How women are more equal than men

[Hyan]

None of my siblings or I had behavioural problems at school, and none of us were sent to daycare, and we all turned out really well. *If* I had kids I'd not want to screw with the nurture side of things in that regard ;D

And the same goes for the opposite extreme.. me and my sibling were sent to daycare when we were approx. 1 year old up until school begun, and neither of us were affected negatively by it. The opposite, if anything.

[Linliel]

And the same goes for the opposite extreme.. me and my sibling were sent to daycare when we were approx. 1 year old up until school begun, and neither of us were affected negatively by it. The opposite, if anything.

If anything this shows that a "one size fits all" answer is impossible when it comes to the particulars of raising kids. I say go with what you think is best to do and what is possible for you to do. (Well unless you're some sort of crazy person.)

[Darus Grey]

As for the relative keeping kids calm, isn't that what a daycare person would do too? Why do you need a "lesson plan" for babies-3 year olds, other than reading stories or playing games?

You do realize that the cognitive development of children starts even before birth right?

You think of a 3yr old and by the way you talk, you obviously think of a dumb child incapable of learning anything significant.

What you seem to be missing, is that childrens' ability to perceive the world, understand language, and process ideas is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than their ability to produce it.

By 3 years old children are almost fluent in their native language(s) and by 5 are at near full comprehension, delaying their education so long has very few benefits.

There's the famous Perry Project, Universal pre-K study at Georetown, NIEER study...etc all day. That show that significant pre-school education leads to literally better development in practically all facets of life, better education, earnings, life-expectancy, relationship stability, health, etc.


Your intentions are in the right place, but like so many awful mothers I dealt with when dealing with child language development projects, you aren't going off even a shred of credible information. There are tons of things that are bad or at least neutral for children that "make sense", such as "Less bonding time", but at same time if you deny them an early social education, you are harming them significantly.

Even the one thing you linked to add some credibility to your argument contradicts you, had you actually read the study(crazy I know, right? reading the study, or even the actual article and not just the news headline!) you'd realize that it can be summed up as follows:

Good Daycares has a positive effect on Children.

Bad Daycares have a negative effect on Children.

Who would have guessed?

[Acturus]

I dunno, I saw a study recently where they said that early long-term socialisation with a lot of kids actually leads to behavioural problems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17795821/

None of my siblings or I had behavioural problems at school, and none of us were sent to daycare, and we all turned out really well. *If* I had kids I'd not want to screw with the nurture side of things in that regard ;D

As for the relative keeping kids calm, isn't that what a daycare person would do too? Why do you need a "lesson plan" for babies-3 year olds, other than reading stories or playing games?

Interesting news piece, did you see this part:

Both the negative and positive effects were subtle, said Dr. James Griffin, who oversaw the study.

“If you went into one of these classrooms, you wouldn’t be able to say, 'this child, this child and this child attended center-based care,'" Griffin said.

[Linliel]

Darus, Wow, nice ad hominems there! Really adds credibility to your argument. Especially since your post jumps to conclusions everywhere. Yes I read the article. I have plenty of knowledge about children and their cognitive development, and I don't think that <5 year olds are dumb. Not in the slightest. I don't think that you need to send kids to daycare to get social development. That's what neighbourhood kids and kids of family friends are for. At least they were fine back when I was growing up. Have things changed that much? Mind you, perhaps it is different in America.

I'm not saying that high quality daycare is bad. But with demand going up but (in AU at least) actual centres declining in number and going bankrupt, and higher child-carer ratios at the ones still operating, I know that "good" daycares are on the decline. Perhaps this issue is different in the US.

I'm just saying that I would PREFER to have my kids at home until preschool/school if possible. FFS lol, how many times do I have to explain this!

[Linliel]

Interesting news piece, did you see this part:

Yep. Context is lovely.

