Pure Parents

Question:

> >So I ask again: If we really believe others can raise our children >better than we can, should we not adopt them out? Is retaining them not >an expression of selfishness if they would be better off with others? >If we don’t believe others can do better, then why would we entrust them >to others, except in cases of dire necessity? > It is not necessarily a case of "better’ or "worse".  There is a third > possibility, "as well as".

In practice, you may be correct, in that anyone who considers parenting a part-time vocation (whether biological parent or hired daycare provider) is unlikely to do as well as someone who considers it a full-time vocation. At the same time, any such parent is sending a powerful message about relative worth to the child, one that can only undermine self-worth. > Mary

–Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

> >>EXCEPTIONS. What percentage of children in daycare are from welfare >>mothers or widows? How many of those so wounded in this ng in that >>situation? Once again, I point out that what is justifiable as a >>necessity for the few quickly becomes a convenience for the many. > Is this an Americans only group? None of the kids in daycare are on > Welfare – It doesn’t exist in my country. This is not about parenting > – only your local area. > Zero has a lot of interesting things to say though

I can’t resist asking what country doesn’t have welfare. America is usually criticized as one of the few nations that doesn’t provide enough socialized care of all kinds. Is it possible there is some place with none? Can’t be Europe, nor, Australia, New Zealand. –Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

I informed you because you misconstrued my meaning. I was using the word judgment in the sense of evaluation, and you responded with what could be construed as a self-righteous riposte. Rather than inferring evil intent, I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have characterized neither you nor your response. The reason I put *(mis)quote* was because I was uncertain as to your level of knowledge. Perhaps you should have asked me for clarification, rather than replying with an out of context platitude. –Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

>I informed you because you misconstrued my meaning.

As I recall, I was not responding to a post of yours. >I was using the word >judgment in the sense of evaluation, and you responded with what could >be construed as a self-righteous riposte.

Thank you (sincere) for differentiating between possible meaning and intent and  actual meaning and intent by using the word *construed* above.  It was not my intention to be self-righteous.  Actually, angry was how I was feeling. >Rather than inferring evil intent, I chose to give you the benefit of >the doubt.

It did not look that way to me.  Something along the lines of "(mis?)quote" would have been more neutral. >I have characterized neither you nor your response. The reason I put >*(mis)quote* was because I was uncertain as to your level of knowledge. >Perhaps you should have asked me for clarification, rather than replying >with an out of context platitude.

I chose to use your post to illustrate my point of the difference between judging actions and people. Perhaps I could have chosen better, but it did make my point. <sigh> This is not the perfect medium for communication so intent and meaning are bound to be misconstrued.  Yes, perhaps I should have asked for clarification, and perhaps you should have as well.   You mentioned human heads being hard in a previous post.  I believe that everyone with a strong opinion on this (or any other subject) can stand accused of that, you and I included.  No doubt neither one of us is the monster the other imagines.  Let’s leave it at that. As I said, I really don’t want to devote more time to this thread.  However, I will depart with the motto of a friend of mine that I think you may appreciate.  I don’t particularly agree with her in all cases, but this never fails to make me smile.  Her favorite saying is, "Never be so open minded that your brains fall out!" And on that note, I leave the discussion to the rest of you. Mary

Response:

>>EXCEPTIONS. What percentage of children in daycare are from welfare >mothers or widows? How many of those so wounded in this ng in that >situation? Once again, I point out that what is justifiable as a >necessity for the few quickly becomes a convenience for the many.

Is this an Americans only group? None of the kids in daycare are on Welfare – It doesn’t exist in my country. This is not about parenting – only your local area. Zero has a lot of interesting things to say though

Response:

>>Yeah, this judgment business. That is to be avoided at all costs. We >live in a society almost entirely devoid of judgment. A dubious virtue. >I agree that solipsism is irritating,

There is a difference between judging actions and the people who perform them. To say that daycare is harmful is one thing.  To say that the parents that choose daycare are not as good as parents who SAH is something else entirely. Who among us is qualified to sit in judgement on the means or the motive of another in such an issue? No, the self is not the only reality, but  neither is "judge not lest you be judged" a new idea. Mary

Response:

>> No, the self is not the only reality, but  neither is "judge not lest you be >judged" a new idea. >If you’re going to (mis)use that quote, you should understand that the >original greek word in that passage is from the root ‘krino’ = to >condemn, as to declare a bad or unworthy person.

The lesson in Greek roots was unnecessary. I did know that. I wrote what I meant, and I understood what I wrote. Your assumption that I did not understand the meaning of what I was writing and was misusing a  quote, therefore you must correct me according to what *you believed* I was saying (instead of asking for clarification), was arrogant and condescending.  Please note, I did not say that you are arrogant and condescending. I cannot know that.  I am in no position to judge.  Your action, OTOH, is a different matter entirely. I did not misuse the quote.  My response said that there is a difference between "condemning" actions and "condemning" people. As I have said, it is not your views with which I have a problem it is your willingness "to condemn, as to declare bad or unworthy" anyone who does not share them. As for the green cheese, I do not save my posts so that will have to be relegated to cyberspace.   In all of this, I believe I have made my point.  There is no need to do so over and over again. I SAH with my children to be with them not argue with you. So unless the need for public vindication arises, I leave the playing field to the others. Mary

Response:

>So I ask again: If we really believe others can raise our children >better than we can, should we not adopt them out? Is retaining them not >an expression of selfishness if they would be better off with others? >If we don’t believe others can do better, then why would we entrust them >to others, except in cases of dire necessity?

It is not necessarily a case of "better’ or "worse".  There is a third possibility, "as well as". Mary

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> No, the self is not the only reality, but  neither is "judge not lest you be >>judged" a new idea. >If you’re going to (mis)use that quote, you should understand that the >original greek word in that passage is from the root ‘krino’ = to >condemn, as to declare a bad or unworthy person. > The lesson in Greek roots was unnecessary. I did know that. I wrote what I > meant, and I understood what I wrote. > Your assumption that I did not understand the meaning of what I was writing and > was misusing a  quote, therefore you must correct me according to what *you > believed* I was saying (instead of asking for clarification), was arrogant and > condescending.  Please note, I did not say that you are arrogant and > condescending. I cannot know that.  I am in no position to judge.  Your action, > OTOH, is a different matter entirely. > I did not misuse the quote.  My response said that there is a difference > between "condemning" actions and "condemning" people. As I have said, it is not > your views with which I have a problem it is your willingness "to condemn, as > to declare bad or unworthy" anyone who does not share them.

The problem is, I have not done so. I have repeatedly invited those who disagree to consider themselves exceptions to the rule, and be happy. –Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

> >>Yeah, this judgment business. That is to be avoided at all costs. We >>live in a society almost entirely devoid of judgment. A dubious virtue. >I agree that solipsism is irritating, > There is a difference between judging actions and the people who perform them. > To say that daycare is harmful is one thing.  To say that the parents that > choose daycare are not as good as parents who SAH is something else entirely.

And by no means the only alternative. Way too much of this discussion is based on ‘feelings’ as though they were thoughts. Unfortunately, it appears an increasing number of people do their ‘thinking’ with their glands. > Who among us is qualified to sit in judgement on the means

Are you sure you mean ‘means’? > or the motive of > another in such an issue? > No, the self is not the only reality, but  neither is "judge not lest you be > judged" a new idea.

If you’re going to (mis)use that quote, you should understand that the original greek word in that passage is from the root ‘krino’ = to condemn, as to declare a bad or unworthy person. > Mary

Just a note: my server somehow lost your reply to my ‘green cheese’ post. There were a series of questions I wanted to pose, based on your reply. –Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mary, > So very well said.  Thanks for saying clearly what I would like to point > out so many times.  I work and so does my dh, but our son is in a loving > in-home daycare that he loves and we both feel good about.  We don’t make a > lot of money but I must work because my job carries the health care and my > husband makes the bulk of the money.  We have two old cars and live in a > nice rental home.  The only choice we would have is for me to quit my job > and we’d lose my salary plus our health benefits.  Then I could go on food > stamps and medicaid, except we’d probably be just above the line so we > wouldn’t qualify.  I am glad to have you point out that not every family is > two parent and not all two working parent homes make a ton of money to > splurge on luxuries.  Besides who are we to judge the people who do?  Take > care. >Yeah, this judgment business. That is to be avoided at all costs. We >live in a society almost entirely devoid of judgment. A dubious virtue.

I agree that solipsism is irritating, but so is a refusal to provide an evidential basis for judgements.   Ed, we’ve all asked you time and time again what your EVIDENCE is for deciding that most children are worse off in daycare than with their parents 7/24.   I’m still waiting to see it.  I’m afraid I can’t take your word for it, because that would be irrational; I would then be willing ont eh same basis to take other people’s word for alien encounters and Satantic abuse?   So let’s see the EVIDENCE, anecdotal or other.  And until you can provide it, you will remain unconvincing to me and I think to others also.  If you really do care abotut eh future of the family, why not actually go the extra mile to convince us all of your position? — Jane Lumley

