Modern Parenting

[professionalmom]

this is a debate that will go on until the end of time......

i just want to say that i am one of those parents who HAVE to work to make ends meet. i have just been blessed to be able to do it from home in a profession i love.

no point to this reply, i suppose...just my 2 cents.....

Then you are either a home daycare provider OR you are just like us. Home daycare providers are WORK-AT-HOME parents, but still WORKING parents. Many people forget that we are actually working. And we are working because we HAVE to also. We just chose to it at-home, just like you.

[jen]

And I am one of them that will do errands between work and daycare! I would rather my 1 year old be playing and having fun than getting in and out of the car and being drug around in 90 degree heat. I'd rather race as fast as I can and get it done first.
And, by the way, I am 39 and have 2 little girls, 6 and 1.

I want to offer this to you in the most respectful way possible. I know it is very easy to believe that your children are better off at daycare than running errands with you, but I can promise you that your children will be happier to see you show up early. Running those errands with you may end up being one of their favorite memories.

I understand it is easier for you to leave them at daycare, faster without having to get them in and out of carseats, but please don't think that they would rather be at daycare than with you. It is a matter of convenience for you, not them.

[Aya477]

I do not subscribe to pawning my child off to anyone else for any reason other than work but that is because I was fortunate enough to be raised in a stay at home mom family. And I wholeheartedly believe that has made the difference in how I parent vs what you describe as modern parenting.

The fact of the matter is that a shift in society has been brewing for decades that has created what ProMom described: parents who elect to devote time to activities for themselves. Go back to the 1800's or even early 1900's where we have cold hard documented evidence of family dynamics. Did the mom stay at home? Yeah, she was at home but she was busy tending to the garden or doing house chores. A nanny raised the children. My father was born in 1938 and he was raised by a live-in nanny. His mom was responsible for keeping up the massive garden which provided food for the family of 8 (plus live-in helpers) along with doing all of the household duties. My Dad's father held down the job. This really was very common during this era. Then society changed again where jobs became open to women and women were encouraged to get out in the workplace. Women wanted to work to liberate themselves. Then ultimately it became a necessity for women to work to provide dual income so that family's could achieve the ridiculous idea of The American Dream. Now, take that on thru to the early 90's where the American Dream lifestyle spanned out to include self luxuries like pedicures, spa treatments, mental days, etc. The younger generation of women were born into all of this ideology that society has perpetuated for as long as their parents have been alive. So, really what do you expect modern-age parents to do? This is how majority society has encouraged women to live.

Do not look for short term change in this way of life either. In fact, expect it to get worse because more people will find the need for dual family incomes as the cost of living continues to increase and their families expand. Americans are encouraged to spend to maintain the USA economy and world economy. Americans will continue to want to have everything because having everything in society's perception signifies that you have achieved something great. This cycle will perpetuate for longer than you or I will live.

Here's a funny story--my son attended a locally owned daycare center. The owner of this daycare told me that her center was successful and that I could see how successful the center has been because she drove an 80k Mercedes. This coming from a middle-aged woman......who gave her the idea that success is determined by your possessions? SOCIETY.

So sit back and be thankful that women are going to work and placing their children in your care. You being the childcare provider has income because of this. And if you believe that studies prove that children who have absent parents suffer, then look at yourself as the hero....these children care for YOU and the time you are giving them. Perhaps you can make a difference in a child's life.

[nannyde]

I do not subscribe to pawning my child off to anyone else for any reason other than work but that is because I was fortunate enough to be raised in a stay at home mom family. And I wholeheartedly believe that has made the difference in how I parent vs what you describe as modern parenting.

The fact of the matter is that a shift in society has been brewing for decades that has created what ProMom described: parents who elect to devote time to activities for themselves. Go back to the 1800's or even early 1900's where we have cold hard documented evidence of family dynamics. Did the mom stay at home? Yeah, she was at home but she was busy tending to the garden or doing house chores. A nanny raised the children. My father was born in 1938 and he was raised by a live-in nanny. His mom was responsible for keeping up the massive garden which provided food for the family of 8 (plus live-in helpers) along with doing all of the household duties. My Dad's father held down the job. This really was very common during this era. Then society changed again where jobs became open to women and women were encouraged to get out in the workplace. Women wanted to work to liberate themselves. Then ultimately it became a necessity for women to work to provide dual income so that family's could achieve the ridiculous idea of The American Dream. Now, take that on thru to the early 90's where the American Dream lifestyle spanned out to include self luxuries like pedicures, spa treatments, mental days, etc. The younger generation of women were born into all of this ideology that society has perpetuated for as long as their parents have been alive. So, really what do you expect modern-age parents to do? This is how majority society has encouraged women to live.

