The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children

page: 2
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I can see some may have no choice .
But for others their house ect is more important than the child.
I can only say my mother was my world when I was a little child .
It might take a village to raise a child ( I hate that saying too) but there has to be at least one primary relationship for a child to feel secure and not a part time one at that. There is no point in me saying any more except I agree.
Thanks for speaking back ollncasino I like your avatar I had one of those dogs years ago. cheers 1%




posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The only thing this PROOF shows is that lack of interaction is detrimental to children and I don't think any study was needed to prove that. And your title places all the blame on the working mother.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I don't believe it's knocking the working mums .It is the system ,the way it's set up ,more value needs to be put on parenting it aint easy .I have to stay away from this thread cheers anyway 1%
To add interaction is not love.
edit on 24-3-2013 by my1percent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
The only thing this PROOF shows is that lack of interaction is detrimental to children and I don't think any study was needed to prove that. And your title places all the blame on the working mother.


I think many mothers are forced to work because of economic circumstances. BTW, this thread isn't about blaming mothers. It is about the best interest of the children.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
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.

People will clench their fists and stamp their feet and shout "sexism!", but sexism isn't the intent at all. It has been shown time and time again that mothers are much more important to a child's development than fathers are. People need to accept that the mother is the nurturer and the father is the provider. And I'm not even saying that from an old fashioned fundamentalist standpoint, because I'm actually a progressive leftist. People will say it's an old fashioned and sexist point of view, but they seem to be forgetting that nature just works that way. It's the way evolution churned everything out.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Our kids have become novelty "pets" that we drop off and pick up at our own leisure.

Blame the increasingly demanding society we live in for that. It seems like every decade people have to work longer hours and spend less time at home. Prices go up and up and up, wages don't go up very much at all, if they even do, and it's only going to get worse. The cost of living is so expensive now that both people have to work increasingly long hours just to pay the bills and provide sustenance.

This "sustainable society" we live in is wonderful, isn't it?
edit on 24-3-2013 by Xaphan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
People will clench their fists and stamp their feet and shout "sexism!", but sexism isn't the intent at all. It has been shown time and time again that mothers are much more important to a child's development than fathers are.


I suspect that it is the media that is pushing the agenda of big business. In other words, get women out working so they can afford to spend more.

The Western media was largely bought and paid for by their advertisers a number of years ago.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I didn't say the article or the study placed blame on the working mother, I said your title did.
Big difference.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xaphan
People will clench their fists and stamp their feet and shout "sexism!", but sexism isn't the intent at all. It has been shown time and time again that mothers are much more important to a child's development than fathers are. People need to accept that the mother is the nurturer and the father is the provider.


I would argue until I am blue in the face that your wrong - totally wrong in fact. As long as the parent is supporting and loving, it matters not what sex they are.

Painting mothers as the best place for a child is what the courts do, yet time and again we're shown stories of kids being killed by the mother and/or their new partner - we hardly ever see any stories about Dad's doing that.

Now, I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it is also wrong to assume that mothers are the paragon of parenting and fathers are just an "also ran"...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
As long as the parent is supporting and loving, it matters not what sex they are.



Of course a father can provide support and love every bit as effective as a mother. You make a fair point.

Interestingly, the article makes that very point even if the title didn't make that clear.

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



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Interestingly, the article makes that very point even if the title didn't make that clear.


It did


I think though that there is a danger of drawing to many generalisations from the study. If you read that in the mail and didn't really find out the meat of the subject, it could severely compromise your opinions about parenting/childcare..



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

I think though that there is a danger of drawing to many generalisations from the study. If you read that in the mail and didn't really find out the meat of the subject, it could severely compromise your opinions about parenting/childcare..


I would go a little further. I would say that it is dangerous taking studies in general at face value about any subject. I suspect that the conclusions are often already decided in the researchers mind before any data is collected.

It is refreshing however to see a study that bucks the trend of pushing women out of the house into the workforce.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   
This is just a rehash of maternal deprivation hypothesis, which has been around since the 50's. So we've known for many years that insecure attachment during childhood has a detrimental effect on global functioning, and can be observed in the emotional states psychiatry has pathologised as personality disorder.
edit on 24-3-2013 by particlezen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The woman had the most necessary job in society back when they took care of the family. That job has been deleted and the new social conditioning of daycares and inschool conditioning has been implemented. One food does not fit all in relation to genetic needs. This practice has made a mess of things.

I may sound bias but the mother going to work full time was the worst thing that happened to this country. When I was a kid, the mothers who worked full time had a higher percentage of kids that were disruptive and bullies. Part time was not so much of a problem though. We got a mess.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I worked outside the home when my children were growing up, but, my husband and I worked split shifts while they were young so one of us was there. It was hard, but we did it. When we didn't work split shifts my mom would watch the kids. When I was a child my grandparents watched us when my mom worked outside the home. We have always been lucky to have family around, and I think it made a huge difference on the developement of our children.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by stumason
As long as the parent is supporting and loving, it matters not what sex they are.



Of course a father can provide support and love every bit as effective as a mother. You make a fair point.

Interestingly, the article makes that very point even if the title didn't make that clear.

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


It is a fair point. Although the mother-child bond is overally stronger than father-child bond. Especially in the first years.

In my opinion, the best for the child would be. Caring mother takes care of the child, while father works and in the evening father takes care of the child.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
the 50's were a great time to grow up - when my wife and i started a family we decided she would stay home and raise them.We have never regretted that and have never looked back.
We allowed all of our kids to have their buddies over on weekends and we have fed more kids than most.

Women you make great Moms and that is all the world needs - and - it is the most important job in the world.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I see in this, a good place to start looking for the depersonalization which the latest young mass murderers were able to achieve......
The lack of ability to identify with or communicate to others.......which seems all to common these days....
The media is enamoured with violence, and the early developement years end up being spent increasingly in front of a TV......
Couple the lack of interaction with mom, to this endless violent parade of programs and this is the natural result.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I've always believed that what happens in the first 3 years of life can have an enormous impact on the individual.

When I was 2, I was placed in a children's home for a few days with my slightly older brother, because my mother had to go into hospital to give birth (my dad, who worked nights, couldn't cope).

Of course I was too young to know where I was or why I was there and assumed my mother had abandoned me, so I was very disturbed and constantly vomiting.

To this day, I believe I was and am affected by this traumatic event, which has had repercussions on my development, personality and life choices.

I am a firm believer that primary care-givers should not have to go out to work till the child is AT LEAST 3; it ought to be recognised as a job in itself.

Though I doubt this will cut much ice with today's capitalists.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

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)


I have known many Mothers who work, my stepsons Mother would leave him at age 10 to babysit the little 5 year old while she had drinks after work with friends most nights.

I taught my kids to read at age 3, I played with them and spent time with them and so they turned into really good decent people.

I on the other hand felt it ridiculousness to trust some person with my children and get money at a job i pat to her. I stayed and raised my kids and you know what...I am the one no one respects.

People always use the words..OH you don't do anything...or SO you don't work...in a derogatory tone. Husbands have started saying "she doesn't help me pay the bills", clearly not seeing what it save she takes care of her own home and kids!

It all stinks the lack of respect for those who care for their own!
edit on 24-3-2013 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
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. :/


If Mom does this, what will; the babysitter be doing? Worse i am sure, at least Mom will care about the housewhork the food and the kids way more then a stranger in most instances.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join