I'm a former foster parent. I agree with your analysis 100%.
May your journey in fostering be fruitful. I highly recommend TCU's TBRI methodology. https://child.tcu.edu/about-us/tbri/ . One of the things emphasized by in the first year of life how the child and mother form attachment that forms a basis for later relationships; the eye to eye connection, the constant and consistent responding to needs being met.
Thank you very much! I have opened that in a tab to read over lunch. I really appreciate it. I read about parenting vulnerable children frequently and am (hopefully) preparing myself with as much knowledge as I can find. Thanks for reading and commenting!
I agree - I hate to see folks demonized when what they want or need contradicts liberal dogma.
Your 1% anecdote is spot on. The care that girl got was at the high end of the bell curve (and she was probably doing Calculus in the 5th grade :P ). I have 2 boys in highschool now. We had local free pre-K for 3 and 4 yrs old which we took advantage of - but everything about our kids' upbringing was nuclear family centered. I made just enough money to cover all our expenses in the early years and my wife started up her own business after about a decade of being the primary caretaker. We had reasonable local public school and both boys got partial scholarships to go to a Jesuit highschool. They have richer friends that did daycare and private schools and (anecdotally) those kids are sharper and much more sophisticated and 'sharky' in the social realm. My boys are
What I am relaying opens us up to all kinds of white priv and patriarchal arguments (despite the fact my wife ain't white) and i am not sure how I would even respond to that. 'NeoLib Stockholm Syndrome' is a good turn of phrase. It's a series of massively failing systems (schools, small businesses, middle class neighborhoods) and instead of introspection the woke among us want to lash out and blame folks for when something works...
When daycare is successful it is at the high end of the income spectrum. Why would a state like NY that criminally failed nursing homes in the pandemic be able to run schools or day-care? They can't. I feel terrible for folks who cant afford a quality option for daycare when both parents work. It must be anxiety producing to leave your kids in questionable hands while you work.
Thanks for writing this. I hadn't seen the essay you were responding to but couldn't agree more. I live in Montreal, QC and the one suffering from Stockholm Syndrome is its author, Jezer-Morton, who, of course, is doing her PhD in sociology at Concordia, a university dominated (as most N. American ones are) by those on the left, for whom "fighting the patriarchy and neo-liberalism!" are primary values, though in total ignorance that there are few things more conducive to the workings of liberal-capitalism than having as many women as possible wage slaves rather than at home taking care of their own children.
Yeah, Concordia is notorious. I know many two-career couples who both have thriving careers by a combination of flexible schedules and working remotely at least part of the time -- it's doable for most people outside of the service sector, but you have to want it bad.
The argument that pro-universal day care proponents would advance would be:
1) day care should be cheap and very high quality and workers should be unionized and pay well and maternity leaves should be for a year at 75% salary (what the article says Quebec has). Then your kids DO get the top experience and good staff and it's not this huge sacrifice And you cna decide how often you send them and so on.
2) many moms aren't cut out to be nurturing. Or to be that plus housekeepers. I'm a SAHM with two little ones, and I'm drowning in the house chores and I burn with guilt that I can't do all the playing and interaction that my first one got with her nanny while I worked. Does my presence counterbalance that I'm not always present, often stressed, often running between one and the other toddler and whatever needs to be done around the house?
And yet I prefer this and chose it with my eyes open. I want to be with my kids and think I do at least an ok job, and don't think the daycare from 1 year for 8 hours is what I would want.
At the same time, she admits to the inequities that exist, and how hard it is to get a spot, and that its budget is an issue (of course she calls it "political football"). So, nothing's free, someone has to pay for everything.
I don't really disagree with you, just wanted to make the comment.
I'm a former foster parent. I agree with your analysis 100%.
May your journey in fostering be fruitful. I highly recommend TCU's TBRI methodology. https://child.tcu.edu/about-us/tbri/ . One of the things emphasized by in the first year of life how the child and mother form attachment that forms a basis for later relationships; the eye to eye connection, the constant and consistent responding to needs being met.
Thank you very much! I have opened that in a tab to read over lunch. I really appreciate it. I read about parenting vulnerable children frequently and am (hopefully) preparing myself with as much knowledge as I can find. Thanks for reading and commenting!
I agree - I hate to see folks demonized when what they want or need contradicts liberal dogma.
Your 1% anecdote is spot on. The care that girl got was at the high end of the bell curve (and she was probably doing Calculus in the 5th grade :P ). I have 2 boys in highschool now. We had local free pre-K for 3 and 4 yrs old which we took advantage of - but everything about our kids' upbringing was nuclear family centered. I made just enough money to cover all our expenses in the early years and my wife started up her own business after about a decade of being the primary caretaker. We had reasonable local public school and both boys got partial scholarships to go to a Jesuit highschool. They have richer friends that did daycare and private schools and (anecdotally) those kids are sharper and much more sophisticated and 'sharky' in the social realm. My boys are
What I am relaying opens us up to all kinds of white priv and patriarchal arguments (despite the fact my wife ain't white) and i am not sure how I would even respond to that. 'NeoLib Stockholm Syndrome' is a good turn of phrase. It's a series of massively failing systems (schools, small businesses, middle class neighborhoods) and instead of introspection the woke among us want to lash out and blame folks for when something works...
When daycare is successful it is at the high end of the income spectrum. Why would a state like NY that criminally failed nursing homes in the pandemic be able to run schools or day-care? They can't. I feel terrible for folks who cant afford a quality option for daycare when both parents work. It must be anxiety producing to leave your kids in questionable hands while you work.
Thanks for writing this. I hadn't seen the essay you were responding to but couldn't agree more. I live in Montreal, QC and the one suffering from Stockholm Syndrome is its author, Jezer-Morton, who, of course, is doing her PhD in sociology at Concordia, a university dominated (as most N. American ones are) by those on the left, for whom "fighting the patriarchy and neo-liberalism!" are primary values, though in total ignorance that there are few things more conducive to the workings of liberal-capitalism than having as many women as possible wage slaves rather than at home taking care of their own children.
Yeah, Concordia is notorious. I know many two-career couples who both have thriving careers by a combination of flexible schedules and working remotely at least part of the time -- it's doable for most people outside of the service sector, but you have to want it bad.
The argument that pro-universal day care proponents would advance would be:
1) day care should be cheap and very high quality and workers should be unionized and pay well and maternity leaves should be for a year at 75% salary (what the article says Quebec has). Then your kids DO get the top experience and good staff and it's not this huge sacrifice And you cna decide how often you send them and so on.
2) many moms aren't cut out to be nurturing. Or to be that plus housekeepers. I'm a SAHM with two little ones, and I'm drowning in the house chores and I burn with guilt that I can't do all the playing and interaction that my first one got with her nanny while I worked. Does my presence counterbalance that I'm not always present, often stressed, often running between one and the other toddler and whatever needs to be done around the house?
And yet I prefer this and chose it with my eyes open. I want to be with my kids and think I do at least an ok job, and don't think the daycare from 1 year for 8 hours is what I would want.
At the same time, she admits to the inequities that exist, and how hard it is to get a spot, and that its budget is an issue (of course she calls it "political football"). So, nothing's free, someone has to pay for everything.
I don't really disagree with you, just wanted to make the comment.