel the family you knew was accurately portrayed?
I really don't want to join the debate about "Wife Swap" but I wanted to comment on the nature thing: my mother was a SAHM. She was hugely unhappy being stuck at home w/small children and consequently it was passed down to her family. She was a much happier person/mother when she finally figured it out & went back to work. Does nature intend that?
Looking back, if given the choice, I was the child who would've chosen day-care over staying w/an unhappy SAHM. By the way, I read the CNN article and it was largely about childless women who chose to stay home - not the ones w/children.
I read it, also. Good article--was there a connection with working mothers in some way? Again--the Med Help C word--choice. Some women stay home. Some go to work. Biology and "nature" are not dictating what they choose to do.
About cereal in a bottle....was that having a single thing to do with this discussion in some way?
Oh, you were just trying to "enrage" me again, Rose? One might almost think so! Why don't you try routine infant circumcision....that might work.
If anyone wanted to hear my thoughts on those 2 issues, I'd be glad to share how I think.
Back to the topic at hand. My "snideness" and determination that women should be free to do what they choose, whether it be working outside the home, or staying at home.
Remind me again why this is bad?
I'll tell you how my childhood worked for me, in case you were curious.
My mother (not that one persons experience amounts to a hill of beans) did not work while we were young. My fondest memories of her and my father include her chain smoking all day long (when he was at work), drinking, and her watching TV for most of the day. When we were old enough to go outside in the summers, she's shoo us outside after breakfast and warn us not to come back until lunch. After lunch, back outside until dinner. After dinner, she and my dad drank and fought.
After a particularly heinous fight where the land lady came over (she lived next door) she threatened to put us all out on the streets. Things got better after that...then there was only the fighting without the drinking, which was a big improvement.
When I was about 10-11 or so, she got a job at a fabric store. I think it helped her a lot. There was much less fighting (maybe they were fighting about money before..I truly don't remember what the fights were about, curiously). Maybe she needed to be away from the house. I don't know. All of a sudden she had some friends, she seemed much brighter and happier, and things in my world were better.
My sister and I were alone after school until 5 or 6, when she came home. We were given the responsibility of doing some after school chores and sometimes got to fix an easy dinner on occasion. Or Mom would leave a casserole for us to put in the oven. Before my sister discovered boys, we had fun together after school w/o Mom. After my sis discovered boys, she had fun with them after school, and I did the few chores we had and fixed dinner by myself.
Do I remember feeling lonely without my mother? Not at all. I remember feeling proud that I was in charge (after my sister discovered boys) of the house and was trusted to fix dinner or do some chores alone. I was relieved when she came home, not because I had been alone for a few hours, but because now when she came home, she had a smile on her face, a kiss for my Dad when he got home, and talked about "the girls" at work, their lives, their kids, what she did at work, and we all talked.
In the summers, we did get to go to work with her sometimes, and we got to fold some of the fabrics, or help customers sometimes. I adored it. We sometimes went to nearby stores and helped them if we got shooed out of Moms store. Of course, this was a different time.
She and Dad were able to put us through college, though I was expected to get a part time job for my own extra expenses. My sister dropped out (she was always the wild one) joined a religious cult, got married, had babies, got out of the cult, got divorced, eventually went to school on her own and has a good life.
So that's my persepective.
Or am I still being snide? I often can't tell, so someone let me know.
RR-I am just curiously bringing up a question here for my own personal reasons. Do you feel differently about a mother who works outside the home and leaves her children/child with grandparents, close friends or other family?
I struggle with both of these worlds. I struggle with "what nature intended" and reality. The reality is that I have five children and I need to work. I was a SAHM until my youngest daughter went to school. When I was a SAHM, I struggled with anxiety and depression and often felt like I was not even a part of the real world. I did not breastfeed my children. Interestingly enough, after having my son a year ago, I went back to work FT when he was about 3 months old. I exclusively breastfed until he was abotu 9 months old and continued part time breastfeeding until he was 11 months old. Of course, I had to pump 2-3 times while at work but until he was 6 months old I raced out to the car, drove home and nursed him so I could bond as much as possible.
In my opinion (not that you asked for it), what is ideal is if a woman can work outside the home part time. My happiness increased dramatically once I worked outside of the home when the girls went off to school full time. I bought my own car, had my own friends and made some spending money. I loved it. What didn't work out though, is my marriage. My ex husband became abusive because he was insecure. He didn't like that I had my own money and forget having friends, a social life or my own car. My keys were often hid by him and I had to walk to work, or find a ride to the store. That was his problem, not mine. Of course, my marriage probably would have lasted had I not worked outside of the home. Or not.
I guess I'm not even sure where I'm going with this, other than that there should be a happy medium. Women should be allowed to find happiness also and a happy woman can be a much better mother. I found myself so out of touch with the world around me, I forgot how to interact with adults. At friends houses, I found myself off playing with an interfering with the children more than the adults.
The ideal situation in my opinion would be a mother who has some education and a part time job. One where she can earn some money, contribute to finances and find balance between her parenting, household duties and her own social life. She should nurse her children because that is what's best. It often times is not easiest but I do believe it is best. She will hopefully have friends or family that will help care for her child because I believe it takes a village. And she will hopefully have a loving, supportive husband who will support her and help rear the children, including diaper changes, baths, and meals. THIS is the real world now. In the 50's or even 70's, men did not help with the children as much as they do now.
Well, I just had an epiphany. I hope it comes across clearly.
I had (have) great parents. They're still married after 50 years, and my husband also has great parents, married 52 years. Both of us were raised lovingly, with fun mothers who loved being with us and were good wives and mothers. Home was very important, and I have warm memories of my childhood and my stay at home mother, as does my husband. When I speak to my children, my mother's words come out my mouth all by themselves (we all do that, thank God my words are loving and caring). I hear my mother's voice in my voice when I speak to my children, and I have been shown a good pattern to follow, I can't imagine how different my life would have been in daycare, but I did get a taste of it on Thursday mornings at the Base Nursery when my mom played bridge. I used to sit on the care workers foot and cry the whole time I was there - I remember it clearly.
Like young people who think marriage is unimportant because they've seen their parents go throught multiple meaningless bad partnerships, I think maybe people who didn't have loving home lives with attentive mothers in their preschool years also think staying at home is unimportant - because for them, it wasn't happy.
So. Maybe that's it. You had to experience a good situation to understand that it was better than daycare.
And BTW, the CNN article, I think I made it pretty clear that it was showing the trend of women in the workforce wasn't necessarily increasing, to counter Peek's statement that it was increasing. I think saying "I think this is a misspent life" maybe should have helped make the statement clear that these aren't mothers.
So, carry on. I really feel like this is an important point - what you grow up knowing, you learn from, and want to make life decisions based on personal experience. So if you had a poor parenting situation as a preschooler, I think we can't really bridge the debate here - because we have different perspectives on value of at home mothering.
Oops, I meant "interacting with the children", not "interfering with the children"! :\
And my last paragraph...I realize these circumstances are hard to come by. Most families don't have friends and family willing to help with their children and a lot of women don't have men at all. If they do, not all help with household duties. I'm just stating that that scenario, in my opinion, would be the perfect one for myself.
I would absolutely love to find employment where I can be home more. I currently work FT and I am so tired. I am actively seeking part time employment and have decided not to continue my education beyond the AA degree I just got. It takes too much time away from my family, which is my number ONE priority. I would love to have more time at the family table having meals, praying and sharing stories about our day. We try to connect at least two or three times during the week at the dinner table for prayer and "highs and lows" of our day, but to me it isn't quite enough. I want more. We have been fortunate to have family and friends carry us through our sons first year of life so that we don't have daycare costs and don't have to worry about him being in some strangers care. But, come September, we are faced with a very tough decision. I can either quit working, or stick our infant son in daycare. I don't want either. I have three weeks to figure it out. I'm so, so torn. The thought of someone other than a very, very trusted family or friend caring for him makes me panic. I just don't think I can do it. It doesn't feel right.
I grew up in two very, very different worlds, which probably explains why I am so torn between both worlds now.
I was raised first by two abusive (to each other) drunk/drug addicts. Finally, after my father nearly beat my mother to death in front of me, they divorced (THANK GOD). Then, because my mother was a drunk/drug addict single mother, she went to work two full time jobs and we never really saw her much. When we did see her, she was drunk. She was in and out of treatment.
BUT, while all of this was happening, most of the time we were cared for by my loving grandparents. Church goers, active in the community, married for nearly 60 years before my grandfather passed a few years ago. My grandmother never worked outside of the home until he passed. She made us meals, taught us lessons, took us to church and helped support my sick mother. Their other three daughters all married, are still married, successful and happy. My mother is the black sheep.
My whole life I have taken hold of the lessons my grandmother taught me and resented my mother. I have always strived to be like grandma. She is a saint and I am so blessed to have had her there to help ease the mess my parents made of their lives.
By and large, I really think grandparents ( and also usually sisters and sisters in law) are great.
I do understand that many women feel disconnected when they are at home, and they feel like they don't get much adult time. Here's again, where experiences are different. When my first was born, there was a new mother network where you could come and sit on the floor in a big carpeted room and chat. They had lists of resources for joining playgroups, museums, etc., and where to meet other mothers. I was very connected, and did things with other moms and kids probably 4 days a week. If you don't jump right into that, it would be terribly lonely. So I get that.