Do not look for short term change in this way of life either. In fact, expect it to get worse because more people will find the need for dual family incomes as the cost of living continues to increase and their families expand. Americans are encouraged to spend to maintain the USA economy and world economy. Americans will continue to want to have everything because having everything in society's perception signifies that you have achieved something great. This cycle will perpetuate for longer than you or I will live.

Here's a funny story--my son attended a locally owned daycare center. The owner of this daycare told me that her center was successful and that I could see how successful the center has been because she drove an 80k Mercedes. This coming from a middle-aged woman......who gave her the idea that success is determined by your possessions? SOCIETY.

So sit back and be thankful that women are going to work and placing their children in your care. You being the childcare provider has income because of this. And if you believe that studies prove that children who have absent parents suffer, then look at yourself as the hero....these children care for YOU and the time you are giving them. Perhaps you can make a difference in a child's life.

Now this is why I love this site. This is an excellent post.

One thing I would add is what I call the "point and click". I think that this generation of parents are so used to so much of their lives being done with something so simple as a point and click or a touch touchpad that when things get hard their brains are just not wired to tolerate it. I see this with little kids. I can tell when a kid is playing with primarily battery operated toys. They want to do a little and get a big response.

It may sound trite but I think as humans we can easily get into the mindset that in order for things to be good they have to be easy. It's only good when it's good.

When in the history of human beings have we had SO much of our lives be a simple click or touch away? Really think about that.

As a provider one thing I look for in day care parents is finding ones that have a farm background. The ones who have been raised on a farm have the life experience of things being difficult, time consuming, and no end answer. There's no button to push to clean crap out of a stall. There's no button to push to weed a garden.

I also prefer oldest children in the family who have younger.. specially way younger sibs. These parents also know how to work. If they were relied upon during their childhood to do chores and contribute to the family then when their kid comes along they aren't overwhelmed by the amount of work and organization it takes to get er done.

These are the types of parents who aren't afraid of their kids, aren't afraid of the work their kids bring, and aren't afraid to discipline their kids. All of my day care parents are married. Out of all of my parents at least one of the couple comes from these two backgrounds. Out of 16 parents only four are not from this kind of background.

When I do my three interviews before I decide on a family I ask them extensively about their families and their childhood. It gives me insight to whether or not they will be the type of parents I like working for. These are the stable families that pay and stay (in my experience).

I agree too that this won't be solved in our life time BUT the seeds are being planted now.

Great post. Moral: We need to get a grip.

[professionalmom]

So sit back and be thankful that women are going to work and placing their children in your care. You being the childcare provider has income because of this. And if you believe that studies prove that children who have absent parents suffer, then look at yourself as the hero....these children care for YOU and the time you are giving them. Perhaps you can make a difference in a child's life.

I did thank God everyday that I had daycare kids in my care. Although I shut down only a week ago (health / high risk pregnancy), I knew that each and every day, I was giving my DC kids something that their parents could not (and in some cases, would not) give them at home - whether it was stability, a man role-model (my husband, in the evenings), love, attention, affection, life skills training (baking a cake, grocery shopping, loading a dishwasher, etc), or whatever need I was able to fill. They all loved me. i can not think of even one who did not. I have been told that I am the bestest cooker in the world, the funnest mom, the coolest daycare, etc.

I just wish that we, as a society, would get back to the old ways of raising families. You know, where daycares were not needed. Moms could stay home because dads "manned up" and took care of the family they made. I think I mentioned it once before, if the women who wanted to stay at home just left their jobs (go on strike), then it would free up a lot of jobs for men and start a reversal of the current unemployment rate and breath a whole new life into our economy. Am I glad that people needed daycare so I could stay home and get paid to do something I love? Absolutely! But do I wish daycares were not needed and that children were instead being raised by their own parents? You bet. I think it would be the absolutely, hands-down best reason to be out of a job!

I loved your post and can not wait to hear (or read) more from you in the future.

[professionalmom]

When in the history of human beings have we had SO much of our lives be a simple click or touch away? Really think about that.

GASP!! You mean there really isn't an easy button and that Earth-shattering dilemmas are not solved in under 30 minutes!?

