Are Parents the Root of Behavioral Problems?
Children diagnosed with mental disorders are increasingly being treated with psychotropic drugs. But an editorial in Monday’s issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine urged health providers to emphasize the role of caregiver relationships in the mental development of children, according to the Los Angeles Times.
In other words, doctors should focus on the role parents are playing in their child’s disruptive behavior before prescribing drugs.
Haven’t we moved beyond the antiquated notion that parents are the root of children’s psychological problems? Sure, environment plays a role, but genes do too.
Most parents I know take the decision to medicate their child pretty seriously. By the time they agree to treat their child with psychotropic drugs for depression, bipolar disorder or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, most parents have exhausted other options.
In their commentary, Dr. David Rubin and Kathleen Noonan, an attorney, both with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, note that it’s easy to label misbehaving kids with with depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder, conduct disorder or other diagnosable mental illnesses that often lead to drug therapies. Instead, they suggest, doctors should focus on the child’s relationship to his caregivers as the root of the behavior problem.
Sure, in some cases, doctors over-prescribe medications to treat behavioral problems in children. But, it’s a bit harsh to say that the caregivers are the roof of the problem, don’t you think?
“Missing from the discussion is that at the heart of many of these disruptive behaviors are the biological effects of failed relationships, failed attachment, and multiple traumatic disruptions,” the authors wrote.
Suggesting that instead of psychiatric diagnoses and medications, therapies should focus on relationships. They mention Parent-Child Interaction Therapy as a promising alternative.
Healthy relationships with caregivers could have a significant impact on child health and, they said, “lead to the sustained changes in the brain that will promote resiliency in children.”
Of course, positive relationships with caregivers are crucial and over-prescribing psychotropic drugs for kids is a legitimate concern. But it’s also important that children with serious behavioral or mental problems receive medical attention when necessary.
Photo: flickr/Thomas Hawk
I didn’t get the impression that they were saying that medical attention was a no-no, but rather that part of that attention should include consideration of the child’s relationship with their caregiver. There’s a real tone in this post that only one thing can be true at a time, and that’s just plain ridiculous. Your statement, “Sure, environment plays a role, but genes do too” can just as easily be reversed (sure, genes play a role, but environment does too). It doesn’t have to be, and probably isn’t, either/or.
I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that it’s an either-or equation. As I say in the piece, a child’s relationship with their caregiver is crucial, but in some cases, medication is necessary. I’d just hate for a parent to feel that their child’s psychological problem is all their fault. Without a doubt, nature and nurture work hand in hand.
I’d also hate for a parent to blame themselves for their child’s legitimate psychological disorder, but I still wonder about the apparent rise in ‘psychological disorders’ that used to be considered simple behavioral problems that needed behavioral correction. I would equally hate for parents to become convinced that their child needs medication when all they really need is some actual discipline. I am worried that the line between actual psychological disorder and normal misbehavior is getting too blurred.
just want to add a “hear hear” to Kikiriki’s comment!
It’s certainly a delicate balance, Kikiriki.
I agree with Bec and Kikiriki. Children in the US are prescribed medications for behavioral problems much more frequently than in other industrialized nations, and let’s face it, they are no better behaved or psychological healthy because of it. Clearly, the pendulum here has swung too far in the direction of treating the biological bases of disruptive behavior. I think asking practitioners to focus on the role that parenting plays on disruptive behavior BEFORE–not In Lieu Of– prescribing medication is a sensible recommendation. Also, lets not forget that medications have significant physical side-effects and require continued usage while changes in the manner in which parents interact with their children have no side effects and can lead to beneficial changes in the relationship that last a lifetime.
“at the heart of many of these disruptive behaviors are the biological effects of failed relationships, failed attachment, and multiple traumatic disruptions”
wow…divorce, day care…hmmmmm
I agree with Kikiriki, and I am a social worker in this field. Many parents love their children and take medication seriously, but quite frankly, many parents simply want the payment that comes with a disability. Not all parents are as loving and supportive as we would like them to be. We can all picture with horror being told that our child’s geniune illness is our fault which is, of course, terrible and sad, but this is not the situation most of the time. And its not just many parents with an alterior motive. Everyone in the system has an incentive to diagnose a child because Medicaid does not pay for parenting classes or general counseling- it only pays for treatment pursuant to a diagnosis. Social workers need to get paid and they want to help kids hence the frequent diagnosis.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Sad mom. To be honest, I hadn’t thought of the fact that Medicaid (or, for that matter, most insurance) only pays for treatment if there’s a diagnosis. To be clear, I certainly think that doctors need to assess the family situation before medicating. I agree that over-medicating is a problem, but I also don’t want parents of mentally ill children to feel that they are to blame. So, as I said above, it’s a tricky balance. Thanks again for your input.
Yeah, GP. Parents getting a divorce and a kid going to daycare are the same thing….(as I roll my eyes).
divorce=failed relationships
daycare (at too young an age)=failed attachment
You know what, GP? You’re totally right. It is all the fault of single mothers and working parents. Because every single child I know who is the product of a SAHM and a 2-parent family (mom AND dad, of course) is completely a joy to be around 24 hours a day. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. In fact, as a former preschool teacher I can attest to one point – many of the children I taught were very well-behaved both in and out of the classroom (I knew some of their parents socially so saw them outside). Some had been in daycare since infancy. Some of them were horribly behaved with their parents, but well-behaved in my classroom (probably because I would not tolerate the kind of crap their parents would). And, as of now, I can think of at least five kids I know of with no ‘failed relationships’ of any kind who are being raised at home by their parents and those kids are the brattiest little sh*ts I’ve ever met who will pull a giant tantrum at the top of a hat. It has something, I think, to do with zero discipline on the part of the parents. And these are parents who I know in a heartbeat would be quick to blame some sort of ‘medical problem’ for why their little angels are kicking other kids on the playground and being extremely rude to adults. Yeah, it’s the ADHD. Not because you’ve never even once tried to stop that behavior.
On the other hand, now I have a clearer picture of what paulabernstein is afraid of – that people will judge the parents of children with letigitmate emotional/mental issues when often it is beyond their control. So thanks for that!
Oh please, daycare at too young age=failed attachment?????? You can have you kid at home and not pay attention to him/her and that can cause a worst effect because they see that mommy does not care to pay attention to them, so there. Anyway, I know a person who finally put the kid on medication after the kid being diagnosed with attention deficit disorder but never bother to reveal to the doctor that part of the behaviour is caused by the anxiety that kid lives at home. His main care giver wants to control everything for the kid, does not let him play with other kids and the only way of communication is thru yelling (all the time) so I think the medication could have been avoided if this person change some parts of her behaviour herself.
Really? Daycare and divorce?! That is not really the heart of what many struggling kids are facing. Most of the kids where I work deal with desperate poverty, parents who are drug addicts, abusive or extremely neglectful homes, and other horrors. Kids need our compassion not our judgment but at the same time, I don’t think we should be stupid about it. It’s the system driving these diagnosis and the drugs being prescribed have often never been tested on children. I wish, I wish (in a perfect world) there were more services to help struggling parents. It never ceases to amaze me how most parents love their children, even if their love is broken and dysfunctional. But we must always be carefuly- as pointed out here- that many parents seeking medical care have genuinely sick kids.
Seriously, GP, most families suffering with actual mental health/behavioral issues would love it if something as simple as divorce or daycare were at the root of their issues. It’s a complex web of genes, learned bad behaviors, culture, socioeconomics, and a million other things. We’ve already discussed that children who were in daycare have rates of behavioral issues nearly identical to those who weren’t in daycare, so you do know better—even if your ‘gut’ tells you that being a SAHM will make your child immune to these problems.
I disagree…I think that these factors contribute to the overall statistical climb in behavioral issues. It’s too soon to tell and these thing can’t be measured by hard science, anyway. But, yeah, my instinct tells me that an infant needs to be close to its mom and families need to stay intact.
The thing I think the original poster missed is that, not infrequently, the doctor is looking at the parent from the doctor’s adult perspective, and not even trying to see into the relationship the child has with the parent — never mind the relationship the child has with other adults in the family besides whichever parent has brought the child to the doctor’s office.
In my own childhood, one of my extended family received a diagnosis that turned out to be thoroughly off-base. The missing fact was that the child was being physically and verbally abused by the father, whom the doctor had never met. “And how’s the child’s relationship to the father? teachers?” // “Oh, fine.” And that was the extent of looking at relationship as a possible cause of the symptoms.
So yes, it’s not either/or. And, emphatically, I think the doctor (or school psychologist) owes it to the child’s well-being to at least consider the relationships in addition to the possibility of medication. Preferably first.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment, Maggie.
This is so dreadful, it’s difficult to know where to begin but if I had to choose one thing it would be this: “Missing from the discussion is that at the heart of many of these disruptive behaviors are the biological effects of failed relationships, failed attachment, and multiple traumatic disruptions,” WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS? I have looked at this research closely and except in cases of clear cut abuse there is not a shred of evidence for any of this. This is just another example of enlisting neuroscience to legitimize dubious attachment theory. I have often wondered why, if attachment theory really holds up, its supporters are constantly trying to prop it up with research that doesn’t support them at all. In all seriousness, if you look closely at this research, it describes a physiological process but it does not and CAN NOT tell us how this relates to human relationships if it does at all. This is not how cognitive neuroscience works. Right now the only thing stories like these shed light on is the the wishful thinking of those who generating them. I will concede that the motivation for these stories may be a reaction to the tendency to over prescribe medications for children but trying to shift the focus to parents and caregivers is not going to help. Ithink it would make far more sense challenge our tendency to medicalize so many aspect of our lives in the first place.
Maybe science cannot tell us about attachment to our young ones because it is so innate, so obvious, that an infant should be close to its mother all day long, that we shouldn’t need scientific proof for this. As it is now, only a randomized control trial would be big enough “science” to “prove” anything, and since it would unethical to control for an infant being separated from its parents (gee, I wonder why) such a study could not be conducted. Sure, there are hard core cases of abuse and neglect that would lead to behavioral problems, but we’re seeing an increase in behavioral problems in middle and upper class kids from “good” homes. What about that? It very well may be that increased awareness and screening yields increased cases, but it also may be contemporary (30 years now) practices in parenting. To me, it’s not attachment “theory” it’s that my infant’s place is with me, her mom.
Who needs “science” to “prove” “anything” when “we” “know” so many “things” “innately”? Things we know innately: the sun moves around the earth, the earth is flat, species are immutable, etc. Obviously, we need science to help us know when our intuitions are accurate and when they are not. If you don’t want scientific proof, GP, I ask you: what you are afraid you might learn?
With such a judgemental mom at home (all day long), your kid would be better off at daycare, interacting with kids like him/her and not be so dettached from the real world. My kids go to daycare since they were three month old (because you have never sent me the monthly check to pay the bills and I had to go back to work) and neither one has behavioral problems and are very happy. I can tell by the way the smile all day long not only at me and my husband but to everybody on the street. As a bonus my son loves playing with other kids and plays with them very well and it is very social.
How do you know I’m judgmental, because I express and opinion. Nobody is saying you’re bad for sending your kids to daycare. We are talking about social trends. Sure, there are plenty of “survivors”–kids who are fine, but honestly, in an ideal situation, where money was no object, who could argue against an infant being with its mom? I don’t blame people for the economy. Sometimes their situations are their fault, sometimes not, that’s not my place to judge. I am just simply making an observation based on my opinion. If you can’t handle that, then I guess I need to go play in some other sandbox with intellectually capable grown ups.
And Comstock, I’m not afraid of anything. Read my post about RCTs. You can’t prove one way or another that daycare is bad or not bad for babies. Therefore, I am going to go with my natural instinct as a mom and keep my infant close to me til they are at a developmental age where they would benefit from socialization and interaction with others…and it is not under one year old, I can tell you that.
GP, when very obvious things are tested by science, if they really are “obvious”, the science backs them up. The fact that plants need water can be backed up by science, but it’s pretty obvious. The fact that breastmilk is usually better than formula is fairly obvious, and can be backed up by science. The fact that genetic predisposition for ADD, bipolar disorder, heart disease, diabetes whatever exists is pretty obvious, and science backs it up.
And yes, a healthy attachment does indeed play an important part in having a healthy family, that’s obvious, and backed up by science. But does the use of daycare stop a mother and child from forming a healthy attachment? No. It may seem obvious to you, but it is not backed up by science.
Lots of things seem obvious in certain cultures, but that doesn’t make them so. You do realize that the idea that a mother must hold her child so close, literally, for the first year or five is a notion fairly unique to the Western World in the late 20th Century, right? In some cultures there’s some form Kibbitz (sp?) in which small babies are held and cuddled by older women and young people while their mothers work, and are delivered to mom for feeding and sleeptime.
I am aware of these village/communal type situations, sure. That’s not daycare in the West. Don’t kid yourself. Read my posts. I am saying it doesn’t NEED to be backed by science. It is just NORMAL that a baby should be with its mother. The use of daycare does not NECESSARILY impede a good attachment, but it can. Again, I said I understand economic constraints of people, but I am talking about an “all things being equal, its best for babies to be with their moms and if they’re not, it may cause issues we don’t yet understand”. I don’t know how many times I can reiterate my statment without people coming back with their arguments that are non-arguments. I have my opinion. You have yours. You can rationalize all you want about the Kibbutz (Israeli, gloried communist situation, by the way) or any other arrangement to make yourself feel better about having to give up your baby to somebody else for 8 hours plus a day. I feel for those that have to do this. But, from an observational view of societal trends, I am suggesting that the prevalence of daycare could be contributing to the behavioral problems.
GP, if you think daycare is unnatural, fine. But it has not been proven to be harmful and it is wrong to bring into a thread about mental health—something inherently science-based—and then turn around and squawk that you don’t NEED science. How is not judgemental and downright fundamentalist to not just say you don’t need science but actively ignore science you don’t like when you’re on a thread about…science?! Is it now okay for someone to come on this thread and say “it’s those durn gays…I don’t need any science to tell me what I already know—them gays are having babies and it just ain’t natural, it’s OBVIOUS…and also science can’t even tell, because it’s so obvious!” I sure hope not.
Also, I’m not saying that an American daycare is exactly the same as a kibbutz…but they’re fairly close. My point is that it’s only in the last 50-60 years or so that mothers have been expected to be as “attached” as you espouse.
Not everything can be explained or tested by hard science. Psychology is not a hard science. Psychotherapy and talking it out is not a hard science that can really be tested to the level of an RCT. Read what the post said…I am interpreting that to relate to the possibility that daycare (that is, putting INFANTS, not toddlers, not preschoolers in it too early, for too long) could be a factor. That’s not hateful or prejudicial, like saying “those durn gays”…
Daycare is the holy grail for some of you women. Can’t say a thing against it without the howls coming out in full force about being judgmental. It’s crazy.
Here’s what the post says:
“Missing from the discussion is that at the heart of many of these disruptive behaviors are the biological effects of failed relationships, failed attachment, and multiple traumatic disruptions,” the authors wrote.
Suggesting that instead of psychiatric diagnoses and medications, therapies should focus on relationships. They mention Parent-Child Interaction Therapy as a promising alternative.
Healthy relationships with caregivers could have a significant impact on child health and, they said, “lead to the sustained changes in the brain that will promote resiliency in children.”
I guess this would probably be a bad time to bring up the possible biological effects of CIO that might contribute to behavioral/emotional problems, too…since so many moms seems to swear by that, too, on Babble…
No, you can say plenty of things about daycare that I don’t object to. I think I’m actually more offended by the notion that science “can’t prove it because it’s innate and obvious”. You can talk about my daycare all day long but when you bring in science…them’s fighting words.
Incidentally I agree with you that divorce and single parenting do contribute to bhavioral issues. There have been numerous studies that show as much, and that even a SAHM going through a divorce or being a single parent, supported in staying home by welfare or family, will have a harder time attaching to her infant than a woman in a healthy relationship, regardless of whether she works or not. I hate to say anything morally about it; my emotion would rather have me say that single moms and their kids do just fine, but the science doesn’t back that up. What you’re doing, though, is taking what your emotions would prefer—that daycare causes behavioral issues, or more precisely that being a SAHM prevents them, and tossing out the science that doesn’t agree.
Since you decided to just cut and paste the post, where exactly did it mention that the parent-child interaction therapy included mom quitting her job and yanking the kids out of daycare? Or co-sleeping, since you decided to bring out that dead horse for another beating? It sounds like they’re teaching parents who were abused/neglected or otherwise raised in dysfunctional homes how normal, healthy people interact with their children, things like getting down on their level and not yelling, probably. Multiple traumatic disruptions are things like mom moving in a new guy every few weeks, moving often, mom taking off and leaving the kids with grandma at the drop of a hat…NOT a mom taking her kid to the same daycare or having the same nanny come in on the same day each week.
[...] or the combination of the two. They can be the result of abusive or neglectful treatment by caregivers or stressful events, but they are also caused by genetics or biological factors such as prenatal [...]
Jenny…science can’t prove one way or the other if it’s bad or good for an infant to be separated from its mother. This, as I said in a previous post, is why:
As it is now, only a randomized control trial would be big enough “science” to “prove” anything, and since it would unethical to control for an infant being separated from its parents (gee, I wonder why) such a study could not be conducted.
Therefore, in the ABSENCE of science, I am going with what is natural. Just like with breastfeeding. That’s the norm. Formula may be OK, but its not what is intended or the norm. Same thing with daycare for infants. It may be OK, but its not the norm for an infant to be with someone other than its own mom all day long. There are biochemical bonds exchanged through touching and holding between two people. A paid caregiver might be a fine and wonderful person, but they are not going to give off the vibes a mom will to her infant. Just get over it!
GP, randomized control is not the only type of credible science and you know it. The CIO studies you were lauding earlier, which didn’t even show what you claimed, aren’t randomized controlled either. Go on with what feels natural, but don’t interject into a discussion about medicine. You know perfectly well (if you’re as educated as you claim) that observational and statistical studies are accepted science when it comes to things that cannot be studied in a lab setting, like whether daycare contributes to behavioral issues.
You are judgmental by assuming that kids will have an attachment problem with their mom because he/she was sent to daycare, according to you, too early in life. And exactly, that is your opinion which is not substained by anything other than your thoughts but yet you want to make it sound like a proven thing. A sand box with intellectual capable grown ups? That is what this blog was until you showed up.
“There are biochemical bonds exchanged through touching and holding between two people. A paid caregiver might be a fine and wonderful person, but they are not going to give off the vibes a mom will to her infant. Just get over it!”
Hahahahahaha LOL
Go ahead and laugh…I’m sure the babies in daycare aren’t laughing!
I know about observational and statistical studies, too, jenny, but those are often poopooed by people…so take your pick! And rosana, learn to read and think critically, I am not “assuming that kids will have an attachment problem with their mom because he/she was sent to daycare”…I am saying that it could contribute to the problems. Of course, as I said, we see lots of kids who are just fine…
Right, those kids who are just fine, the ones you call the ‘survivors.’ And you say you’re not judgmental.
I’m trying my best to be magnanimous ; )
That last word should be “ignoramus.” You’re welcome.
oh, total WIN, scorp!!!
Mistress_Scorpio, once again you’ve made me snort coffee out my nose. My computer needs a waterproof cover because of you!
OK…sorry to end the congratulatory back-patting among braintrusts, but, here’s some science for y’all:
“The more experience babies have with someone who is going to be emotionally engaged with them, the better off they’re going to be.”
Sorry, but how engaged is a minimum way daycare working going to be with your infant?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=infant-touch
And, yes, I know daycare does not equal orphanage, but the orphanage is probably the closet they can get to a control group for non-touch. Doesn’t it follow to some extent that more touch, more close engagement with a parent who really cares and loves them is better?
Um, what? You linked an article about Romanian orphanages as a comparison to daycare, but somehow a Kibbutz isn’t the same as daycare? Good gosh, woman, what kind of daycare did you grow up in?
The article is right, of course. Infants do require touch and interaction. Everyone agrees there; the science backs it up. But the article doesn’t say anything about daycare, only orphanages where infants aren’t held and interacted with. And nowhere does it mention Mommy vibes.
I’ve worked in childcare. Granted, I did it at home, not in a center, and I made less than minimum wage. I held that baby in a sling and in my arms quite a bit, and she’s turned out just fine so far (she’s turning 7 and wants to marry my son. Yeah.) A minimum-wage worker who loves babies and is happy to have a job where she plays with babies all day will hold the baby quite a bit—especially since she’s not trying to do laundry, and work on the computer, and a million other things. A minimum wage daycare worker who hates babies is honestly, from what I’ve seen, fairly rare. And, yeah, she’ll suck at her job, if she actually takes a job in childcare. Lots of women are good with babies, and lots of grandmas who like nothing better than cuddling infants work in home daycares and infant rooms at centers.
Now, you’ve moved into not only spinning science but maligning an entire group of people that you admit having no real experience with. You’re using a study about Romanian workers in a state-run orphanage to malign workers on a totally different continent, who work at a job in a regulated, competitive industry.
AGAIN: “I know daycare does not equal orphanage, but the orphanage is probably the closet they can get to a control group for non-touch.”
You’re assuming that daycare is no-touch. It’s not, and you offered no evidence that it is no-touch. Honestly, there was another study in which daycare kids were shown to be about identical to SAH kids by seventh grade—I’d say that’s a better study for this discussion than one about Romanian orphanages.
I guess I hold my own response to my infant in higher regard than I do that of someone else’s, no matter how nice a person they are. Being held by someone who is nice, but is being paid to hold you is different than being held by someone who is madly in love with you and gazes back at you with an unexplainable intensity and depth. I guess I hold myself as a mother to be unmatchable for an infant. I think that when a kid is in preschool or gradeschool, there are some personalities and training of the teachers that would make them better playmates and educators for my daughter than me…and that’s when the time is for them to go. There is no substitute for a (good) mother’s love for her infant…in my opinion. I would never think that the well-intentioned, kind cuddling of a non-parental caregiver could ever match up to the nurturing I gave my infant…I guess there are people who just don’t get that or for whom it’s not that important. That’s fine…
Right, you can hold that in high regard; nobody has any problem with that. But don’t stick it in a thread about medicine and postulate that science can’t prove the obvious or compare competent American daycare workers to neglectful Romanians. You can feel that SAH is best, but don’t stick it into a thread about science if you’re going to throw out or twist science to suit your own emotional agenda.
As I said previously, this can’t be measured by science, and the things I am saying are just as good as anything else being said. Just because you don’t happen to like it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said. I’m done now, I can’t invest any more time in this thread, but geesh!!!! Holy lack of reading comprehension and defensiveness of the holy grail of daycare…
The topic paragraph of the Babble post included this phrase “urged health providers to emphasize the role of caregiver relationships in the mental development of children” so, I was discussing that…my opinion may be unpopular, but it’s not inappropriate, and anything anyone posts is just their opinion. I said repeatedly that daycare does not = Romanian orphanage or that daycare=no touch…there are definitely different qualities on the continuum, though ranging from the orphanage to a mother’s special care.
One thing I would add or maybe agree with to some extent is whether the daycare question is relevant to parents NOW dealing with behavioral issues…I mean, what are they going to do except feel guilty about past decisions? That’s not helpful. How the daycare question might be helpful would be in an over-arching, societal sense and for policymaking…perhaps its worth looking into to find ways to encourage mothers to stay with their infants during at least the first year and to foster economics that help make this more feasible. But, if nobody ever even asks the question, then, we just keep doing what we always do, which may not be the best thing.
GP, people have asked the question. The answers so far have been that single parenting does increase the risk of behavioral problems, even delinquency, as does poverty—two things that often go along with daycare use. But daycare, in and of itself, does not.
I agree with this one sentence that GP wrote: “…all things being equal, its best for babies to be with their moms and if they’re not, it may cause issues we don’t yet understand”. I think kids do need socialization with other kids, but I don’t think babies do. Sometimes kids have to go to daycare, and I’m sure they are fine. I just agree that two parents working (sometimes until very late) when kids are under 1 or 2 years old MIGHT have an effect on SOME kids, depending on the child care situation. I don’t understand why no one is allowed to say that because it might offend people who have made that choice (or even those who haven’t had a choice).
And children raised separately from parents in Kibbutzim did not always fare well emotionally. There is plenty of criticism out there about communal child rearing practices.
“MIGHT have an effect on SOME kids, *depending* on the child care situation” is a whole lot of conclusions jumped to, Manjari. I don’t think anyone is unwilling to entertain the notion that SAH may be an ideal situation for some parents and some kids. When that notion is couched in a constant barrage of superiority along with the implicit and explicit expressions that anyone who doesn’t live up to that ideal is abusing their child, then everyone gets a little less tolerant. It’s been expressed by this person in past threads that she worries for the world her snowflake is going to have to grow up in, surrounded by the children of the common plebes who can’t be bothered to raise them properly. This person has a reputation for her manner of addressing topics, which is why she went through about four handle changes a while back, figuring she wouldn’t be identified. No one is as hyperbolic in their statements, and while there are nuggets there we can all agree on, they are plunked on these boards surrounded by so much manure, no one wants to touch them.
Mistress Scorpio…I am not stupid enough, as I guess you are, to think that someone is not going to know the difference between GP and GtothemfckinP…or anything similar. I don’t personally identify myself so hugely with my Babble moniker that it matters to me one way or another, as I guess that you do. Get over yourself. You are not the duenna of this website you’re just another poster, and not a very bright or insightful one at that. It’s easy to be “one of the girls” and just be all “we’re all moms…we’re all doing the best we can…can’t we all get along”…yeah, sure, but whenever someone says something that goes against the grain, all you hens start cackling.
Going against the grain is one thing…saying, with no basis but emotion, that daycare causes behavioral problems is not just going against the grain. Lots of people have said “I feel SAH is best” and other such things without claiming that daycare causes behavioral problems, or bullying, or the inability to play recess games, or the myriad things you’ve repeatedly blamed on daycare, and they generally don’t get refuted.
Differing opinions, when presented as OPINIONS are pretty well-tolerated. A preference for SAH is an opinion, and one I respect. I never put out unfounded criticisms of SAH. Unfounded speculation that daycare causes behavioral problems, rejection of science that shows it doesn’t, and a comparison to Romanian orphanages, is just bull and I don’t particularly like letting bull go unchallenged.
If you feel SAH is superior to daycare, great. I happen to agree that a childcare worker can’t replace a parent. But we’re talking about actual harm, as measured by the appearance of behavioral problems, not preferences. I have lots of preferences when it comes to my kids—that they are taught to address adults as sir or ma’am, that they not eat in the living room, that they never have a television in their bedroom until they pay rent on that bedroom, that they receive an allowance and be taught to budget it, that they eat sweets on days that begin with the letter S only. I would expect that these preferences be tolerated, but I would never claim that someone who doesn’t do things the way I prefer is raising the risk of any particular problem without some reasonable evidence, and I especially wouldn’t bring up a comparison like a notoriously abusive/neglectful institution or reject good, clear science that showed the opposite.
I applaud Bec & Kikiriki. I also think part of the problem stems from parents being friends & not parents. Children need guidance & often yearn for it. Parent your children. Teach by example, keep adult matters to adults, & help them maintain their childhood innocence throughout their childhood. Invest quantity & quality time. A decade old study found that given the choice between quantity & quality, most kids chose quantity. When asked why, they said just because mom & dad were there for them. On daycare, the emotional discourse on the subject is amazing. I come from a generation when daycare was not the norm. Maybe even rare. Mothers are for mothering & fathers are to father. Strangers no matter how skilled can’t take the place of good parents.
GP, keep re-writing that history, it’s very entertaining. I admire Jenny’s patience that she keeps trying to explain things to you in a rational manner. If I were a more cynical person, I’d believe you were a plant, paid to keep conversations going by posting the most asinine diatribes under the guise of keeping traffic up.
Mistress Scorpio, I have a feeling we would be very good friends in real life.
well, I guess y’all told me…you are so right! I think I am going to go get pregnant and have another kid just so I don’t miss out on the glorious daycare experience…I hope my poor preschooler will somehow be OK having missed it…have fun working, beyotches!
GP, no one is trying to glorify daycare here. Just shut your trap for two seconds and actually read what is being written here. I think for most moms, daycare is a necessity, not a place they go running to thinking “I am so glad I don’t get to spend the day with my babies!!” All we are saying is that daycare is not terrible, I have never heard of a daycare being no-touch, and honestly daycare can have some positive effects on kids–like socialization. Trust me when I say that we allllllll know that you don’t like it when moms say “I’m just doing the best I can, blah blah blah, so I let my kids cry and send them to daycare.” Let me say again–we know you don’t like it. But the point is? Most moms truly are doing the best they can, and maybe they aren’t lucky enough, like you, to be able to stay home, or (as you said in a previous post about paci’s I believe?) to be as “agile” as you are so you can breastfeed while doing practically anything!!! We know we all pale in comparison to you and your precious daughter who has never been sick, thrown a tantrum, gone near a daycare, or had a bad night where you just had to let her cry. We know you have all the answers. But the thing is–your answers don’t help anyone but you because they are so one-sided, so judgmental (Please, for the sake of your own sanity, stop saying you aren’t judgmental. You practically sit on a throne.), and for most moms, just about impossible. Maybe, at the sake of being cliche, you should try to walk in a working mom’s shoes for a while. I think you would get a lot of perspective…or maybe you would just come back and tell us all the ways that the other working moms suck and how YOU are doing it the right and perfect way.
Because, obviously, simply stating that it doesn’t cause behavioral problems means we think it’s a glorious experience that is right for every family. And that your kid is missing out, which not only single person said. There’s definitely not some crazy concept like a middle ground or personal preferences…..
Seriously no one is saying that daycare is perfect. There are drawbacks, just like there are drawbacks to SAH. It’s just that serious behavioral problems, requiring therapy and intervention, isn’t a drawback when good parents use quality daycare. If anyone, including a daycare worker, is abusive or inconsistent with a child, there are going to be problems. But the vast majority of childcare providers, just like the vast majority of parents, are not abusive.
only single person = one single person
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Harlow/fig4.jpg
Um, WTF, GP? Wire mother? You do realize that nannies and childcare providers are real, actual people, right? And that they, as a rule, provide quality, developmentally apropriate care, including through holding and touch?
You’re proving, consistently, that you can’t find any studies to back up your assertion that daycare raises the risk or incidence of behavioral problems. There have been many, many, long-term studies done on daycare in the last few decades, and quite a few by social-conservative think tanks that would like nothing more than to scare women back out of the workforce, and yet it cannot be shown that daycare use, even before the first birthday, has an statistically significant impact on rates of behavioral problems. If your argument had any weight, you could present it.
No one is denigrating your choice to stay home. I respect that you *feel* it’s best. You can say you *feel* it’s best or *think* it’s best till the cows come home. But stop presenting false, misleading information about the FACTS and SCIENCE regarding other people’s choices, mmmkay?
Yeah, I’m pretty sure my son’s teacher in his daycare room (who he smiles at and claps his hands as soon as he sees her) is made of flesh and bone. She also has a heart beat. So that pic doesn’t count. Try again.
Does anyone have any instructions on how I can make one of those wire mothers? My daycare is looking to hire a new assistant, and this would fit right in. I also just saw that new BABIES movie and I have a hankering to tie my kid to a yurt. I see all these gazebos for sale at Target, would that do in a pinch?
Mistress Scorpio, you made me laugh uncontrollably, in the middle of a very bad day. Thank you.
Jenni, I’m sorry to hear you’re having a bad day. Hope it gets better soon!
One last post…maybe you daycare moms can “phone it in”…
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/05/12/126775824/mom-s-voice?sc=fb&cc=fp
I agree with the doctors on this one. Treating children without, first, focusing on their most important relationship and home environment would be silly. I don’t think this is blaming parents. I think it’s an effort to recognize the primacy of the caregiver/parent-child relationship.