Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!hou5h!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: a balanced life - (nf)
Message-ID: <2807@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Sep-83 00:02:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2807
Posted: Mon Sep 19 00:02:47 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Sep-83 17:53:38 EDT
Lines: 92

#R:hplabsb:-183400:uicsl:16400016:000:5270
uicsl!preece    Sep 12 10:21:00 1983

	Children who spend their 1st 6 years at day care centers instead of
	with their parents (both - equally!) are getting a bum deal. My first
	six years at home with my mother were the most wonderful time in my
	life! Too bad my father wasn't there, though (he was at work).
---
Well, I wouldn't want to put a kid into full-time (9 hours/day) daycare,
unless it was really thee only choice available, but I think part-time
(say, 5 hours/day) care after about 18 months is a good idea. By that time
kids are eager for more diversity and the stimulation of other kids. My
daughter made huge language strides in the first two weeks of daycare. Until
that point she hadn't really needed to talk. Obviously, the age at which
this appropriate is highly variable and extreme care is necessary in picking
the place, but I feel very strongly that keeping kids at home all the
time is a bad idea. (I can't really comment on my first five years; my
memories are fragmentary at best. I was at home basically all the time
until nursery school at age 4.)
---
	The recognition by all that child nurturing is the highest achievment
	of a man's or woman's life, and not a boring, despicable burden, which
	attitude results in malformed children, and lack of paternal
	involvement.
---
I think there's got to be a middle ground between "boring, despicable" and
"the highest achievement...". I'm uncomfortable with the notion that the
best thing we can do with our limited time on earth is to produce and
prepare the next generation to do the same. Obviously our children are
very important to us and in many ways their preparation is a central
goal of our lives, but I'd like to think we'll do other things as well
that are important to ourselves and others. I wouldn't say there's been
very much boredom in our lives since we've had kids (5 years) and I
certainly wouldn't say anything about it was despicable (thought there have
been a few minutes of disgust...). 
--- 
	Women who make enough money to support their families when it is the
	man's turn to stay at home. Too much disparity in income will cause
	pressure on one or the other to keep working, resulting in a less
	balanced life for both. Dammit, why aren't more women studying math?
---
It is true that my wife acquired (pretty clearly at Society's behest)
an aversion to math at an early age, but I don't think that's really vital
to equivalent earnings. Nonetheless, we're making every effort to make our
daughter expect to be better at math than her little brother, on the
assumption that Society will take care of his expectations.
---
	Equal and extensive (3 years) job leave for new parents. Without pay
	is fine, since the salary of one engineer is easily enough to support
	a family of 4 - provided they're not hung up on expensive TV-inspired
	crap like BMW's and impressive gadget-laden houses in dull,
	pretentious neighborhoods. After all, what 3-year old child cares
	about these things?
---
I'll vote for the job leave, but the without pay part is not as clearly
acceptable. Not every family includes two engineers (or even one), and many
families cannot forego even one parent's income. I also think that
anti-materialism is not all it's cracked up to be. Are kids from
back-to-nature, anti-materialistic households as likely to end up
engineers and executives as those from materialistic, high-tech,
aggressive families? (I'm not saying that's good or bad, though the original
note did support increased math understanding, above). As to neighborhoods,
remember that your kids' friends' parents are going to be your kids' role
models, too. Dull, pretentious neighborhoods are likely to have an above
average population in income and education; I like to know that my kids are
playing with kids that speak reasonably normal English, have similar values,
and are being brought up in ways I generally approve of. On the other hand,
it should be noted that my neighborhood is not, probably, what you were
speaking of; it's the local 'faculty ghetto,' and there's plenty of diversity
as well. But, generally, I'd prefer my kids to grow up in a dull, pretentious
suburb than a slum. I'm sure there's a middle ground.

As to what three-year olds care about, they tend to want things, too. Even
if their TV is pretty much limited to PBS, they still deal with other kids
and they see toys and things in stores and at daycare or nursery school.
My two-year old is heavily into Legos (I know, they say three and up, but
I can't keep his five-year old sister from playing with them, so all I can
do is make sure he doesn't play with them alone...). The largest expense
we've had for them, though, is for books. We both felt strongly that the
kids should develop an early, deep love for books not only by being read
to, but by having their own books. So possessions become important again.
Ah, well...

I don't want to leave the wrong impression. I think the most important
thing in raising kids is to let them know at every opportunity that you
love them, that they are important to you, and that they can cound on
you. I've been lucky -- the academic environment has let me spend a lot
of time with my kids that a 9-5 job, plus commuting, would not. I wouldn't
have missed it.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece