Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+18 more 
posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
In the first 3 years of a baby's life, its brain doubles in size. When a mother, father or grandparent spends time with a baby, every giggle, every chuckle and every tickle is literally growing the child's brain.

In contrast, leaving a child under 3 in a nursery with a carer who typically doesn't really care that much about interacting with the baby, leads to the child very quickly feeling anxious and stressed, negatively impacting normal mental development.


A fascinating example of this in practice is Dr. Edward Tronick's Still Face Experiment.

It shows what happens when an attentive mum ceases to respond to her baby. It is a powerful warning of what can happen if an adult in charge of a baby doesn't really bother. You can see and hear the child's stress level rise within seconds.

High levels of group care before the age of two have been associated with increased anti-social behaviour. A recent study found young children cared for by their mothers did significantly better in developmental tests than those in any other sort of care.

Daily Mail


Still Face Experiment: Dr. Edward Tronick


Using the "Still Face" Experiment, in which a mother denies her baby attention for a short period of time, Tronick describes how prolonged lack of attention can move an infant from good socialization, to periods of bad but repairable socialization. In "ugly" situations the child does not receive any chance to return to the good, and may become stuck.

Link


Not only has a lack of early interaction with children been associated with stress and a lack of normal mental social development, a senior Scottish policeman and world-famous expert on violence has linked much of the crime he has studied with inadequate early child care.


John Carnochan, a senior Scottish policeman and world-famous expert on violence, linked the terrible things he's dealt with all his professional life to the inadequate care babies get.

Daily Mail


Don't get me wrong. I am not condemning working women who are forced to go out and work to make ends meet. What normal mother doesn't want to spend time with their small child rather than work?

It is wrong that many women are forced to go out and work to make ends meet.


edit on 24-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
can i get a grant to film a short education movie showing kristen stewart play with a baby too?
edit on 24-3-2013 by PLAYERONE01 because: (no reason given)


+17 more 
posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Maybe this explains why each generation seems to be getting worse. Less stay at home moms (or dads) every year. Could be the real cause behind declining family values instead of the usual scapegoats (you know, gays, video games/movies ect). Not saying we should go back in time on women's rights, some, like single parents, have no choice, but this could be the cause. Stay at home moms are looked down on these days. trust me on that, some people think I'm lazy. The proof is in the pudding though, my kid is both smarter and well adjusted than most kids her age. That's not parental pride talking either, that's something others have observed about her as well.
Sounds like the "entitled generation" wasn't hugged enough, but instead just handed what would shut them up and pacify them. S&F



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by PutAQuarterIn
Stay at home moms are looked down on these days. trust me on that, some people think I'm lazy.


Not by me they aren't.

Developing the next generation is the most important thing any society can do. Mothers have a vital job to do.

Sadly, in the UK many mothers are forced to work.

Mothers in the home ‘being forced into workforce’


“Most women who are going back to work have a job, not a career. They are doing soulless, heartless jobs, such as working on a cash till at a supermarket.”

Mothers in the home ‘being forced into workforce’


I suspect that the vast majority of working mothers would prefer not to do so, no matter what the chattering classes that write our newspapers would like us to believe.

edit on 24-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by PutAQuarterIn
 


Don't forget that mothers who stay home these days are occupied with technology rather than their children. I've witnessed it many times with a few different people including my cousin who had her child a little over a year or two ago. She works, comes home, says hi to the baby for 20 minutes and starts texting, all while her son sits on the floor playing and occasionally walks around going to every person he can for attention. He's been shooting hoops on his little Playskool hoop since he was a few months, and he already dribbles and passes full sized basketballs that come at about a third his size. If the mental development becomes an issue, I guess he always has basketball to resort to. :/



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children


... scientific proof - no
... anecdotal evidence - yet however marginal and at its' most, hmmm... maybe/maybe not??.