[Sylphet]

In other news:

This just in, Lesbians make better parents than straight couples. Who needs those silly men people anyway? (For those of you who are incapable of recognizing sarcasm I'm informing you that is not a serious statement).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07...ex.html?hpt=T2

[Kashka]

I recognize your sarcasm, but in general single fathers make "better" parents than single mothers, and homosexual couples make "better" parents than hetero couples... but only because the bar for getting a kid is so much higher for those demographics that it skews all data.

Really, what we should be doing is only allowing gay couples to have kids. Would solve overpopulation, a decent chunk of bigotry, and probably lots of social problems as well.

[Darus Grey]

Darus, Wow, nice ad hominems there! Really adds credibility to your argument.

One of the perks of being right is that I can make small sacrifices to my image to add personal flair to my posts.

Especially since your post jumps to conclusions everywhere. Yes I read the article.

But not the study, obviously. For someone who is in the same bracket as me, you should know that you need to at least read the methodology before espousing "A study of X said Y!".

On another forum someone use to play that game, had people believing all kinds of retarded shit simply because he had massive Google-fu and could link a "study" to just about any retarded position imaginable.

As a PHD yourself(if I remember right), peer review is part of your societal responsibility.

I have plenty of knowledge about children and their cognitive development, and I don't think that <5 year olds are dumb. Not in the slightest.

I see, that's why you think they don't benefit from things besides storytelling and games, because you have plenty of knowledge about children and their cognitive development. That's a "tell", if you didn't know.

I don't think that you need to send kids to daycare to get social development. That's what neighbourhood kids and kids of family friends are for. At least they were fine back when I was growing up. Have things changed that much? Mind you, perhaps it is different in America.

There's a difference between "need" and "benefits", children clearly don't "need" daycare/preK for social development...but do they benefit from it? They sure do.

I'm not saying that high quality daycare is bad. But with demand going up but (in AU at least) actual centres declining in number and going bankrupt, and higher child-carer ratios at the ones still operating, I know that "good" daycares are on the decline. Perhaps this issue is different in the US.

"Good" daycares/preK are on the decline, because demand has risen significantly....because...

*drumroll*

All the data about it being beneficial!

Which has led to a shortage of qualified appropriate teachers/caretenders, especially in states like Florida where PreK is mandated by state law now.

A responsible parent would do some research first, obviously.

I'm just saying that I would PREFER to have my kids at home until preschool/school if possible. FFS lol, how many times do I have to explain this!

I would "prefer" a lot of things that aren't neccessarily in my best interest, if that's your position then why bother to defend it at all?

"It's my opinion!1!!1!!" is the ultimate fallacy.

[Linliel]

I'm defending it because people keep on attacking it! lol. I've said it all along. I have nothing against daycare if it's good. It's just not for me, and I think I'd rather do things the way my mother did it than risk the potential issues mentioned in the article (and which I've read elsewhere a long time ago so don't remember where). You don't know usually if you get a "good" daycare until you get there. And with waiting lists so long blah blah blah etc.

Anyway, I'm at work, I don't have time to go looking up the studies on it because a) I don't care that much, and b) I'm, uh, busy at work.

BTW it's a correlation/causation fallacy you've drawn between the decline & demand, the demand is not because it's good, it's because more women in Australia are working full time, and due to the decline of open centres themselves. The decline of open centres was because the biggest provider went bankrupt after dodgy practices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Learning

[Darus Grey]

Anyway, I'm at work, I don't have time to go looking up the studies on it because a) I don't care that much, and b) I'm, uh, busy at work.

BTW it's a correlation/causation fallacy you've drawn between the decline & demand, the demand is not because it's good, it's because more women in Australia are working full time, and due to the decline of open centres themselves. The decline of open centres was because the biggest provider went bankrupt after dodgy practices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_Learning

You could have saved us both time if you were just going to pull the "I'm important and busy IRL card"



Despite my busy schedule, I make it a priority to keep my ridicules informed and on-point.

That aside, I can start nitpicking your post history for logical fallacies if you want to play that game, you know I'm an expert, though since I wasn't speaking of australia to begin with, it's irrelevant.

