JANE writes:
Do impersonal settings prepare a child for real life? Absolutely not! The most obvious deficit I see in these children is the way they act the same no matter where they are. They can’t differentiate.
I was a substitute teacher for seven years. Without fail I could determine who was a “day care kid” within the first hour of being in the classroom. I described them as “Islands unto Themselves.” So sad. It really is. I’d say it is the number one misfortune a child could bear.
More and more today, the parents of children in school were day care kids themselves. Teachers and principals are really struggling with the mindset of these parents. It’s as if the parent believes that the child is as much the school’s as their own.
Laura writes:
For decades, this form of child abuse has been openly promoted by the media and feminist organizations with willful, stubborn disregard for the welfare of the young. Only mass repudiation of this thoroughly evil ideology can begin to make up for the damage that has been done.
Laura adds:
The most ardent feminists, of course, never have to go through the horrific experience of leaving an infant or a three-year-old in an institution every day. They invariably have the option of more accommodating arrangements, such as paid nannies. They leave poor schleps to deal with the unpleasant consequences of their glorification of paid work and make it much more difficult for the husbands of middle class and poor women to support them.
— Comments —
Josh F. writes:
Jane said it best… “Islands unto Themselves…”
Institutional daycare, alien nannies and very immature neighborhood teenage girls [as babysitters]… All mechanisms by which the young child is conditioned to exist and grow “comfortable” with existing in states of radical autonomy. Like the island unto themselves.
The “socialization” offered up by the radical liberal is the unique kind of socialization that completely lacks the “social.” When one is constantly residing within “impersonal settings,” his socialization is like a glob of clay. It is to be molded and remolded by all forces more persistent, authoritative, powerful AND contradictory than his own. His “socialization” then becomes like “feminism.” It lacks anything one could conceive of as “social” just as there is nothing feminine in “femininism.” His “socialization” then becomes merely a scorecard indicating which “social interactions” he won or lost. His “socialization” is merely the capability of never being in an intimate relationship that endures, always being more “powerful” in relation to others, always being more autonomous than the next guy.
The island unto himself.
Robin writes:
Regarding those ardent feminists:
What is to be said about the mother of little ones who is “anointed” to do her job as a service to society? The woman whom everyone “respects” because of her profession, and the sacrifice she makes in leaving her children “for the betterment of society?” I’m not talking about the office drone pushing paper and doing data entry: I’m talking about the primary breadwinner in her family, the professional, the mother whose job is heavy part-time (so it’s not bad for the children, because “it’s only part time”)…the woman who does a great service for the benefit of humanity?
What is to be said about her children? She has always had a paid nanny who works in her home with her children, even as she went back to work when they were three months old. Her children have the benefits of “attachment parenting” and exclusive breastfeeding (except that the nanny feeds the breast milk in a bottle one-half of the week when Mother works.) Her little ones are not in an institution all day with the abundance of pathogens and psychological repercussions. They are in their home. Isn’t this great? Everyone has the best of both worlds, right?
Except that Mother is not at home with them. Oh, yes, for half the week. Most weekends, except those that she is working twelve-hour shifts of on-call. Father is not home with them either; he works over sixty hours per week and rarely has a sit-down dinner with all of them at night.
People think this arrangement is preferable to the “institutionalized” child care? Isn’t it? After all, the children are in their home. The nanny loves them. The younger one calls the nanny Mama. Nobody addresses this. They eat their own food, prepared by hands that care for them in their home – not institutionalized “kid” food devoid of nutrition. They nap in the comfort of their own surroundings, not on bleached mats at day-care.
Now, it must be noted that nannies come and go, so they may have been through two, three or four of them by now. What about all the times during the day where there are opportunities for character to be built and taught? Mother and Father are not there; the nanny attempts to teach, but this is not the preferred order of things and many of the lessons do not take. The nanny is simply NOT a parent with the same kind of authority as a parent. The nanny is “just a babysitter,” as the older child at four years old, often reminds. The children are whiny and discontent, especially when Mother or Father returns home. The transition is a lot for them to process.
What about male authority in the home? It is apparently absent. When Father is home, he is largely disregarded. His words are often ignored. Many times, no one acknowledges he has arrived home. His commands toward his children are often disrespected. He makes little effort to lead. His children rule him with their manipulative emotional outbursts. He rebukes others for attempting to correct his children, yet he does not correct them himself.
Is this better? This family thinks they “have it all” and anyone with an eye on the outside can see that something tremendous is missing in their children’s lives.
It would take a radical leap of faith on the part of this mother to reverse this situation. Probably the surrender of a career (at least for a few years) and the sale of a home at a loss, at the very least. A tremendous life-style change in mindset would be necessary: frugality as a way of living would have to be learned. Credit scores would plummet. Roles would shift; Father would have to step up and lead both financially and authoritatively in the home.
What is to be said of these people and their children? They have a lovely home; it is well-kept. Their children are well-dressed and clean and well-fed. They lack nothing. Except full-time parents.
Please follow and like us:
