Womens rights in Japan or elsewhere

[dogsbody70]

maybe it depends how we have been brought up.

I would never refer to my child/ren as "THE KID. Because to me they are a darned sight more important than a baby goat.

Yes people do refer to The kids but when one says "THE KID" such as Oh The Kid is playing out with other kids.

Its like many men refer to their partners as "THE WIFE" or THe partner rather than MY Wife or My Partner.

You know I used to say that once I've made up my mind I'd never change it. How silly I was. circumstances always change and it would be daft to be stubborn and never change ones mind.

THe University of Life is the one we are all in-- so we learn along the way and have to adjust our views as we take that journey.

Its good that you have strong views though.


and also good that you have a good upbringing. that is priceless.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

This is going nowhere, lol. I just disagree with you.

I am just asking you to explain why, because it seems to be the opposite of logical to me.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Just because parents work, doesn't mean their child is being raised by strangers.

For most of the waking day the child would be raised by someone besides his parents.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

I didn't say it was more or less ideal, I just said it was as ideal.

Ideal means best. You said it was more ideal for a child to be raised by someone besides his parents. I say it is ideal for a child to be raised by his parents.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

You seem to think that working = omg no time at all with child!

For a baby or a toddler those 8 or 9 (or more) hours away from one's parents are an eternity. Work will always be there, but a baby is a baby and a toddler is a toddler for only a little while.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

The average shift here is something like 7-8 hours. There are 24 hours in a day.

In the UK, full time is around 30+ hours a week. So to make that, you'd work about 4 days a week if your shifts are 8 hours. Dad works Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Mum works Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.

So that means the kid spends two days out of seven in day care - which is probably how long you'd put the kid in day care if you were a stay-at-home mum/dad anyway.

We've done this before
A baby sleeps like 12-16 hours a day. It sounds like you have very short work weeks in the UK. In the US 40 hours a weeks is considered standard, then you have to add in commute times. That's a big hunk of one's day.

Yes, if parents can arrange their schedules so that one parent is with the child all the time, that is great! That's what I have been saying from the beginning!

If one of the parents is a stay-at-home parent, why would you ever need to use daycare?

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Even if you both work 5 days a week, you still see the kid all weekend and every single evening. If the child is happy, what does it matter? You can't tell me that most children are unhappy at daycare, if a parent thought their child was unhappy they wouldn't put them there!

And if they do they are a bad parent, working or not.

As I said, work will always be there. A child is a child for a few blinks.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

depending of course if those parents are decent parents MM. If they are not-- then alternatives need to be found where the child will have love and security. but sadly even that is not guaranteed--An awful lot of children here in UK are in the not very good Care system.

I have stated more than once that bad parents are bad parents and should not be raising children. That doesn't detract from my point.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

So I take it you disagree with adoption too?

Of course I do not disagree with adoption? Why would you say that?

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Blood is best is such a strange notion in civilised intelligent species, as we act far more with thought than say instinct which is all that would cause you to protect your own DNA.

So why to people have instincts to have children in the first place? We may be civilized and intelligent, but we are still human beings.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

There are schools of thought that children who are sent to daycare and have different babysitters actually develop far better social skills and become happier, or even more successful as a result of that.

And there are schools of thought that say the exact opposite. What can I say?

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Just look at the poor social development of most home-schoolers for obvious indication of this.

I am mostly talking about the formative years from 0 to about 5, the pre-school age.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

A good upbringing has little to nothing to do with how much time the actual parents spend with the children, and everything to do with how they are being looked after.

I would disagree that the amount of time has NOTHING to do with how a child grows up, but how they are looked after has a lot to do with it. Who is going to look after a child better, a loving mother with everything invested in her child's upbringing, or a day care worker getting paid minimum wage who has NOTHING invested into the child's upbringing or future?

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

If parents are leaving young children alone, or letting children play on the streets way into the night, this is wrong yes. If they carefully select babysitters, day care then it is just the same, and in some cases better.

You have to pass exams and government inspection to work with children, you don't need a license to get pregnant and be a parent.
Yes the system fails sometimes, but we only know this because it is so heavily advertised, thousands of children unhappy with their own blood parents treating them bad, but not bad enough for social service to get involved will go undetected all the time.

Just because there are bad parents doesn't mean parenting is bad. It seems like the attitude is "leave it to the professionals" and maybe that is the reason, at least in the UK it seems, you are having the social problems you are having.

Why are there so many bad parents in the UK? Is it because these parents were raised by babysitters or social workers, and not their actual parents? Why good modeling did they get from their parents that made them turn out so crummy? Or did they get very little modeling at all?

[File0]

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not sure if it matters if it is 2011 or 1911.

In an ideal world a child should be raised by his parents, rather than strangers.

Why is it so hard to agree with?

And I am not sure how you can say there is no detriment to the child whatsoever if he is raised by strangers. Why is that more ideal, in your view, than raised by blood?

If the child is happy, you don't see a problem? What young child would rather be with strangers rather than his parents?

While I'm completely agreeing with you about the other points, I must say if a child is raised by strangers he/her won't know any other ways. The only thing which would(not necessarily) make him/her realize that something is wrong if the stranger is somehow a bad or not fitting person, MissMisa speaks about an ideal situation, where the child is in as good hands as if they were his parents', so the answer not necessarily the parents (specially after a while, the child definitely would chose what he knows, it's safer and cozier.)
Which is more concerning, in my opinion, that how does it affect on our societies? And unfortunately it will only be revealed when the opportunity to fix it will be long gone - surely it's already gone in most western societies.

BTW these last posts are about 'career or baby' should be in another thread, shouldn't they?

[princessmarisa]

Originally Posted by MMM

Of course I do not disagree with adoption? Why would you say that?

Due to the entire blood is best tirade you keep lamenting on about.

So why to people have instincts to have children in the first place? We may be civilized and intelligent, but we are still human beings.

The instinct is usually the one to have sex, and the child can be a wanted or unwanted side effect.
People who chose to have children as a conscience trying effort are those who put a lot of intelligent thought into reasons. Some want to raise a child as a sense of worth, others as a way to give and receive love, some just because they will get more benefits. It is not a simple instinct to procreate.

I never said we are not human beings, I said we are an intelligent species as opposed to a more simple animal who acts on instinct alone.

And there are schools of thought that say the exact opposite. What can I say?

I am mostly talking about the formative years from 0 to about 5, the pre-school age.

As you said yourself these spend the majority of the day asleep, so are largely unaware if the actual parents are there or not. As long as their physical needs and emotional needs are catered for, along with some psychological development or educational stimulation their upbringing is in no way compromised by the actual blood-parents not being around watching their cot all day

I would disagree that the amount of time has NOTHING to do with how a child grows up, but how they are looked after has a lot to do with it. Who is going to look after a child better, a loving mother with everything invested in her child's upbringing, or a day care worker getting paid minimum wage who has NOTHING invested into the child's upbringing or future?

You presume here that most parents care about their children so much that the Love alone will be better for them than actual knowledge of how to help children develop. You also presume most childcare professionals are minimum wage lackies who don't care about their job.

In reality, a bad parent won't get caught as easily on behaving irresponsibly as a professional would. So by that fact, on average professionals will give better care than parents.

Yes some parents will give exceptionally good care, and some professionals exceptionally bad.

However on a large scale, those with training, being monitored/regulated by the government and various other influences such as knowing the support services around, first aid training, etc. even reasons as selfish as keeping their job will cause professionals on average to be better at the task at hand than a parent raising their child at home.

Just because there are bad parents doesn't mean parenting is bad. It seems like the attitude is "leave it to the professionals" and maybe that is the reason, at least in the UK it seems, you are having the social problems you are having.

I never said that all parenting is bad, I merely dissected your ideaology that "blood is always best" and that is is preferred and ideal to have children raised in the home, by the parents, not childcare.

Why are there so many bad parents in the UK? Is it because these parents were raised by babysitters or social workers, and not their actual parents? Why good modeling did they get from their parents that made them turn out so crummy? Or did they get very little modeling at all?

I really doubt that there are bad parents because they were raised by childcare professionals. If they were raised by their blood relatives how would that make them any better at parenting, unless we are expected to believe that by just having a blood bond one would know perfectly how to raise a child!

It is far more because of social workers we care more about upbringing now and highlight potential issues and intervene for the Child's sake.
There are not *more* bad parents, we are just *more* aware of the issues due to mass media improvements and changing ideas in what a child needs.

Do I really need to get into X years ago we thought it was fine to send children down the mines and work them half to death and other similar off the wall examples?
No one thought they were bad parents then, society evolved and the "professionals" as you seemingly scathingly label them stepped in and investigated the detriment this has to the children and changed this.

[MMM]

I said it was equal to - equally beneficially, equally ideal. [/quote]

Here is what you said:

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Love is a different thing~

I don't get why you insist on saying you have to have one or the other. This is 2011, you can have both with no detriment to the child whatsoever. It's not even an ideal in my view, if the child is happy then I don't see the problem.

If you are revising that statement, then I think we are making progress. I read this as saying it is not an ideal to have a child being raised by his parents. Am I misreading it?

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Are you of the opinion there can only be one 'best' solution to everything? Because I'm not.

By saying something is "the best" means there is no equal.

I think, for the most part it is the "best" to have a child raised by fit parents. I am surprised at what a negative reaction that brings out in some people.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

My conclusion is this - the best situation for a child is one where the parents love the child, care about the child, do what they think is best for the child, and cares about the happiness of the child - and the child is happy, well developed, and growing in a happy home. Whether the parents work or not is utterly irrelevent to me. If this can be achieved from a parent staying at home, or parents working, then this is the ideal that can be achieved in different ways.

For the most part, I agree with what you are saying, however I think the time factor is a great influence on the child. You don't.

Originally Posted by MissMisa

The ideal is NOT mum stays at home, dad goes to work, or any other situation. The ideal is that the child is happy and developing well.

We agree with the ends, if not the means.
For you, this is a problem. For me, it's not. This is where we disagree.



A child needs to interact with other children - so not just daycare, but things like daycare, nursery, playschool - somewhere safe to interact with other children. Not taking a children to things like this IS an actual detriment to the child. A responsible parent will take their child here so they can develop properly, whether they are staying at home or not.

A parent also needs a break from a child. You are a better parent if you have time to yourself, to relax and to destress, or to do things that make you happy. If you are unhappy yourself, it has been studied many many times and concluded that your emotional status reflects on your child.[/quote]

[MMM]

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Due to the entire blood is best tirade you keep lamenting on about.

Tirade? Lamenting? Let's not get too dramatic and let's stick to the topic. I used the word "blood" once to reiterate the parents have a vested interest as to how a child is raised. A social worker or babysitter doesn't.

If you read into that I don't believe in adoption, then I guess I haven't been clear enough.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

The instinct is usually the one to have sex, and the child can be a wanted or unwanted side effect.

But the reason the instinct to have sex is there is because the species wants to procreate.

Socially humans have changed a lot more in the last few thousand years than we have biologically. 1000 years ago it was normal for 14-year-olds to start having children. In modern society this is abhorrent. However, biologically that's what we are, and young men and young women still follow their instincts instead of using their intelligent brains and make unwanted babies (that should probably be put up for adoption to caring would-be parents that can take care of the child).

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

People who chose to have children as a conscience trying effort are those who put a lot of intelligent thought into reasons. Some want to raise a child as a sense of worth, others as a way to give and receive love, some just because they will get more benefits. It is not a simple instinct to procreate.

Individuals, especially those of a younger age, tend not to have the desire to become young mothers or young fathers. They know the difficulties that can come with having a child before one is ready mentally and financially.

Yes, there are some people that have children just to get more money from the government. They don't work, and as a result their kids follow the same role. This is bad modeling.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

I never said we are not human beings, I said we are an intelligent species as opposed to a more simple animal who acts on instinct alone.

How many unwanted teen pregnancies are there in the UK every year? I know in the US it is well over a million. We may be intelligent beings, but sometimes we don't show it too well.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

As you said yourself these spend the majority of the day asleep, so are largely unaware if the actual parents are there or not. As long as their physical needs and emotional needs are catered for, along with some psychological development or educational stimulation their upbringing is in no way compromised by the actual blood-parents not being around watching their cot all day

A baby's emotional needs require (most of the time) the mother, but also the father. There are some things a stranger just can't do. A baby's nourishment literally comes from the mother's body.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

You presume here that most parents care about their children so much that the Love alone will be better for them than actual knowledge of how to help children develop. You also presume most childcare professionals are minimum wage lackies who don't care about their job.

I am assuming a parent is going to love their child more than the social worker will, and the child will know that.

Why do you assume that parents have love, and nothing more. First-time parents have been raising children for eons, and our intelligent society has made it this far.

I am not assuming daycare workers aren't well equipped, but I am saying they don't have the investment in having a child be raised well. The parents do.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

In reality, a bad parent won't get caught as easily on behaving irresponsibly as a professional would. So by that fact, on average professionals will give better care than parents.

Wow! Where did you come up with that spin? Since it is easier to catch bad child care workers than bad parents, child care workers are BETTER at raising children than actual parents?!? Amazing!

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

Yes some parents will give exceptionally good care, and some professionals exceptionally bad.

However on a large scale, those with training, being monitored/regulated by the government and various other influences such as knowing the support services around, first aid training, etc. even reasons as selfish as keeping their job will cause professionals on average to be better at the task at hand than a parent raising their child at home.

What an incredible conclusion! I think you look at child-rearing as a job.

Child-rearing is not a job. It is much more than that. It is a life change of epic proportions. It requires much more than most "jobs"... it is more than full-time, but 24-7 with no days off. It is more than feeding and stimulating the child. It is about LOVING the child. Being loved and feeling loved is a very important part of a child's development. That's being held, kisses, warmth of another human's skin and making those connections, physical and emotional.

Yes, someone can read a textbook and pass some tests and know what to do when child is choking, etc. But that is NO replacement for a loving caring parent, and it never will be.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

I never said that all parenting is bad, I merely dissected your ideaology that "blood is always best" and that is is preferred and ideal to have children raised in the home, by the parents, not childcare.

Please don't quote me if that's not what I said, because that's not what I said. I didn't say "blood is always best" because there are times when blood isn't best (i.e. abuse, drug addicts, etc.) However what I said is when blood is good, it is the best.

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

I really doubt that there are bad parents because they were raised by childcare professionals. If they were raised by their blood relatives how would that make them any better at parenting, unless we are expected to believe that by just having a blood bond one would know perfectly how to raise a child!

It's about modeling. Children see and imitate. Overweight people tend to have overweight children. Children of divorce have higher divorce rates than children of couples that never divorce. Single parents tend to have children who are single parents.

There is an ad on the radio here for foster homes, and its tag line fits here.

"You don't have to be perfect to be a perfect parent."

Originally Posted by princessmarisa

It is far more because of social workers we care more about upbringing now and highlight potential issues and intervene for the Child's sake.
There are not *more* bad parents, we are just *more* aware of the issues due to mass media improvements and changing ideas in what a child needs.

Do I really need to get into X years ago we thought it was fine to send children down the mines and work them half to death and other similar off the wall examples?
No one thought they were bad parents then, society evolved and the "professionals" as you seemingly scathingly label them stepped in and investigated the detriment this has to the children and changed this.

Miss Misa addressed this too, and I don't know, that's why I asked.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

C'mon, really? That's probably why the reason sex is good (to be blunt) but not why people have sex.

Sex =/= babies anymore. Anyway that's a whole different ballgame, lol.

The children get the sort of loving attention they need from the parents when they get home from work. Problem solved IMO.

Why do you think the most pleasurable activity men and women participate in leads to pregnancy? Coincidence?

Biologically sex=babies. We have ways to FIGHT that, but still, that instinct can lead to that result.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

'But the reason the instinct to have sex is there is because the species wants to procreate.'

Hang on a sec - that sentence was different before...

I didn't change it.

Two individuals may not want to make a baby, but the human species wants to procreate. Again, why do you think the act is pleasurable?