The scientific PROOF that sending mothers out to work harms children

Very good topic. Its sad though that a study has to prove to people that a mother leaving her child is damaging to their growth. Any old fashioned thinker will know that mothers best place is at home with the children. IF the children are grown up, sure go out and work. But when they are small, they gotta be with the baby.

And I read another comment, that stay at home mothers are looked down upon. What is wrong with people??? Who is going to watch the children? 1 person in the family must take care of them, unless your a single parent its different. Mothers are the best chosen role for children hands down. Designed that way from the beginning.

Originally posted by FidelityMusic


Hold up, did you just say your child is now a teen, or that you currently have a baby? If you read what I said, I said these days, as in had a baby the last couple of years. That's the experience I've had with the young mothers of this day, currently, not 5 years ago, not 10 years ago, not 15 years ago, I'm talking about the present.

There were distractions 20 years ago as well - Computers (I worked from home part-time - but didn't when my child was awake) TV (never on when my child was at home) and I was more needed when she was a teen (I worked at her school, drove her well everywhere).

I don't get your hostility.... do you really think it was easier 20 or 30 years ago. Do you think you have it so much harder?

I commend all parents who spend attention on their child because children need attention - which reguires focus and listening and time, lots and lots of time.

No - I was unable to work full-time and be a good mom. I managed to be a good enough mom working part-time and being available for my daughter 24/7 for 20 years. Nothing and no on is perfect.

I wasn't even responding to a post of yours WTF?

I'm not saying this as any disrespect but I see Mothers who work and Fathers who have no idea how to help out or don't care to learn how to. In this day and age, with the cost of living, it takes two to make ends meet and to share the responsibities. If you ask me women returning to work has just proven how's absent the Fathers still are.
Own up fellas... It's your responsibility too.

Originally posted by IWant2Believe323
I'm not saying this as any disrespect but I see Mothers who work and Fathers who have no idea how to help out or don't care to learn how to. In this day and age, with the cost of living, it takes two to make ends meet and to share the responsibities. If you ask me women returning to work has just proven how's absent the Fathers still are.
Own up fellas... It's your responsibility too.

We are not all like it, tbh I love being the primary care giver to my children, while I support my wife in her dreams, Frankly raising a child is one of the most well hidden secretes and is 100000000000% more rewarding then anything one can do in life.

There are some simple things that have made things the way they are to day and that is family debt living out side of ones means is the biggest contributing factors something i have never done or will do, I don't feel the need to keep up with the Jones at all. So to have money in the bank and still raise well adjusted children and still only have one income coming can be done and is done by many.

Originally posted by Perhaps
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.

You serve your masters well. I will be sure to recommend you for a midwinter bonus. However, your technique is a bit shabby. It's better not to start with an "attack" as it puts people on their guards. That's the last thing we want!

reply to post by FyreByrd


You obviously misinterpreted my first reply and now feel the need to continue to back your response. 20 years ago and today aren't even comparable. Computers in 1993? They cost $1000+ on the low end, the higher end PC's cost even more. Having a computer in 1993 was like owning a 4K TV today, very few had the money for that. The 1990's was the era of let the kids watch the TV for a while to occupy themselves, rather than you watch TV while the kids run around playing. Smartphones these days, every young adult has one. It's a completely different argument.

What are you talking about? Where does this having it easier stuff come from? Now you're just saying anything. You're either getting my posts confused with someone else or you're not getting what I'm saying, AT ALL.

Not replying to my post? What? You can look a page back, or to save you time here it is:

"Don't assume that all mothers act that way. I never had much time for anything but my child while is was little - even as a teen when she was home. Being a Mother is a 24/7 job.

I was going to say that staying at home with your child present in the house is a whole lot different then being a full-time Mom.

Please don't paint all Mothers with the brush of your limited experience of the breed."

Working mothers are a factor imo in the ongoing ever increasing degrading disfuctional youths in society.

But its got to the point that the disfuctional youths have grown to an age that have children of their own.

Working or not is neither here nor there,if the parents are still personally selfish in mentality and emotionally juvenile to raise children to adulthood and pass on quality traits in love respect responsibility etc if they were never taught themselves.