There are a multitude of variables that occur prior to conception, during gestation, post birth and throughout those critical formative years that contribute to a child's development.

To isolate and put the spotlight on one of those contributing variables tends to disregard many other factors and meanwhile it potentially alienates a particular socio-economic group that may well be parents/caregivers of the highest order.

It will continue to be a contentious issue though, that may never be determined scientifically.


+3 more 
posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
I have long suspected that the trend since the 60's, of women choosing to work outside the home while their kids are babies, might be a responsible factor for many problems we face today- most specifically lack of social skills.

But I don't usually dare to express it outloud because it is such a sensitive topic for so many women! I don't want to make any women feel guilty, and I understand their dilemma.

I have three kids, one was born in the US, and spent time in day care from the age of 6 months up to school age, and the two others, I was able to stay at home with.

That first one is the least socially adjusted of the three. He is clumsy and shy, and has trouble reading what is the most appropriate response to others around him. I can't help but wonder if it is not because of that.
Even when I got him from childcare in the evening, I was so exhausted I probably didn't interact with him sufficiently then either.
edit on 24-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I reckon that's true about fathers too to at least some extent. I'm sure the absence of a father for 9/10 hours of the day is also damaging to a child's development when compared to having a father present. But as, for many at least, father being out working and mother being at home is seen as the the traditional norm people forget that traditional values themselves aren't perfect. In a perfect world, both parents would somehow be present around their child for the full development. Either way, it seems to be putting women down without entertaining the effects of the same idea with genders reversed.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Reply to post by ollncasino
 


The title of this thread is sexist, it should be parents not mothers. Some fathers stay at home with the kids or could stay at home with the kids instead of working. Nice try though.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

The title of this thread is sexist, it should be parents not mothers. Some fathers stay at home with the kids or could stay at home with the kids instead of working. Nice try though.


Nothing sexist about the headline at all.

The article made the point that fathers, grandparents or any other primary care giver who stays at home can provide the mental interaction that children under 3 need.

The article and OP is about children under three's mental development. It isn't about feminism, equality of the sexes or even the parents. It is about children's welfare.




edit on 24-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Perhaps
There are a multitude of variables that occur prior to conception, during gestation, post birth and throughout those critical formative years that contribute to a child's development.


Any number of single factors can damage a child's mental development. A mother going out to work appears to be one of them.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I don't really hold much stock in this, especially the Daily Mail spin on the research anyway.

I've got 3 kids all of whom have had both of us go out to work and none of them could be called stupid, socially awkward or unhappy. My eldest daughter went to a childminders from 6 months and a nursery from 18 months until she went to school and she has to be the most socially well developed of the three.

Granted, I do work shifts which affords me 4 days off in 8, so I was around a lot, but this seems to me to be the Daily Mail with their usual agenda spinning a piece of research to fit it.

And, despite your protestations, the title of this thread is sexist. The research clearly shows they used fathers/grandparents as well as mothers, but you've chosen the mother line. Your title should read "send both parents out to work...."



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

I've got 3 kids all of whom have had both of us go out to work and none of them could be called stupid, socially awkward or unhappy. My eldest daughter went to a childminders from 6 months and a nursery from 18 months until she went to school and she has to be the most socially well developed of the three.


A child minders and nursery assistants can give children the interaction they require. Not all do. Many are more interested in talking with their colleagues about the soap opera they watched last night.

Choose a child minder/nursery with care.


Originally posted by stumason
And, despite your protestations, the title of this thread is sexist.


You think so?

I'm not sure that that a headline that stated

"The scientific PROOF that sending mothers and fathers or other primary care giver out to work harms children unless a grandparent, a child minder, next door neighbor, auntie, uncle or other person, of either sex, including members of the LGBT community, gives the child sufficient interaction"

has quite the same ring to it.

Still, one can't use the term 'mother' to denote the primary care giver of children under 3. Not in these politically correct times...


edit on 24-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
A child minder can give children the interaction they require. Not all do. Many are more interested in talking with their colleagues about the soap opera they watched last night .


