lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/21/84)
The following was printed in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the
San Jose Mercury News, April 13. Reprinted without permission. Opinions
expressed are those of the original author (whom I do not know) and
probably reflect those of this author.
Kids suffer in Shangri La
We live in the age of materialism. The double-income family is
the norm and the quality of early life has disappeared. The
recent horror stories of nightmarish day-care facilities
illustrate the price modern society pays for its trends.
Whether it's for strictly monetary reasons or intellectual
stimulation and "growth," the fact that we turn over our
children, our future, to strangers from six to six, is
symptomatic of acute repression of reality or "the end justifies
the means" pragmatism.
The Shangri-La we have created -- the two-car version -- has
withered babyhoods strewn alongside the driveway. With the
pledge of parenthood should come the total commitment, albeit
sometimes tediously unrewarding, of a block of time.
-- Jo Kearley, San Jose
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPApc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (04/23/84)
Editor San Jose Mercury News 750 Ridder Park Drive San Jose, CA 95190 Dear Editor: In a recent letter from Jo Kearley, professional child care was maligned. While it is possible to find day care facilities with inadequate care, it is also possible to find homes where children are mistreated. Few parents are knowledgeable about early childhood development. Children of one or two years old are often placed in front of TVs for hours at a time. Homebound children remain indoors while the parent attends to household chores. Community child care can be a rich experience even for very young children. My one-year-old son attends a small center where he is cared for by people professionally trained in early childhood education. The careproviders follow a well-defined philosophy of loving care and guidance to help these toddlers develop as competent, confident children. My son is supervised as he plays outdoors in a safe, stimulating environment with other young children. Each day, when I pick up my baby, the careproviders tell me about his day. Weekends are opportunities for family sharing: hikes, visits to playgrounds, and household activities. It is not professional child care which should be berated. Parents who do not ensure that their children receive good care are not fulfilling their commitment. Patricia Collins Mountain View
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/24/84)
Another set of scathing remarks about a world which shirks the notion of family members with predetermined obligations (e.g. mother=stay at home and watch the kids) in favor of self-determination. Those horrid child care centers where children are denied contact with their parents... Frankly, judging by *some* of the children I've encountered in the course of my life, I'd rather see them brought up by trained child care professionals than by incompetent parents who treat their children like subhumans anyway, conditioning them in negative behavior patterns that stay with them for the rest of their lives. Just causing trouble... -- Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/30/84)
hplabsc!pc (Patricia Collins): >"...it is also possible to find many homes where children are mistreated." "Professional" day care centers won't remove the problem of child abuse - just eliminate certain possible times. >"Few parents are knowledgeable about early childhood development." Then why don't they learn? Not learning is not "fulfilling the commitment." Now, I don't expect a parent to know *everything* about early childhood development; neither do I expect a parent to know *everything* about medical care for a child. There is a time and place for professional *help* - but is it so continuously and regularly needed? >"Children of one or two years years old are placed in front of TVs for >hours at a time." So are those past that age any better? (I'm glad I don't have one.) >"Parents who do not ensure that their children receive good care are not >fulfilling the commitment." Agreed. But is hiring someone else to do the job full-time really an answer? I don't think I'm too far off to say that 99+% of the time that a day-care facility is used that the reason is convenience (read: the kid interferes with my schedule) rather than "I need someone better than me." The day will come when the children are too old for child-care. What will you do then - use the schools as a day-care facility, something they are constantly misused for, but were never intended to be? The greatest thing parents can give children is themselves - their thoughts, their values, their love, their assurance. This is an investment in both the parents' *and* the children's futures. One of the greatest confidence boosters children can have is to know that their parents are proud of them, to see their parents' love for them in action. Rich Rosen roused the idea of "mother=stay at home and watch the kids" vs. "self-determination." The latter is simply a rehash of the Me Generation, where the kids are seen as an extra burden. This was exactly the point of the letter. The former is a mis-stereotyping I have come to expect from a certain viewpoint; a better approach is "mother= opportunity to train the next generation." It is an opportunity to do something which will continue past her own life, even multiply *within* her own lifetime - ooh, excuse me, that would go against Rich's "rights end where imposition on another person begins." :-) Oh well, I guess the state will force us to put our kids in their day-care centers (wherein teaching the Bible is an absolute no-no, but horrorscopes, etc., are OK). Ugh. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (05/02/84)
I don't claim that others should use my standards of measure, but I would propose that one need not take seriously any stated philsophy/ethic that the proponent does not live by. I cannot take to heart any person's condemnation of the parent with a career when that person has chosen a career. By the way: anyone who thinks that providing other care providers for part of your child's care means that the parent is not "a full time parent" is mistaken! It only means that the parent is also a career person. (That same person may also be a spouse, friend, housekeeper, poet, carpenter...without being damned as a "part-time parent.") Life seems to be a process of taking into consideration all of the pros and cons of one's decisions, then in the best of circumstances making decisions which maximize the Quality of Life. When you add up all of the pros and cons, you may weigh each considerations differently than I and, therefore, come to different conclusions. But please don't try to claim that your weighting has some absolute Truth associated with it! Such egocentrism is ludicrous. Patricia Collins hplabs
lynnef@teklabs.UUCP (Lynne Fitzsimmons ) (05/02/84)
I have had it up to here with Larry Bickford and his pronouncements on many
subjects. Easpecially day care. Larry Bickford, you do not know the
first thing about day care! If you want your hypothetical children (you have
no children, you are not married but you can sure as hell sit there
and be so fucking righteous) to be in a day care center where they
read the Bible, then put them in one. Many churches and private homes are
run by Christians. Read the want ads (Christian mother to care for your
child . . .). But don't you trample on my right to put my child in a day
care situation where the principles and beliefs of the day care provider
coincide with my own!
--
Lynne Fitzsimmons
UUCP: {allegra, decvax, ihnp4, orstcs, ucbvax, zehntel, ogcvax, reed,
uw-beaver, hplabs}!tektronix!teklabs!lynnef
CSnet: lynnef@tek ARPAnet: lynnef.tek@rand-relaylab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (05/12/84)
Besides the open letter she wrote here, Patricia Collins wrote another
letter to the San Jose newspaper on the subject of day-care. I will take
the liberty (without permission) of quoting the last two paragraphs:
Parents in the Santa Clara Valley are fortunate to have a wide
selection of child-care options, with child-care philosophies
which follow those of the parents.
Unfortunately, not all care facilities (in private homes or in
centers) are as responsive and responsible as they should be. A
parent's active participation in the facility (through regular
parent meetings or cooperative aiding) can guarantee that the
child is being well cared for.
It is good to be able to have "child-care philosophies which follow
those of the parents." However, many such centers are supported by
quasi-public funds (e.g., United Way), and thus are limited in the
"philosophies" they can have. (Even care-providers in a *home* have been
harassed by social workers for even having a Bible near the children.)
And if the mother *has* to work, the family is less able to select the
child-care philosophy they might desire. With the child at home, there
is little question about the philosophy.
A key word in Collins' last paragraph is "active." Oh, that more parents
would *actively* participate in raising their children - both mothers
AND fathers. And this just isn't in the pre-school years either - check
out the kids skipping school at the mall or elsewhere; most of them
will tell you "My parents don't care." Shangri-La strikes again.
Collins: "Life seems to be a process of taking into consideration all of
the pros and cons of one's decisions, then in the best of
circumstances making decisions which maximize the Quality of Life."
There may be some disagreement in the weight of each consideration, but
let us not overlook the disagreement on what constitutes "Quality of
Life." Neither overlook: there's more than one Life to consider.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA