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 ...
I salute your graceful management of a little friendly ridicule. The film must have showed you something, even if I have trouble imagining it. :-)
As much as she wants to. I'm just not interested in supporting my own kids plus somebody else's. If she can figure out a way to survive some other way, that's cool. If she's got family and friends who will support her, that's cool too.
I just have no interest in playing the role of Atlas, supporting the world
There are families in the Third World who are starving TO DEATH through no particular fault of their own. Explain to me why they are less deserving of a given dollar of aid than a woman in the US who makes bad choices
Its all good stuff :)
I've always maintained these centers are part time orphanges. Only difference is that they get to leave and sleep at their part time homes with their part time parents. They are left in these orphanges to fend for themselves. They become overly aggresive (understandable). Most teachers can spot "daycare kids" immediately. My heart goes out to these poor children.
Coming early to pick up my 18 month old son, and no one knows who he is?
Last time he, my first born, and either of my next two children went to a "nursery", day care.
Wish I knew enough not to send them to public school either, but they survived, only because I was involved and nosy. After 18 years and three children in the public school system, the main problem is the parents, btw, the same parents that stuck their children in 'nurseries".
But the mothers are required to come off welfare. The kids have to go somewhere so the moms can work.
Again, a catch-22 in which the child pays the price of the mother's foolishness.
This is one of the reasons I encourage my girls to date guys from intact families so that there is the expectation from both sides that marriage is a bond that we don't walk away from when things get hard. Note I said encourage, not require. Teens can be squirrely enough to go against mom and dad just for the thrill of the unknown.
There is growing evidence that "nurseries" (daycare), the institutionalization of children ("It Takes A Village"), has the most horribly detrimental effect on children. At a critical period in their young lives, children are handed over to the care of strangers for upwards of 12 hours per day, and never get the opportunity to fully bond with their parents. This has lead to feelings of alienation and isolation and accounts for many of today's daycare children, now parents themselves, rejecting daycare in favor of stay-at-home parenting.
The institutionalization of children is one more failed social experiment perpetrated on America by liberals. Without a strong association between parent and child and a bedrock foundation of love and trust, daycares have relegated parents to the status of nighttime caretakers who substitute for the daytime caregivers. The children grow up never really understanding who their parents are and constantly being handed over to and grouped in with strangers.
No wonder so many of today's kids are confused and emotionally closed off. Hopefully, in the foreseeable future, daycare will become extinct as stay-at-home parenting becomes the norm.
They probably depended on the charity of the church, their family and of strangers.
My grandmother had to take in laundry to make ends meet after my grandfather left.
Anyone here is appalled at people sending their kids to day care should stop preaching and get busy. Get off their duffs, sign up to be a Big Brother or Big Sister, and make difference in a child's life. There are plenty of ways people can do that. Sometimes people find themselves in difficult situations, and instead of judging them, we should find ways to be a positive influence.
Really? Wow. Never would have thought of that idea. < /sarc >
Your wife shouldn't have had a child if she wasn't prepared to take care of said child. Pathetic!
Actually, studies show that divorce is more harmful. As far as the economic need for both parents to work, I took a look at the census income statistics and compared single worker homes versus two income homes. I posted this back in 2002.
Most families do have two parents living in the home. The 2000 census indicates that out the 71,787,347 family households in the United States, Married Couple households number 54,493,232 or 76% of family households. A "Married Couple" household is defined as a householder that is married and living with his/her spouse. The remaining 24% are split 18% and 6% for female with no male present and male with no female present, respectively.
For family households with children under 18, the stats breakdown as follows:
| Category | Number | Percent |
| Married Households | 24,769,650 | 72% |
| Female-No Male | 7,613,175 | 22% |
| Male-No Female | 2,197,006 | 6% |
With regard to two incomes, my comments are limited to the population of two income households. The proportion of such households was not an issue. But since you brought it up, we see that two income family (married couple) households out-number one income households. (Note, however, that the proportion is different for households with children under 18 and children under 6, where one income households tend to hold a higher proportion.) Here are the numbers according to the Current Population Survey
| Category | Number | Percent |
| Wife in paid labor force | 34,516,000 | 62% |
| Wife not in paid labor force | 21,094,000 | 38% |
| Note, total is revised 2000 number so does not match the 54,493,232 shown above | ||
Finally, the Current Population Survey offers data by income bracket where the wife is and is not in the work force. Here are some interesting statistics.
The proportion of two income households making over $100,000 a year: 25%.
The proportion of one income households making over $100,000 a year: 13%.
The proportion of two income households making over $50,000 a year: 72%.
The proportion of one income households making over $50,000 a year: 39%.
If you take the time to look at the data, what you see is that the two income households are not barely scraping by on two incomes. In fact, on average, they are substantially better off than one-income households. This destroys the myth that the only families who can afford to have one income are the super rich.
I'm not sure if day care is mostly the problem or if it is the type of parent that CHOOSES to use day care that is the problem. I don't consider a single parent with no family available as having a choice.
I think there are parents out there who really don't care to interact with their children much. They don't want to do the hard work of discipline, potty training etc. They only want the hugs and kisses.
A neighbor's daughter has her child in day care full time. On the weekend, the little girl spends Friday night with Grandma. The other Grandmother picks the child up on Saturday afternoon and keeps her until Sunday night.
These "parents" are talking about having another child. My question is WHY??
A voice of sanity is most welcome on these threads, veronica!
I really hope that no one has to go through the challenges of single parenting. It isn't a picnic.
And those who stick their noses in the air and act as if we've brought this down upon ourselves? A pox on the lot of them.
What on earth are you talking about?
What does that have to do with placing a child in day care?
Some men are. And it's possible for one man to impregnate a thousand women over the course of a lifetime, so it only takes a tiny percentage to do immense harm.
With the majority of the "welfare moms" who were the subject of my original post on this thread, it's usually futile to go after the men. They are either too low-earning to support a family, or they are in prison or dead by the time the kids are born. The ones who are still alive generally support themselves through activities that do not lend themselves to salary garnishment. So, it's futile to go after the men, most of the time
The only approach that works, the only approach that has EVER worked throughout recorded history, is to force women to be very picky about who they chose to impregnate them, and have this pickiness lean towards the man who a steady job (no matter how low-paying) rather than towards the dashing, "cool" drug dealer with the attitude and the muscles (that he acquired in the prison weight room)
It is true. Daycare for small children, what to speak of babies, is not good. Not good at all.
I see you've analyzed the financial aspect of it and you're right that it is entirely possible to raise children on one income.
That's what I've done for the past 4+ years.
I'd ask the same question of them, Dianna.
hehehehehe....I'm going through the potty training thing this weekend with my youngest. It isn't glamorous, but it sure is rewarding to see them catch on!
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.