As can a Nursery. That is why it is important to research where you put your kids and see if they are good enough. As a parent, this is your responsibility not anyone else's. It isn't as simple as blanketing the whole sector and saying "Look, bad, don't do!".



Originally posted by ollncasino
You think so?


Yes, as an active Father who hates it when the media focusses on mothers and ignores dads, I most certainly do.


Originally posted by ollncasino
I'm not sure that that a headline that stated

"The scientific PROOF that sending mothers and fathers or other primary care giver out to work harms children unless a grandparent, a child minder, next door neighbor, auntie, uncle or other person, of either sex, including members of the LGBT community, gives the child sufficient interaction"

has quite the same ring to it.


Hence why I said "both parents" to replace "mother". Would have worked quite nicely and didn't need to be quite as long as your ever-so-witty reply



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Still, one can't use the term 'mother' to denote the primary care giver of children under 3. Not in these politically correct times...


Because, in this day and age, it isn't always the mother who is the "primary care giver of children under 3". I was such a person with my eldest as her mother and I were split up. Your are simply displaying continued sexism and sexual stereotyping by assuming that mothers are the "primary care giver of children under 3". It could also be a Grandparent, an Aunt or your live in Transexual Man-Girl...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Hence why I said "both parents" to replace "mother". Would have worked quite nicely and didn't need to be quite as long as your ever-so-witty reply


But that would have excluded primary care givers who are not actually parents, for instance a grandparent.


Originally posted by stumason
Yes, as an active Father who hates it when the media focusses on mothers and ignores dads, I most certainly do.


But what about grandparents who would hate it if the media focused on mothers and fathers and ignored grandparents who are primary care givers?

Look, you have a point but if you want to split hairs, other people can do so as well.





edit on 24-3-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Your are simply displaying continued sexism and sexual stereotyping by assuming that mothers are the "primary care giver of children under 3". It could also be a Grandparent, an Aunt or your live in Transexual Man-Girl...


There is nothing sexists and sexual stereotyping about assuming a mother as the primary care giver.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Children need love and cannot be properly loved by strangers.
I tried child care briefly and my 3 year old was well out of nappys , she had an accident and was made to wear a nappy which was humiliating to her , she was most upset about it.
I personally disagree with babies being put in child care especially a week after being born then left there all day ,how is that child supposed to bond with it's parents.
Why have a child if your gonna dump it with strangers , go without all that material crap after all the most important thing in life are our relationships.
You can be broke and happy after all, the best things in life are free.
If this comes across as a rant so be it.
I get really upset by children being hurt esp emotionally.
The children are our future and more should be done to make them healthy
1%



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by my1percent
I personally disagree with babies being put in child care especially a week after being born then left there all day ,how is that child supposed to bond with it's parents.

Why have a child if your gonna dump it with strangers , go without all that material crap after all the most important thing in life are our relationships.


Why indeed have children if one then dumps them in child care.

Even the best child carer isn't as interested in a child as a mother.

Sadly however, many poorer parents are forced to do so to make ends meet. Many more affluent parents however choose a career over being a full time mother and rationalize it away as not mattering. Maybe many times it doesn't matter but child carers should be choosen with great care.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
This will sound bad, but Mothers do belong in the home with the children.

Not because of any male sexist belief, but because my personal experiences have taught me that the Mother is very, very important to the development of the kids.

My wife has been a stay-at-home mom for almost 14 years. Our kids have some issues just like any other, but they are not even comparable to the little heathens they go to school with or even the kids of our friends.

My question is: Why have kids if they will be raised by a daycare?

There is a daycare 2 blocks from work and in the afternoon the kids are lined up at the front window looking like puppy dogs that just want someone to take them home.

Our kids have become novelty "pets" that we drop off and pick up at our own leisure.






top topics



 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join