Feminist or FemiNazi? Truth and Myth

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Interesting, isn't that what happens when parents work away, leaving children alone and unattended, or attended by a stranger...

Alone? Unattended? Where did you get that from my post? And I said a GOOD daycare and have emphasized that several times. The scenario you described is nothing like a good daycare. And if the child goes there regularly, the caretakers are not strangers.

When both parents work 9 to 5, whos becoming the parental figure?

The parents are the parental figures! Have you heard of quality over quantity? That is what I have tried to put forth. Perhaps I've not been clear. When parents plop their kids in front of a TV for 6 hours a night, that's NOT quality parenting.

When both parents come home, eat dinner together while discussing the day with their kids, asking questions and being emotionally available to them; when they have activities with their kids in the evening, such as playing games, taking walks, reading, discussion... That's quality parenting. Planning weekend activities with the kids and not just letting them OUT to explore and discover life on their own; setting time limits and other limits and being consistent... That's quality parenting.

I'm the first to say it's not easy, but responsible parenting is never easy, regardless who works.

And when both are working 9 to 5, whos teaching them morals?

The parents teach them morals. Other responsible adults help, but ultimately their parents teach them... I don't understand why you think kids can't be taught morals in the evening...

You know, parents do talk, some extensively, with the daycare workers. Most parents have very close contact with their child's caregiver. And ideally, the child care would be close to a parent who could have lunch with the kids or check in to see them once or twice a day.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Again, your under the assumption of a perfect world.

And you're assuming a worst case scenario.

Sure kids get hurt at daycare. And those are the ones in the news. They get hurt at school, at the neighbor's house and at home. Kids die at home! Fathers and Uncles abuse kids. Mothers beat kids and let them fall out of high-chairs and drown them in bathtubs.

The fact remains that kids with a parent at home all the time can grow up to be the unibomber. Kids whose parents both work can grow up to be perfectly well-adjusted, law abiding, contributing members of society.

It doesn't depend on whether or not the parents work, it depends on the overall quality of parenting given to the children.

It's a fact that kids who have one parent stay home, have a better childood. It is much better for childern to have contact with their parents during the day, not just at night when they are both tired...

-- Boat

So you're one of the people who thinks stating it as 'fact' makes it so? Don't suppose you have anything to back up this 'fact'?

In reality, it comes down to the quality of parenting whether a parent is home with the child all the time or just for part of the day. The idea that a parent at home all day is automatically better for the child is a myth.

A parent who is home all day can ignore their kid completely. The kid would be better off in child care to play with other children and get mental, physical and emotional stimulation.

Myths about Working Parents

Myth no. 1
Childcare dilutes the influence parents have on their children
Myth no. 2
Children have stronger bonds with parents who stay home than they do with parents who work full time outside the home
Myth no. 3
Children who have a stay-at-home parent develop better

The Working Mom Myth

A new study, published in the March issue of the journal Developmental Psychology, has exonerated mothers from charges of causing harm to their children by working. Reported by Elizabeth Harvey, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, the findings suggest that even children who were babies when their mothers started back to work did not suffer because of their moms' absence. Harvey evaluated the development and health of more than 6,000 youngsters, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

Um..."handbag.com"...from your link...

Myth no. 2
Children have stronger bonds with parents who stay home than they do with parents who work full time outside the home

In general it was found that childcare does not interfere with the attachment a child has to his or her parents.

However, there was one proviso here: researchers found that parents who had a secure relationship with their child before starting childcare did not need to worry about the effects of childcare on their relationship. However, for those children whose relationship with their parents was not so secure, childcare could pose some risks, which were increased if the childcare was full time, of poor quality and if it started at a very early age.


Handbag.com (HB link).

-- Boat

Originally posted by Boatphone

However, for those children whose relationship with their parents was not so secure, childcare could pose some risks, which were increased if the childcare was full time, of poor quality and if it started at a very early age.

Yes, could pose a risk if the child is insecure in his parental relationship and if the child care was poor quality. How many times have I stressed GOOD childcare?

So if the relationship between you and your child sucks and you leave them full time at a crappy childcare, it could pose some risks...

Your point?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your point?

Ha. My point is that many people cannot afford really good daycare. Also, it should be very clear that it is better to have a parent at home with small children than, a non-parent.

Just ask any small child if he or she would like to speand the day with mom or dad, orbabysitter. You will find that they will want to speand time with there parents.