Nanny, I've said this a million times (ok, maybe only 10) - I love you! And I'm thrilled to see that we may have another person who "gets it" like Judy, you, and I do.

[Aya477]

Thanks Pro-Mom. I'm definitely a little different in my thinking and I hope you enjoy.

I guess what I was trying to get at is the practice of someone other than Mom (or Dad) raising the children throughout the day is not new. I know I didn't state this, but because history shows that a huge number of children were raised by caregivers for hundreds of years, I don't believe that having a child in care causes any type of negative behavior or outcome. Now, having a child in care with a volatile individual probably would have a negative impact. But the general idea that a child in care for more than 30/40+ hours per week is causing the youth to be involved in crime and the like...I don't buy into that. No article or small sample study would convince me otherwise.

The problem is society and the expectations that society places on individuals to live a certain way, have certain luxuries, focus attention to their own interests. This is what the majority society has encouraged people to partake in. Even children have been considered "must haves" because that's what their friends have or want. Clearly, this is not what you and I believe, fortunately.

I also think about this--why has society placed so much pressure on parents and schools to push children to be the top of the class, the best player on the team, participate in the most elite circle activities, be involved in a variety of activities, learn beyond their age and development, and become independent sooner than they should. Personally, I think this is why some children are becoming aggressive, dropping out of school, taking up drug use, engage in crime in their teens. It has nothing to do with being in childcare because childcare is supposed to provide a nurturing environment. Then you have employers pushing the employees (parents) to do more at work, assign hard to meet deadlines, attend this, attend that. Parents are under pressure so they want to escape their responsibilities for a moment and indulge in something for themselves which does put their kids on the backburner. Kids are under pressure and they react as kids do which is with outbursts. This all makes for what we see day to day in life. Oh and add all that to the fact that you can be a total failure and still have someone (the government) keep you up? Yep, sure makes it easy for some people and as Nanny said...easy equates to good in some people's minds. And as a society, we do need to get a grip. It doesn't mean that a parent has to stay home with their child to develop a quality adult. It means that as a society, we need to cut back on our demands, expectations & perceptions so that the push to be more and have more is diminished.

[jen]

I also think about this--why has society placed so much pressure on parents and schools to push children to be the top of the class, the best player on the team, participate in the most elite circle activities, be involved in a variety of activities, learn beyond their age and development, and become independent sooner than they should. Personally, I think this is why some children are becoming aggressive, dropping out of school, taking up drug use, engage in crime in their teens. It has nothing to do with being in childcare because childcare is supposed to provide a nurturing environment. Then you have employers pushing the employees (parents) to do more at work, assign hard to meet deadlines, attend this, attend that. Parents are under pressure so they want to escape their responsibilities for a moment and indulge in something for themselves which does put their kids on the backburner. Kids are under pressure and they react as kids do which is with outbursts. This all makes for what we see day to day in life. Oh and add all that to the fact that you can be a total failure and still have someone (the government) keep you up? Yep, sure makes it easy for some people and as Nanny said...easy equates to good in some people's minds. And as a society, we do need to get a grip. It doesn't mean that a parent has to stay home with their child to develop a quality adult. It means that as a society, we need to cut back on our demands, expectations & perceptions so that the push to be more and have more is diminished.

I wouldn't disagree with you that pushing children beyond their abilities is too much pressure, but keeping children involved and active in sports and other extra-curricular activities is proven to be a protective factor against substance abuse and drop out rates. Lack of parental involvment is a proven risk factor. It isn't a limited study...I can provide you with numerous, large scale studies that span years.

[professionalmom]

I wouldn't disagree with you that pushing children beyond their abilities is too much pressure, but keeping children involved and active in sports and other extra-curricular activities is proven to be a protective factor against substance abuse and drop out rates. Lack of parental involvment is a proven risk factor. It isn't a limited study...I can provide you with numerous, large scale studies that span years.

You are right about being involved in extra-curricular activities AND parental involvement are the best ways to keep kids away from drugs, sex, bad grades, etc. However, I think many parents (not all) use these activites as "babysitters" rather than for their true intended purpose - to have fun and learn social, organizational, and fairness skills. From the studies I have seen, parental involvemnet is the biggest factor in whether a child will veer off course. If the parent(s) is/are there from the time the child gets out of school, through the evening, and on the weekends, extra-curricular activies do not help or hurt. But if the parent can't be there all of that time, then the extra-curricular activities do make a huge difference. However, we also have to be mindful of having them involved with too much stuff. Studies have shown that children who are busy all day with school, practices, events, and homework, with little down time to just have fun, tend to show signs of stress from irritability (just like overworked, overwhelmed adults ) to substance abuse issues (popping uppers just to stay awake) and everything in between. It can also cause them to think that they are worthless unless they take on so much and succeed at everything - making little perfectists. So we need to make sure there is a balance - just enough to protect them, but not enough to overwhelm them. And definitely never make a kid do some after-school activity that (s)he has no interest in. If he wants to be in science club instead of soccer, don't push soccer. If she hates softball, don't push it just because mom did it or mom and think she should. Find their interest and encourage THAT.