I agree. Discussions like these don't have to be disagreements. It is always good to see both sides. I cannot say that I disagree with anything I have read here. I am in the middle. RR and Peek, you have both, IMO, added some very valuable insight.
I kind of felt lost when I first started to stay home (while pregnant--I was working at a home daycare and kept getting sick and my ob/gyn told me that if my job isn't putting food on the table, I should quit so I stop getting sick). Anyway...it was hard. I was ingrained in the whole mentality of identifying who I was with what I did for a living. When our son was a toddler, I remember going to a barbecue that one of my husband's coworkers had--two different women who worked for the company came up to me at different times during the course of the afternoon and started a conversation with me. All went well until they asked me what I "did". When I told one, her face dropped and she saw someone else she had to say "hi" to and she excused herself. The other went on about how bored she'd be staying home with her kids and how rewarding her career was. I felt awful that day. It wasn't until I surrounded myself with like-minded women in the same situation that I felt better and not so lost. I knew in my heart that my job was WAY more important than theirs, but that's not what society believes--it's not what they believed.
This is where I think new SAHMs struggle--I think many women have become like men in that they identify who they are by their careers. It seems to me that the pendulum is swinging back to society respecting moms being home with their children, but when my 12 yo was a baby, it wasn't like that. It may still be like that now, but I simply am not around people who make me feel bad about being home with my baby, so I really wouldn't know for certain.
And I have similar memories to RR's--my mom was home and loving and played games with us and let us play with the hose and eat popsicles and she took us sledding and plopped down and made snow angels with us and she raked piles of leaves for us to play in and she handmade all our Halloween costumes and she was my Girl Scout troop leader and she was just very, very involved. Perhaps my view of this topic would be different if I had experienced something different growing up.
I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. I do understand that different people have different life experiences and different situations warrant different choices.
Jen, I think working part-time would be the ideal as well. Unfortunately for me, I would lose my benefits if I dropped to part-time and dh's job doesn't have insurance. I could take a pay cut, but not a pay cut AND losing my insurance. Hopefully someday, I'll find a p/t job that pays enough so we can afford to get insurance on our own.
RR, my mom stayed home with me and my 4 siblings. She didn't go to work until I was in 4th grade. My home life was great, all 4 of us went on to graduate from college and have good careers and we're all still married to our spouses. And yet, I don't necessarily think it was better than daycare would have been. So I hate to burst your epiphany...and maybe I didn't, because I'm only one person. I really don't mind the beliefs that you have and who knows? Maybe your opinion IS right. But I am one of the people who does the best they can. I'm taking tomorrow off to be with DS and I try to do that as often as possible.
I'm not at all saying my mother was not loving. She loved us very much. She did the best she could. I don't know what went on in my infancy or very early childhood, as I don't have memories back then as others apparently do. But I'm sure she was not abusive.
I remember life getting a whole lot better after she went to work. And I'm sure her working financed my college. For that, I'm so grateful. I doubt I could have done it without my parents help. Or at least, it would have been much harder and taken a lot longer, and I just don't have that sort of attention span. I might have not finished.
I'm just saying that there is no one clear answer. The answer is not "nature says you should do XYZ" and that's that. There are always shades of gray. We have choices, and no one should be made to feel as though they are damaging their child. I grew up ok, despite the fighting parents and a good deal of disfunctionality in our family. You can also have the most loving family in the world and grow up to have serious problems.
And as for the article..those women are clearly from a different income group than would probably be the norm around here. Most of them don't "have" to work, or have money issues that can be easily solved by simply cutting back on expenses. Not everyone has such simple solutions to money problems.
I'd love to not work. I've worked enough, I think. I enjoy it, but there comes an end to everything. Right now, its important that we keep the house in North Carolina. Its important to my husband right now to have his job here. We're a family, for all our warts. So we have to have 2 full time incomes--again, its about our choices, not what nature intended. I still cook and do most of the "traditional" female household duties--I love to cook.
We're winding down the spending, but we live on a cash and carry basis anyway. No more unauthorized motorcycles are coming into the Peekahold. In fact, his majesty just sold the 4 wheeler. I think he'll sell a couple more bikes. Still, in SoCal, its very expensive to live. So I'll be working a while longer.
RR: My mom stayed home with five kids, she didn't go back to work until I was well into my teens and my youngest sibling had started school. My mom did a great job with us. We achieve well academically, have good friends, are happy etc. I don't regret the time my mom spent with us as I love her dearly but I would have been happy for her to be a working mom if thats what she wanted as would the rest of my family. I believe we turned out well because of who our parents were, not because my mother happened to be a SAHM.
