Posted on 02/12/2006 9:10:43 AM PST by tbird5
The Sunday Times - Britain
The Sunday Times February 12, 2006
Child guru says nurseries harm small children Sian Griffiths ONE of the world’s most popular parenting gurus is to warn that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their development.
Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate” job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies.
The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.
In his new book Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.
He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
WHAT DAMN DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
And there are two others with as much, and nearly as much time that agree with me.
If you could tell #230 was coming, don't fault me because I could.
It doesn't. But you're the one that is saying we should distinguish the unweds from the divorcees from the widows.
P.S. Your CAPS LOCK is stuck.
I disagree with your premise that single mothers can't possible afford to stay at home with their children. Have you ever considered the possibility of working from home? I am always amazed to hear smart women insist that there is no way in the world to make a living other than leaving their home. Consider the machine that your are typing on at the moment. Is it possible that it can offer a sufficient paycheck to cover your bills?
The man was defending an attack on his wife.
You jumped in and added more insults.
I'm not agreeing with how he said it, but I most certainly agree that there are a number of FReepers who live in LaLaLand and think that what works for them must work for everyone.
No. There a hundred million work-at-home scams though! And they can fleece an unsuspecting woman of her savings in a heartbeat, leaving her with even less than she had to start with.
Also, even the legit ones do not offer health insurance and do not pay near enough to cover the expenses.
I have no idea what the hell you just said. Explain yourself.
If you've spent 20 years on threads like this, that explains alot about your arrested development.
The man invited an attack on his wife. He was just too naive to know it.
You jumped in and added more insults.
Which were anything but "unintelligent." You just didn't approve. That you can't make the distinction between intelligence and your personal approval, as well as your moral judgment of conceit against a man not bowing to your philosophical paradigm (i.e. taking credit for a well managed family), places you squarely in the category of altruist that unchecked becomes a tyrant according to Ayn Rand.
I'm not agreeing with how he said it, but I most certainly agree that there are a number of FReepers who live in LaLaLand and think that what works for them must work for everyone.
That's a straw man. It's not "living in LaLaLand" to recognize the coffee is going to taste bad if you pee in the well, because the outhouse is a longer walk.
I of course agree with you advice, but I will add that money isn't the issue in the vast majority of cases I've seen. It is usually a simple matter of priorities.
It means you've "flipped off" at least three long time FReepers in your attempt to save face.
So what explains your philosophical impotence before your wife?
me either. Cut those taxes...
I disagree with you, tyger.
He was plainly stating what worked for his family. If you consider that an invatation for an attack, than I don't know what to tell ya.
I called your response "unintelligent" because it wasn't a reasoned argument. It was a coy insult designed to inflame the emotions of the person you disagreed with. Debate is always good, but that crap-on-a-stick you posted belonged on DU.
Debate is indeed good, but if you think it's carried out like a game of checkers rather than chess, I recommend you lurk more.
I don't take offense, because you are so wrong about my wife and my relationship with her that you'd might as well be flaming a Martian from outer space. Your responses are actually very instructional to those who might be lurking: Some people have invested so much emotionally in their pet agenda that they will defend it any cost, and will not entertain any suggestion of subtlety or flexibility to fit circumstances.
Have a great day, Paper, and flame away, but you're not going to get any more responses from me. My baby is excited to get to his babysitter now. I mention her name, and he dances.
We'll agree to disagree then.
You are right, of course. Money wasn't the only reason for women going into the workforce bigtime. Perhaps the rising rate of divorce caused that, for women needed to find work to support their children, and attempt to maintain their standard of living. And then feminism raised its ornery head, and gave women reason to feel wasted as stay at home moms - they needed to realize their "full potential". But in large part, money, credit cards, spiraling taxes and inflation, government getting into the medical business (there actually was a time when medical care was affordable by everyone!) made it necessary for women to contribute financially to the "nuclear family" in the very early days. Instant gratification became the norm. Priorities changed for whatever reason, and the children paid. And the children (the future)are still paying. Thus the entire country is now paying to its detriment.
Did you not get the memo you wrote saying:
"My wife would be MISERABLE staying at home with our son; she has said so herself...she would get stir crazy and lonely."?????
Now I don't know about your house, but around my home walking, talking, and swimming like a duck makes it a duck... even if one of us happens to be married to the duck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.