[QualiTcare]

I did thank God everyday that I had daycare kids in my care. Although I shut down only a week ago (health / high risk pregnancy), I knew that each and every day, I was giving my DC kids something that their parents could not (and in some cases, would not) give them at home - whether it was stability, a man role-model (my husband, in the evenings), love, attention, affection, life skills training (baking a cake, grocery shopping, loading a dishwasher, etc), or whatever need I was able to fill. They all loved me. i can not think of even one who did not. I have been told that I am the bestest cooker in the world, the funnest mom, the coolest daycare, etc.

I just wish that we, as a society, would get back to the old ways of raising families. You know, where daycares were not needed. Moms could stay home because dads "manned up" and took care of the family they made. I think I mentioned it once before, if the women who wanted to stay at home just left their jobs (go on strike), then it would free up a lot of jobs for men and start a reversal of the current unemployment rate and breath a whole new life into our economy. Am I glad that people needed daycare so I could stay home and get paid to do something I love? Absolutely! But do I wish daycares were not needed and that children were instead being raised by their own parents? You bet. I think it would be the absolutely, hands-down best reason to be out of a job!

I loved your post and can not wait to hear (or read) more from you in the future.

daycares weren't just not needed because men "manned up" but also because women were oppressed. women fought for years to be able to have the same jobs as men (even though they STILL don't get paid the same) so obviously if "the good old days" were THAT good - they wouldn't have worked so hard to change the way things were.

i really don't see how women who DO want to stay at home quitting their jobs would do anything for them unless it was their own husband that was unemployed and took the job! some people can't afford to go a month or even a week without working.

raising your kids might be a good reason to be out of a job (which is a matter of opinion because you can do both) but not everyone has family support - financially or otherwise. they HAVE to pay their own bills and they HAVE to use daycare - unless they want to live in a shelter.

[professionalmom]

daycares weren't just not needed because men "manned up" but also because women were oppressed. women fought for years to be able to have the same jobs as men (even though they STILL don't get paid the same) so obviously if "the good old days" were THAT good - they wouldn't have worked so hard to change the way things were.

i really don't see how women who DO want to stay at home quitting their jobs would do anything for them unless it was their own husband that was unemployed and took the job! some people can't afford to go a month or even a week without working.

raising your kids might be a good reason to be out of a job (which is a matter of opinion because you can do both) but not everyone has family support - financially or otherwise. they HAVE to pay their own bills and they HAVE to use daycare - unless they want to live in a shelter.

I find it odd that people are still using the term "oppressed" to describe women in the pre-feminist movement. Women in those days took care of the children, cooked cleaned, did the laundry, did the gradening, etc. What do women do today? The exact same thing PLUS they now have less time to do it in because many of them are working outside the home. Some women from that era described themselves as oppressed because they wanted to escape the housework and kids. Fine. But don't try to convince everyone else that they are less of a person because they like being at home. And many women did like being home in those days. That never gets reported because no one wants to hear stories about people who are happy. We like conflict. We are drawn to stories of oppression, depression, challenges, and struggles.

I have always supported (and will always support) the feminist movement as it was originally intended - to give women choices and equal pay for equal work. But, like many things, I do think it was taken to the other extreme.