It seems that the website "handbag.com" does not address the important high school years, where kids are too old for daycare, or full time sitters. If there are no parents home kids are likey to get into trouble; with sex, drugs or drinking.

-- Boat

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Boatphone]

When kids get a little older, they do need their parents around. That is a given. But as hokey as this may sound, that is the time in which both the mother and father have to establish a relationship with their pre-teens and teens in terms of conversing with them and making time to be involved in their activities.

Although freedom is something that kids in this age-group crave (I know I did), I think that the mark of good parenting is very relevant during this age because puberty is a very turbulent time. Kids during this age need role models more than ever. But at the same time, pre-teens and teens have to have the liberty also to establish their own identities as well.





[edit on 9-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Boatphone
Just ask any small child if he or she would like to speand the day with mom or dad, orbabysitter. You will find that they will want to speand time with there parents.

Oh, really? I'd like to see your study on that because frankly, I think the kids would choose the babysitter any day! Parents are controlling and boring...

It seems that the website "handbag.com" does not address the important high school years, where kids are too old for daycare, or full time sitters. If there are no parents home kids are likey to get into trouble; with sex, drugs or drinking.

High school? That's 14-18 years old, right? And you're proposing that kids need to have their parents home when they get home (for those 2-3 hours after school) so they won't get into drugs and the sex... Well, Boat, you live in an entirely different world than I do. That's about all I can say about that.

On another subject, I was reading about modern feminism as opposed to conventional feminism and I came across this article, which I find very interesting.

Although conflict between the more liberal and the more conservative branches of the feminist movement continues, the fact is that quite quickly feminism (or at least the more widely publicized liberal branch of the movement) has seemed to change its stance against sexual depersonalization to one that favors embracing everything from prostitution to pornography as venues for women's "taking control of" or "owning" their sexuality. ("Sexuality" here, it should be noted, has been redefined to mean, not how women interact in fundamentally human and potentially regenerative relationships with real-world human sex partners, but the sexual images and representations of themselves and the sexual services they — women — are willing to perform in exchange for money.)

Indeed, the authors who contributed essays to the book, "Liberty For Women," edited by Wendy McElroy, virtually universally support women's "freedom of choice," by which it seems is meant the right of women to do everything from bear arms to participate in the making of pornographic films to engage in prostitution, and damn the torpedoes (sorry). This certainly seems to me to be a somewhat radical departure from the view that all of the above-mentioned activities run decidedly counter to women's interests, at least if they wish to escape the influence of their male controllers.

I would have to say that even though I was around and somewhat aware during the more conservative feminist movement, I have always been a more liberal feminist, meaning I don't have a problem with pornography, prostitution, etc.

I wonder how others feel about that.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, really? I'd like to see your study on that because frankly, I think the kids would choose the babysitter any day!

Parents are controlling and boring...

Um, most young children love their parents, and want to be with them. If feminists are pushing the idea that contact with parents is unimportant, or "boring" then they are doomed for failure.

High school? That's 14-18 years old, right? And you're proposing that kids need to have their parents home when they get home (for those 2-3 hours after school) so they won't get into drugs and the sex...

Um, well first if parents are not at home, kids can skip school and have the house to themselves. Also, drug use and other high risk activites are a real problem for teens.

Teen Drug Use

Well, Boat, you live in an entirely different world than I do. That's about all I can say about that.

Yes, I live in the real world and you live in the leftist world. Where people make emotional arguments based on a need to have a perfect world, and ignore facts that cast doubt on their points of view...sad.

-- Boat

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Boatphone]

Originally posted by Boatphone
Um, well first if parents are not at home, kids can skip school and have the house to themselves. Also, drug use and other high risk activites are a real problem for teens.

Oh, and kids can't skip when their parents are home... nah.

I grew up in a two parent family, my mother didn't work. Sure didn't stop me from skipping. There's plenty to do even if you don't have a home to go to.
And it won't stop kids from using drugs, either. Kids will find ways to do what they want and what they want to do will not depend on whether there is a parent at home.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would have to say that even though I was around and somewhat aware during the more conservative feminist movement, I have always been a more liberal feminist, meaning I don't have a problem with pornography, prostitution, etc.

I wonder how others feel about that.