And for the record I fully intend on having children one day but I also fully intend on being a working mom. Just because I had a good childhood with my mom at home does not mean I am going to do likewise when I have kids nor does it mean that I would have had a bad childhood or turned out differently just because my mom worked. All parents have to let their kids go to some degree at some point be that at daycare, school or a private childcare provider.
I believe women should have a choice. Working moms who have to work should not be made to feel guilty for working but neither should moms who CHOOSE to work because it is what they want. I am in the middle of a difficult, prestigous degree in a top university in my country. (I am honestly not bragging I am saying this purely for the purpose of my point of view) I worked my a$$ off to get into it and I have to work darn hard to keep my place. At the end I will get an excellent, well paying job. That is my dream, it is also my dream to have children. I am not going to give up one dream for the other nor do I have to. I believe that I have the ability to do both and neither will suffer as a result of the other. I have not studied for years to give it all up to be a SAHM. Not that there is anything wrong with that as long as It is something you want, as I said my mother was a SAHM even though she was a qualified nurse and I have the utmost respect for her. I know I do not have children so I may have to rethink doing both when I do but women should have a choice in my opinion.
You'll rethink it. Trust me. It's only natural to look into that little face, in total awe of the miracle of it all, and not want to be apart all day. Your desire to work may outweigh that and you may choose to stay home or work part-time or whatever...but have no doubt--you will rethink it when the time comes.
I always knew I would work. I wanted to be a nurse, I went to school to be a nurse, I enjoy(ed) being a nurse, and knew I could do both.
I feel I was in awe of my babies, loved them, took care of them...AND worked. Full time. Did I want to be apart from them? No. But that's what I choose, and again...its about choice. I didn't have to use a lot of daycare, but there were times they went, according to my schedule.
Don't insist she'll "rethink" it, as if she has the incorrect thinking right now. She may rethink it, she may not. Either way, she sounds as if she'll do what she wants, which is as it should be. I believe she'll love her babies, working or not.
This is where I feel weird. When my son was born, I had that awe of him and was (and still am) completely in love with him. But at the same time, I have never had issues about being apart from him for a few hours at a time. None at all.
I guess I'm abnormal that way, that I don't feel a strong need or desire to be with my son when he's separated from me for 3-8 hours at a time. Granted, I think about him, talk about him, brag about him, gaze at his pictures, and LOVE going to pick him up from daycare and have him jump into my arms with a huge grin on his face and yell, "Mommy!"
But at the same time, he's eager to get to daycare in the mornings and gets excited when I pull into the parking lot. He's always been this way, even as a baby. So I know he has no issues of separation anxiety. I know he's in the care of people I can trust and that will look after for him lovingly and diligently.
Most importantly though, I know the trust and bond between my son and me is what makes this possible. Trevor KNOWS that I'll always come back for him, I'll always be there to take care of his important needs first, and I'll be there for him at the drop of a hat if they call me. He knows this and is secure in this, because I've never let him down. I think that's what makes any parent/child bond what it is, whether working parents or SAHMs.
Or maybe I'm just abnormal and a bad mom with an abnormal son.
I had a wonderful childhood with a stay at home mom. It was like "leave it to beaver"..(I know I keep using that show!).
However, I work, and LIKE to work...AND I ADORE MY DAUGHTER!
So, I had a great childhood with a SAHM and I choose to be working mom. Not only is money an issue (big issue), but I am happier when I am working. It is my personal decision. However, I do not feel it hurts my child in any way. I know she is also a very happy little girl and well-adjusted.
I said nothing different than what you said, Peek. You just obviously are watching and trying to find something inflammatory in what I write. And that's ok.
I just think that everyone rethinks things when they are actually IN the situation no matter what they may think while imagining being in the situation. I didn't say she'd CHANGE HER MIND...I said that she'd rethink it (think about it again). I think it would be pretty abnormal to make a life decision like that about the future and never think about it again when you get to that particular point in life.
No "and back we go". Unless you want to, of course. :)
I don’t really need to write that a young child being home with mom is best unless the mother is a neglectful, abusive addict, who does not want to be with her child, do I? I really didn’t think I would have to specify that, but maybe I do? If the quality of home life is bad, the house is filthy and/or smoke-filled, and the mother is abusive, neglectful, and/or has addiction issues, and doesn't want to be with the child, then the child would obviously be better off in an institutional setting with people who will keep him safe and entertained. If the mom is a decent person who enjoys being with her child and can keep him safe and entertained, then I believe the child is better off being with her.