I have worked in various fields in the corporate, legal, and medical fields, for many companies full of female employees. Many, if not most, of them wanted to be at home and not work. But they felt that they had not choice. That sounds pretty oppressive to me - not having a choice. Many of these women were racing to drop kids off at school and daycare to get to work, then racing to pick up the kids and get them to their activities on time after work (skipping lunch to fit in the mandatory OT or be able to get out early so they can get to their kids on time), running through a drive-thru for dinner, racing home around 9pm to help with homework, showers, and crash in bed, usually around or past midnight. Some were on the verge of divorce, wanting to reliquish custody to their husbands because they were at their wits end. Many were on anti-depressants just to get through the day. One of my best friends put her foot down and told her husband that she was giving 2 weeks notice at work and that she would now be an at-home mom. He freaked at first. She and I went to lunch a month after she quit working. She looked fabulous! Hair was done nicely, makeup perfect, no bags under her eyes, etc. She had been exercising, more involved in her church and her long-lost hobbies. She looked happy. She looked alive! She said her kids were actually getting along for once (they often used words like "hate" and "wish you were dead" before mom quit), her house never looked as organized, and her husband changed his tune because their marriage had improved in EVERY way. She finally had time to devote to her family and they were ALL thriving more than she could have ever dreamed. She even told me - oppression is not having a choice and letting it consume you to the point where you are not allowed to live, but merely exist and constantly running on a treadmill that never ends. She said, that once she made the decision to take charge of her life and jump off that treadmill, she found freedom. From a former corporate mom, now stay-at-home mom of the 21st century.

I can cite example after example of this occurring in this day and age. I'm not saying women weren't oppressed at all back in the 50's and earlier. It's great that we have gained acceptance in the workplace. But, it has almost become a prison for many women. In my personal experience, I would estimate that 70-80% of the women I have worked with, worked because they did not have a choice or they "thought" they did not have a choice, but if given the choice, they would stay home and raise their kids.

QualiTcare, I understand that YOU like working outside the home. I have nothing against that. For some families, it works and it sounds like it works for you and your family. I applaud you. However, I have seen many, many women in the workplace who just feel trapped and "oppressed" because society does not support their desire to be at home and raise their children and / or they "need" the extra income. (Side note: for single parent families, it's not "extra" income, it's THE income and is a different ball of wax that I am not talking about in these particular comments). You are blessed to be able to do what you want and work outside the home. I am blessed because I worked my tushie off to be able to be at home with my DD and future twins, which is what I wanted. I just wish EVERY woman had the CHOICE to raise her children as she sees fit and not be forced TO WORK or forced NOT TO WORK.

As for women (who WANTS to be at home and has a spouse) quitting their jobs, it would better the economy. First, it would create a vacancy in the job market, which could be filled by a man (or woman) currently on unemployment. For every woman who voluntarily leaves the workforce, vacancies are created, which can be filled by those on unemployment. Fewer people on unemployment results in less of a strain on state government (welfare systems), lowered unemployment rates. Then there would eventually be a shift in the supply / demand. If the unemployment rate drops from 18% to 5%, that will place employees in a much better position to bargain for better wages, better benefits, fewer hours (a.k.a. less OT), etc. I'm not sure how this couldn't be a positive.

Obviously this works for the 2 income family going down to 1 income. It would be very difficult at first. However, as I showed in the example, we would be putting the employees into a better bargaining position and the husbands out there will be able to bargain for higher wages and salaries, which would bring in more income to the family. Now this would not work if it would put the family on assistance. But there are many, many ways to cut back on expenses, which would make the need for the second income, obsolete. It jsut takes creative budgeting.

[QualiTcare]

I find it odd that people are still using the term "oppressed" to describe women in the pre-feminist movement. Women in those days took care of the children, cooked cleaned, did the laundry, did the gradening, etc. What do women do today? The exact same thing PLUS they now have less time to do it in because many of them are working outside the home. Some women from that era described themselves as oppressed because they wanted to escape the housework and kids. Fine. But don't try to convince everyone else that they are less of a person because they like being at home. And many women did like being home in those days. That never gets reported because no one wants to hear stories about people who are happy. We like conflict. We are drawn to stories of oppression, depression, challenges, and struggles.

I have always supported (and will always support) the feminist movement as it was originally intended - to give women choices and equal pay for equal work. But, like many things, I do think it was taken to the other extreme.