I am similar to you. I support women's ability to choose in all aspects, with regard to pornography, prostitution, etc. However, I fully understand and am sympathetic to the arguments made regarding more conservative feminism, especially regarding prostitution and pornography. I find the pornography issue extremely fascinating and it's one of my biggest interests in feminist writings. I have to run right now but this is something I would like to get into a little bit more.

Originally posted by parrhesia
Oh, and kids can't skip when their parents are home... nah.

And empty home is a easy place to get into trouble. They can skip but they won't have access to an empty home.

-- Boat

The World That We Live In

Originally posted by Boatphone
Yes, I live in the real world and you live in the leftist world.

Here in the ATS world, we comment on topics rather than other members.

Please avoid characterizing other members and try to stay on topic, even if it might tend to inflame rhetorical passions.

Sorry, I guess that was too much truth for this board. Deny Truth, right?

-- Boat

I keep telling my wife why all this comotion about feminist rights, feminist propaganda, feminist movment, and so on.
I dont see why when we as humans at the curent position are equal in rights.
It's just idiotic and it pisses me off.
I see magazines like, the female, the woman, shows like the woman's rights, woman's march.
It makes it look like "this thing the female" has arived from other space and none of us know it, we dont know what it is, how do we open it? , this is how they make it look.
Sorry to say but most ladys do in fact advartise them self as a product and are promoting it.
None are better every one is equal and there is no need for such things like "let us woman explain to you how we are"
What if I went and said , "let us men explain to you ladys how we are, we will make a show on tv" that is idiotic.
I feel there is a propaganda there, I'm not sure who made it, maybe it's made to make us weaker, us as man and woman.
No body is more special than the other, the woman is not more special than the man, the man is not more special than the woman, we are just people, we need eachother and probaly with out each other we would become all freaks, so why the need for this?

I have a question. What is it really about Teresa Heinz Kerry? On another thread, I read another poster characterize her as having a "big mouth". Unfortunately, I might have stuck my foot in mine when I answered back that the "poster" would probably prefer it if women were more like Dr. Rice and the First Lady: timid, demure and coddling "Daddy".

Why is it that some men do not like women who speak their mind? As a woman, I would much rather speak my mind than resign myself to being docile and practically on my knees doing the "Master's" bidding.

Why do women, in the public eye, get penalized for speaking out and being powerful? Is it less feminine to show your intelligence and speak out?

Or, can women be powerful and feminine too?

ceci, that is a wonderful question!

In my experience, some people don't like women who buck against the traditional role of 'Woman' in society. I suspect they are intimidated, threatened and/or confused by a strong, intelligent, opinionated and vocal woman like Kerry.

I know I have run into a certain opposition in my life for being as opinionated and vocal as the men in the group. For years, I worked in an engineering group and it was interesting to note that the men who were confident and secure in themselves and their abilities welcomed my thoughts and asked for my opinions. The others, who were less than self-confident, seemed to resent me and used words like 'emotional decisions' and 'irrational' when speaking to me, I can only assume in an attempt to intimidate me.

Strong, intelligent, outspoken women like Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Madonna, Cindy Sheehan and Teresa Heinz Kerry (and even Ann Coulter) meet with resentment and even hatred from people who disagree with them because they have the nerve to speak out for what they believe in, firmly and with passion. Men who do the same, are respected as having strength in their convictions, even if people disagree with them. They don't usually engender hatred like women do.

So, yeah, Laura Bush and Dr. Rice maintain the demure soft-spoken role that was originally assigned to women, and so men and women of any political persuasion don't particularly find them a threat or give them much credit or thought at all.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I have a question. What is it really about Teresa Heinz Kerry?

Teresa Heinz Kerry is a spoiled, and complete fool.

On another thread, I read another poster characterize her as having a "big mouth".

That poster was most likey referencing the many strange, and off-color statments that kept hurting the John Kerry campaign.

Like the time she claimed that Laura Bush had never held a real job in her adult life. Laura Bush was a school teacher and librarain for many years, as well as a home-maker.

Dr. Rice and the First Lady: timid, demure and coddling

You think Dr. Rice is timid? She is anything but timid.

Why do women, in the public eye, get penalized for speaking out and being powerful? Is it less feminine to show your intelligence and speak out?

Or, can women be powerful and feminine too?

They don't! They are many many powerful outspoken women! Just because Mz. Kerr is a women doesn't mean that she can't be a fool.

-- Boat

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Boatphone]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Boatphone]

I dont have anything against feminists but you got to admit that these people do not help everyone by walking around with a chip on their shoulder