Since in the U.S., the originator of the perry study, you can map the sharp increase right after it's release, as well as read the data where parents specifically cite it as their reason for enrolling.

AKA causation.

[Linliel]

You could have saved us both time if you were just going to pull the "I'm important and busy IRL card"



Despite my busy schedule, I make it a priority to keep my ridicules informed and on-point.

That aside, I can start nitpicking your post history for logical fallacies if you want to play that game, you know I'm an expert, though since I wasn't speaking of australia to begin with, it's irrelevant.

Since in the U.S., the originator of the perry study, you can map the sharp increase right after it's release, as well as read the data where parents specifically cite it as their reason for enrolling.

AKA causation.

OK

[Darus Grey]

OK

http://tinypic.com/6i8nih.jpg

[Linliel]

Nope! I'm fine How're you?

[Darus Grey]

I'm capital.

[Linliel]

Great!

[Tyche]

How centers can go under is beyond me. The waiting list for entry is absurd, over a year. The supply is never-ending. Even more astonishing, 93% (I think this was the figure) of the funding at my wifes center came from children on government assistance. Those checks are as good as gold, no deadbeat parents not paying the bill. You have to have a terrible business model to tank a daycare.

I don't know of any "chain" providers here though, but I try to stay out of that mess.

[aduidarnenye]

I find it odd that this thread has both attacked women who work full time jobs so they won't be financial parasites to their partners (or ex-partners) because they aren't able to spend much time with their children due to work and attacked women who stay at home being full-time mothers and giving their children personal care because they are financial parasites to their partners (or ex-partners).

[Tristam]

Because you're discouraging people the people that are in over adundence to try at all and discouraging the people that are in the minority to work hard.

You can play the population game all you want, 200 men 100 women, 20 spots. Your chances of getting in if you're a man are 5%, if you're a woman 10%. It's placing less emphasis on merit and more on codling.

Let's place an arbitrary metric on these people. Let's say its GPA for a college that admissions are based solely on GPA ignoring SATs for now. If the average for GPA for the top 10 out of those 200 men is 3.5% an the average for the top 10 out of those 100 women is 3.0% why should those women who are clearly not doing better than the men be placed above them? For ease of argument let's say it's 5 men with 3 and 5 men with 4 then 10 women with GPAs of 3. Why is this fair at ALL? Why should we be encouraging this?

Turn it around so it's female in the majority and men in the minority. Should we be forcing 50% of all elementary teaching degree positions to be filled solely by men? Why do we need that standard? If there are 19 competent women and 1 competent man that can do the job, so what? Those are the best 20 PEOPLE not the best TEN MEN an TEN WOMEN.

Any evidence to show you're not just making up statistics? Considering there are plenty of examples where women fare equal or better in terms of GPA than men, don't you think that even your example is a tad misogynistic?

Also, grades are far from the only metric available to people making a hiring or admittance decision. It's rightfully a combination of things, so it's never that easy in the real world to determine who is "the best of the best".

From a review:
Women were found to be as academically successful as men, but what is intriguing is the fact that the former receive fewer rewards for their academic achievement later in life (Mickelson 1989). What differentiates men and women seems to be their ethical and behavioral approaches to their academic pursuits, social environment, and more or less traditional gender ideology.

Not so easy to put in a box labeled GPA eh?

[HadesChubbs]

I find it odd that this thread has both attacked women who work full time jobs so they won't be financial parasites to their partners (or ex-partners) because they aren't able to spend much time with their children due to work and attacked women who stay at home being full-time mothers and giving their children personal care because they are financial parasites to their partners (or ex-partners).

I find it odd your witty post refers to half a page yet refers to it as the whole thread.

This thread was about discussing ways in which women were legally "more equal" than men. The discussion included examples and theoretical possibilities of ways women currently are able to exploit the mostly one-sided laws about divorce, child care, etc. It moved to day cares towards the end, but that is only about 15% of the posts.