I have worked in various fields in the corporate, legal, and medical fields, for many companies full of female employees. Many, if not most, of them wanted to be at home and not work. But they felt that they had not choice. That sounds pretty oppressive to me - not having a choice. Many of these women were racing to drop kids off at school and daycare to get to work, then racing to pick up the kids and get them to their activities on time after work (skipping lunch to fit in the mandatory OT or be able to get out early so they can get to their kids on time), running through a drive-thru for dinner, racing home around 9pm to help with homework, showers, and crash in bed, usually around or past midnight. Some were on the verge of divorce, wanting to reliquish custody to their husbands because they were at their wits end. Many were on anti-depressants just to get through the day. One of my best friends put her foot down and told her husband that she was giving 2 weeks notice at work and that she would now be an at-home mom. He freaked at first. She and I went to lunch a month after she quit working. She looked fabulous! Hair was done nicely, makeup perfect, no bags under her eyes, etc. She had been exercising, more involved in her church and her long-lost hobbies. She looked happy. She looked alive! She said her kids were actually getting along for once (they often used words like "hate" and "wish you were dead" before mom quit), her house never looked as organized, and her husband changed his tune because their marriage had improved in EVERY way. She finally had time to devote to her family and they were ALL thriving more than she could have ever dreamed. She even told me - oppression is not having a choice and letting it consume you to the point where you are not allowed to live, but merely exist and constantly running on a treadmill that never ends. She said, that once she made the decision to take charge of her life and jump off that treadmill, she found freedom. From a former corporate mom, now stay-at-home mom of the 21st century.

I can cite example after example of this occurring in this day and age. I'm not saying women weren't oppressed at all back in the 50's and earlier. It's great that we have gained acceptance in the workplace. But, it has almost become a prison for many women. In my personal experience, I would estimate that 70-80% of the women I have worked with, worked because they did not have a choice or they "thought" they did not have a choice, but if given the choice, they would stay home and raise their kids.

QualiTcare, I understand that YOU like working outside the home. I have nothing against that. For some families, it works and it sounds like it works for you and your family. I applaud you. However, I have seen many, many women in the workplace who just feel trapped and "oppressed" because society does not support their desire to be at home and raise their children and / or they "need" the extra income. (Side note: for single parent families, it's not "extra" income, it's THE income and is a different ball of wax that I am not talking about in these particular comments). You are blessed to be able to do what you want and work outside the home. I am blessed because I worked my tushie off to be able to be at home with my DD and future twins, which is what I wanted. I just wish EVERY woman had the CHOICE to raise her children as she sees fit and not be forced TO WORK or forced NOT TO WORK.

As for women (who WANTS to be at home and has a spouse) quitting their jobs, it would better the economy. First, it would create a vacancy in the job market, which could be filled by a man (or woman) currently on unemployment. For every woman who voluntarily leaves the workforce, vacancies are created, which can be filled by those on unemployment. Fewer people on unemployment results in less of a strain on state government (welfare systems), lowered unemployment rates. Then there would eventually be a shift in the supply / demand. If the unemployment rate drops from 18% to 5%, that will place employees in a much better position to bargain for better wages, better benefits, fewer hours (a.k.a. less OT), etc. I'm not sure how this couldn't be a positive.

Obviously this works for the 2 income family going down to 1 income. It would be very difficult at first. However, as I showed in the example, we would be putting the employees into a better bargaining position and the husbands out there will be able to bargain for higher wages and salaries, which would bring in more income to the family. Now this would not work if it would put the family on assistance. But there are many, many ways to cut back on expenses, which would make the need for the second income, obsolete. It jsut takes creative budgeting.

well, it WAS oppression because like you said - they didn't have the CHOICE to go to work. some women may have been happy staying at home just like there are women today who are happy staying at home. the difference is -women today have a CHOICE and OPTIONS that they didn't have before. women today may "feel oppressed" but they aren't REALLY - not like women used to be. yeah, they may not be able to quit work because they can't figure out how to do it and stay financially stable - but the OPTION is still there. lots of women don't vote - but the OPTION is there - they CAN vote.

you say don't make people feel like less of a person because they want to stay home. i say don't make people feel like less of a parent because they want to work. that's not to you, but everyone that talks crap (the ones that "get it")

just like there are children who would like to spend more time with their parents - there are children who are homeschooled that would love to go to school. i watched a documentary with 4 high school kids that WANTED to go to school. i DO think there are mothers who use being with their children as an excuse NOT to work just as much as there are working mothers that use work as an excuse to not be with their children. it works both ways.

i saw not long ago you said you're moving in with relatives due to finances. what if you didn't have relatives to move in with? lots of people don't. some people may have that as an option but they'd never consider it. if my option was to be a stay at home parent and move in with my in-laws or work and have my own home - i'd choose to work. everyone's priorities are different. i think MOST mothers have their children on the top of their priority list, and providing for their children (food, clothing, shelter) requires them to have a job.

it's easy for daycare providers to talk about how mothers should spend more time with their kids because they're staying at home with theirs and getting PAID by these working mothers. if every mother stayed at home, all daycare providers would be out of a job. that little factor seems to be overlooked.