I find it a scary thought thinking about what will be in 20 years from now.

These two examples are just from todays headlines from the news site I read...(let alone what I see from day to day.)

How does a 2 month old baby have a blood alcohol level of 0.03?
Cot death: Father denies giving baby alcohol

Not all mothers are nurturing or protective.
Wo man leaves baby in shop's carpark with note to 'call mum if I need anything'

This doesn't suggest it is necessary for mothers to stay at home. In fact, the study suggests the same thing could be replicated with a father. Therefore, it makes no differences if it is the woman staying home, or the man.

Secondly, on this note, of stay at home mums, it was only following the industrial revolution that the men started being seen as the breadwinners and the women the "stay at home mums", taking care of the children.

This may come as a shock to many people, but in previous structures of political organization, many women had high profile positions in government, and worked just as much as men. However, none-the-less, it is likely that children still spent more time with their mothers and fathers.

Furthermore, in even earlier societies, such as those of the hunter gatherer, the women would also bring large amounts of energy and calories to the table. This is because throughout the whole year, they spent their time gathering, which provided more calories than the hunting actually did.

I just wanted to point out this historical fact, that this notion that the woman should stay home and take care of the kids is a relatively recent one.

Originally posted by ollncasino

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)

He said the title was sexist not the "article" and yeah it is sexist...if it wasn't it would say parents instead of moms.

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

You obviously misinterpreted my first reply and now feel the need to continue to back your response. 20 years ago and today aren't even comparable. Computers in 1993? They cost $1000+ on the low end, the higher end PC's cost even more. Having a computer in 1993 was like owning a 4K TV today, very few had the money for that. The 1990's was the era of let the kids watch the TV for a while to occupy themselves, rather than you watch TV while the kids run around playing. Smartphones these days, every young adult has one. It's a completely different argument.

And I just don't know where this hostility is coming from. What does being a Mom have to do with the cost of computers or smart phones. People actually had more money in the 1990's than they do now and tended to spend what they had in a wiser, IMO.

No we didnt' have cell phones - thank TPTB.

I don't know why I am bothering with this - don't understand your ***. Honestly - I just don't like being told what MY life was like and the value their of by someone that appears to feel - well I don't know what.

If your children are distracted - take the toys away - Mothers have been doing that for hundreds of years. You may have to deal with their tamtrums for a while but it does go away. It's not the ***** toys that are the problem, It's the parenting or lack thereof.

I'll take my own advise and ignore the bad behavior.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Wow.. You really are lost in some other conversation. You have a good day. Lol.

Has any males went out to shop lately?

I spend 2 hours shopping for a winter jacket last December, in that 2 hours, 90% of the shop i visited are for females, if it has any male stuff, its in a small square corner of the store. The same mall, was like 50%/50% male:female shops 6-7 yrs ago.

What i mean is, women(not all obviously) are not going to give up their work for their kids while commercialism takes higher priority in their thought.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


That's probably because father always been out of the house, the "latest" change was the the mothers.

What is worse than sexism is to be afraid to discuss things because people will call you sexist.

Discussion is different from hate speech.

You know that dads can stay home and look after the kids too, right ?

reply to post by ollncasino


more war on women

reply to post by FyreByrd


You also do realize that the only quiet personal time for myself 100% alone that would be the drive to and from work, being good working parents implies a huge amount of energy both mental and physical

reply to post by ollncasino


this is absolutely true...but, at the same time, having both parents on hand is even better.

however, it's not very practical because of economic considerations; exacerbated by the fact that imported goods & services are more affordable

On top of all this, healthcare is ridiculously expensive in this country which I think is because of all the foreign aid & wars the gov't funds.

imvho, it makes more sense to improve life domestically i.e. Romney's 47%

my kids loved being at the YMCA, and they are both super smart and very well adjusted happy kids

and why can't the dad stay home ? or grandma ?

dumb thread

reply to post by syrinx high priest


As a working mother I wish I could stay home with my kids but the ever increasing costs of gas, oil, groceries and taxes among other things, doesn't allow it. By the way my older children are honors students younger one is just getting into school and well adjusted and smart as well.