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Mary, >> So very well said.  Thanks for saying clearly what I would like to point >> out so many times.  I work and so does my dh, but our son is in a loving >> in-home daycare that he loves and we both feel good about.  We don’t make a >> lot of money but I must work because my job carries the health care and my >> husband makes the bulk of the money.  We have two old cars and live in a >> nice rental home.  The only choice we would have is for me to quit my job >> and we’d lose my salary plus our health benefits.  Then I could go on food >> stamps and medicaid, except we’d probably be just above the line so we >> wouldn’t qualify.  I am glad to have you point out that not every family is >> two parent and not all two working parent homes make a ton of money to >> splurge on luxuries.  Besides who are we to judge the people who do?  Take >> care. >Yeah, this judgment business. That is to be avoided at all costs. We >live in a society almost entirely devoid of judgment. A dubious virtue. > I agree that solipsism is irritating, but so is a refusal to provide an > evidential basis for judgements. > Ed, we’ve all asked you time and time again what your EVIDENCE is for > deciding that most children are worse off in daycare than with their > parents 7/24. > I’m still waiting to see it.  I’m afraid I can’t take your word for it, > because that would be irrational; I would then be willing ont eh same > basis to take other people’s word for alien encounters and Satantic > abuse? > So let’s see the EVIDENCE, anecdotal or other.  And until you can > provide it, you will remain unconvincing to me and I think to others > also.  If you really do care abotut eh future of the family, why not > actually go the extra mile to convince us all of your position?

Only those who are looking for the truth will be able to see it. As one of my teachers said, "There is nothing harder than the human head." I have offered a recent source, but it was, as I predicted, immediately written off. I mentioned the evaluation of an expert, and that was dismissed as mere opinion. I have tried to reason, but people ignore it. It is not a matter of evidence, or logic, or reasoning. It is a matter of the will, and those determined to find an excuse to put their children in daycare will find rationales to do so. So I ask again: If we really believe others can raise our children better than we can, should we not adopt them out? Is retaining them not an expression of selfishness if they would be better off with others? If we don’t believe others can do better, then why would we entrust them to others, except in cases of dire necessity? Oh, yes, and I’ve cited numbers about the poverty rate and disposable income, and people have disputed them as well. All of that makes my point. It’s about this ‘non-judgmental’ ‘equality of ideas’ silliness that passes for philosophy in our society. It is a species of moral relativism which attempts to ‘value everything’ equally and thus devalues everything. People in this society are determined to put their children in the care of others, because child rearing brings them in touch with their inadequacies. Rather than learn and grow through that experience, they choose to avoid it. IF they weren’t so hell-bent on having their own way, the notion of treating children as livestock to be prepared for market would be self-evidently false. What we have is a society in mass denial, and nothing is more hated than anyone threatening that denial. > — > Jane Lumley

–Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

> Mary, > So very well said.  Thanks for saying clearly what I would like to point > out so many times.  I work and so does my dh, but our son is in a loving > in-home daycare that he loves and we both feel good about.  We don’t make a > lot of money but I must work because my job carries the health care and my > husband makes the bulk of the money.  We have two old cars and live in a > nice rental home.  The only choice we would have is for me to quit my job > and we’d lose my salary plus our health benefits.  Then I could go on food > stamps and medicaid, except we’d probably be just above the line so we > wouldn’t qualify.  I am glad to have you point out that not every family is > two parent and not all two working parent homes make a ton of money to > splurge on luxuries.  Besides who are we to judge the people who do?  Take > care.

Yeah, this judgment business. That is to be avoided at all costs. We live in a society almost entirely devoid of judgment. A dubious virtue. –Ed Dickerson Villages don’t raise people; people raise villages. Children raised by the village grow up to raze the village.

Response:

>> A woman who agrees with you hook, line and sinker SAH with her children but is > suddenly widowed.  She is faced with the unpleasent reality of having to return > to work in order to put food on the table and make ends meet.  The need for > daycare becomes a reality for her.  Does she not want the best for her > children? >Wanting the best is, as I say, a futile argument. What would be the best >for her children is another question. People ignore the fact that I have >repeatedly agreed there are exceptions. The problem is that they are >EXCEPTIONS. What percentage of children in daycare are from welfare >mothers or widows? How many of those so wounded in this ng in that >situation? Once again, I point out that what is justifiable as a >necessity for the few quickly becomes a convenience for the many.

From widows? Well, maybe in the inner city, a few, but not many. On the other hand, with more than 50% of teenagers having sex before leaving high school, and Lord knows how many pregnancies, I bet there are a LOT of single mothers. > I have used the examples of single women, but couples can be faced with the > same difficult realities. >The poverty rate for married couples in this country is 1.8% (US Census >figures)

I’m sorry, but "poverty" is pretty screwed. I was an E-3 with a wife and kid, and WIC with NO furniture, a 17 year old car and a one bedroom efficiency apartment in Orlando, FL, and I could not even buy furniture. For 8 months I had NO furniture except a TV and microwave given as wedding gifts, and then I got some donated furniture. Anyway, sorry, but the end result is that the government said I made $150 a month too much. It was NUTS!!! I had to borrow from my parents to buy diapers. Z