Do we have Feminism to thank for this? When will people pay attention to nature?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_re_us/child_care_health

Answer 1

it is 3 things..

1 welfair.. when we started paying people not to be parents... and mothers not to "know" the father

2 feminism is also the main reason.. when the "movement" told women they where not real women if they had a man.

3. baby boomers the most selfish generation to walk the face of the earth.. spoiled brats.. once they are gone ( dead ) the world will be better off

these things are the reason why things like this happen

Answer 2

From the New York Times on the same subject [this study]:
"The effect was slight, and well within the normal range for healthy children, the researchers found. And as expected, parents’ guidance and their genes had by far the strongest influence on how children behaved."

Day care then is not the horrid ruin of children that inflammatory alarmist reactions depict.

Further, it should definitely be noted that these allegedly "wrong" behaviors are ones that are not wanted in a school setting, which is very difficult for growing children: sitting in regimented rows, moving about in orderly lines, never uttering a peep, etc. Making errors during the process of school indoctrination are hardly a cause for much concern, especially when they are, as noted, "well within the normal range for healthy children."

Day care is a necessary adjunct to a family's economic well-being that has proven benefits and, again as noted, does not produce any significant problems.

It's only the schools who have any concern, and that is about the needs of the school to regiment children, not any needs of the children.

Answer 3

I agree with the answerer above me. I was a single mother for four years before I met my husband, and I HAD to work. I refuse to mooch off of other people's hard earned money to support my children when I am PERFECTLY capable of doing it myself.

We now have two kids, and we both still work. The cost of living is too high to NOT work unless one spouse has a job that pays a lot of money (which is next to impossible nowadays, even WITH a college degree).

Our evenings are spent with the kids, and the kids have to work for THEIR money, too. They understand what it's like to have limited funds, and actually appreciate the value of a dollar.

If that's what working mothers teach their kids, I'd rather be a working mother. I show my kids that I love them every day. I spend time with them, play with them, and help them with their homework. I also show them I love them by making them understand that it's a tough world that we live in, and nothing is free.

It has nothing to do with feminism, at this point. It has to do with the fact that I want clothes on my children's backs, food in their mouths, and a roof over their heads.

Answer 4

I have always believed in one parent being at home for their children. There was nothing more important to me and my husband. We did not want strangers raising our children, so we made sacrifices in order for me to quit my job. Isn't that what good parenting is all about? We should always put the needs of children first. I know that some people had absolutely no choice but to work, but many more could have been better parents.

May God Bless you.

Answer 5

Its not feminism, its poverty and men abandoning their responsibilities for child support in single mother situations, and the cost of living demanding a two paycheck family in marital situations.
The stay-at-home mother is a dying breed thanks to inflation and rising taxes.
Are you willing to support stay-at-home mothers with your tax dollars? Would you be willing to give them a "professional mother" tax break? A retirement benefit over and above that of regular social security?
I didn't think so, but its alright for you to ask a woman to give up a pension and financial independence and posture against "Nature"
Deso thats exactly what I'm saying, you support the concept of a SAHM without recognizing the practical difficulty of it. If society thinks something is inportant its should subsidize it, it does, after all, benefit from it, so like soy subsidies or wheat or corn, it could be said that subsidizing our 'crop' of children is at least as important to the country as a whole as soy is.
The only people asked to give up the monetary gain from employment is the stay at home parent, that is, to me clearly unfair.
We currently pay for things that benefit few, right now we have child care credits to help a woman (usually its a woman) to put her kids in daycare, and they need it, but couldn't we also use some sort of stay at home credit too?
And of course it still doesn't answer as to why a woman should lose any hope of a pension if she stays with her kids, since she would go to work (if anyone would hire her 15 years later) without enough time to earn a pension.
Thats an awful lot to ask of a woman without even granting her the honor of some sort of status at a cocktail party.

Answer 6

People are too selfish to actually be parents. It's easier just to pay someone to raise the kids for you while you keep working. And 'raise the kids' is a generous description. More like 'warehouse the kids'.

Answer 7

Justagrandma, you are wrong. If a family decides that having mom at home is the best choice for them, why should we subsidize their decision?

Also, two incomes aren't needed to raise a family. What is needed is for that family to make a decision to forego other purchases.

Answer 8

Prior to the feminist movement, women were forced into the workplace and children into daycare because of absentee fathers........ Why don't people pay attention to their obligations....??

Answer 9

Feminism is bad! It has brought this Country down!

If feminazis want equality, then women should take harsh penalties for having sex with young boys. Their hypocrisy kills me.

I HATE FEMINISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!