A radical view?
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32116
Printed Date: 29 July 2025 at 10:02am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A radical view?
Posted By: Bizzy
Subject: A radical view?
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 3:54pm
|
I got the Oct/Nove issue of the Treasures mag with my Reach Me pack the other day and i was shocked at this statement from the editor...
"...Dr simon rowley says parents should do everything possible to spend the first two years at home with their babies. I dont think the evidence we've uncovered is strong enough to back such a radical view." When did staying at home with your baby become radical? Am i that out of touch? Or is she? And i will add a disclaimer here - this is not to get at mothers who do have their kids in daycare at all. Most of you know i dont understand the daycare thing but it doesnt mean i dont get why some mothers have no choice. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Febgirl
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 4:01pm
|
I don't think it's the concept, it's the wording - "should do everything possible to stay at home" - that is pretty strong wording for a doctor to come out with. Usually you hear 'recommend' or suggest' or something along those lines. ------------- Two little girls under 2! 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 4:04pm
|
I'll probably be in the daycare before 2 category, I don't think staying home for the first 2 years is 'radical' I always thought its the 'ideal' option if you can do it.
I know there are a number of reasons why mum's can't or don't want to. If I have the choice I'd love to stay home with my child till they're 2. Considering it was the norm to stay home till you child went to school up until recently, some might consider day care to be the more 'radical' idea. Havn't read Treasures but it does sound a bit bias on the point of view from the editor. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 4:29pm
|
It is a bit odd, but I also think if it was worded differently that it would probably come across quite differently.
We have "suffered" financially and with our house and toys with keeping me at home but thats our choice but then we also choose to have daniel in daycare 9hrs a week for my own sanity but thats generally when i get my housework and working out done. Then we have the evening to relax. I think we are lucky that we have been able to arrange our lives so that its possible. |
Posted By: lizzle
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 4:47pm
|
meh. We did everything possible to stay home with both kids for the first few years. it didn't mean we could,m but we did what was possible.
BUT for number three, since he/she will be planned, we will also plan to have a parent at home for the first 2 years. Personally I get having to put kids in daycare cause that is just the way things turned out...i don't get people who plan for a kid, knowing it will in fulltime daycare from three months |
Posted By: mamanee
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 5:24pm
|
I always wanted to stay at home with my kids, and am doing so now. At times I wish I was working because being a SAHM is the hardest thing I've done in my life. Because I had kids young and I don't have any kind of career behind me, I don't really know of any job that I could get that would have suitable hours and earn me enough to put my kids into daycare. And I don't drive so can't exactly drop them off anywhere unless I walked there and then walked/bus to work, and it's hard getting two kids around the place!
Sam is starting kindy in a few months having not been to a daycare or playcentre before and he is totally ready for it, as am I! bh g' /frf gl;po'['p ][ ] ][ [] ][.36 ';/[o90iohjukbuyg78t 6t7 trtr26+52 (Sam's contribution to that!) |
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 7:51pm
|
I started responding to this but this topic gets my back up entirely so Im just going to shut up ------------- http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
http://lilypie.com] 
|
Posted By: bun_in_the_oven
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 7:59pm
|
different strokes for different folks...
there are SOOO many things that can detirmine weather you are at home or children go to a carer or childcare... Money...time... own sanity... mortages... the key thing in my opinion is... LOVE i just try not to be judgmental.... 
|
Posted By: jaz
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 8:06pm
|
Everything possible is a strong statement, I wouldn't have said radical though. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 8:18pm
|
lol at the word radical,I know its completley immature of me , but it always reminds me of The teenage mutant ninja turtles and makesme want to yell "cowabunga dude !!!"
thats my helpful input ------------- 
|
Posted By: peanut butter
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 8:43pm
| I did find the article a bit one sided so perhaps her comment was also made in reference to the content of the article which I guess could be bordering on radical...by being onesided. |
Posted By: Nikki
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 8:54pm
|
I think (without going back and looking at the mags) that the editor was referring to the article on "is daycare bad for your baby?", which was a little "radical" suggesting serious damage being done to kids put in daycare under 3 years. It got some heated responses from readers. ------------- DS (5yrs) and DD (3yrs) |
Posted By: ?Lolly?
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 8:54pm
I swear I'm not stalking you Kelly, but "Cowabunga" Awesome! ------------- Captain Chaos (5) & the Trouble Monsters (2!) 
|
caitlynsmygirl wrote:Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 9:12pm
|
Well I can tell you there was an article in that mag a few months back about childcare and afterward there was a huge uproar from parents who had their children in care because it cited a whole lot of studies that showed that childcare for under 2's wasn't ideal.
I imagine the editor is trying not to upset those parents again. The funny thing is if you read their article from a few months back the evidence they uncovered was enough to 'support such a radical view'. Please note - I'm not putting my opinions in here I'm merely commenting on the magazine article. Please don't bite me Feel free to bite the Treasures editor though  -------------  
 
|
Posted By: Raspberryjam
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 9:35pm
|
ok now that I have had dinner and chocolate
I was taken back by the editors comment that it was radical and why I agree somewhat with the ideal of being a stay at home mum, I didnt agree with the doctors reasons completely, to some extent but not completely. As we all know every child is different and different environments work for some and not others, as is every Mum different, and what ever choices a parent makes dosent change that they are loving parents. Be it sanity , love or finances, I think the choice of child care is influenced alot by sacrifice - something which all parents are very familiar with. I think it was rough that 2 professionals implied such an opinion, when we are already under enough pressure to make 'the right' choices for our babies. thats my pc version of my 2 cents ------------- http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
http://lilypie.com]
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 07 March 2010 at 9:54pm
LOL would have loved to hear the non PC version now... 
Cowabunga kelly!!! Nikki she did make reference to the previous article which i hadnt seen but it did sound like they had received a lot of feedback about it and not all positive either. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 08 March 2010 at 7:59am
|
For the sake of informed debate - *I am not weighing in with my opinion* - here are some of the the original articles that was printed in the Herald / Sunday Star Times, the Treasures article followed this one (I believe). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10622724 - herald article http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2480074/Home-best-for-babies-says-doctor - Sunday Star
------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Febgirl
Date Posted: 08 March 2010 at 9:26am
|
And here's one from today stating that mums who work part-time raise healthier kids than those who work full time OR stay at home full time!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10630398 - Another herald article ------------- Two little girls under 2!
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 08 March 2010 at 10:54am
|
i'm not debating daycare vs SAHM, just the thought that staying home or trying to stay home for 12 years is "radical".
No matter which expert you listen to they will always be able to come up with the data to support whichever side they support! ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: rachndean
Date Posted: 08 March 2010 at 11:56am
|
I agree with you Bizzy, to say that it is "radical" is WAAAAYYYY off. She definitely used the wrong word to try and get her point across, all it will do is stir up heated debates again!! (hmmmmmmm maybe that was her point??)
Hehehe Kelly, TMNT are definitely "radical"!! ------------- http://lilypie.com">  
DD Savannah 18.01.04 DS Austin 04.09.08 |
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 08 March 2010 at 11:59am
|
I think an interesting point in all of this is something pointed out to me in a parenting class recently.
It's not about the quantity of time spent with a child, but the quality of that time spent with the child. That was a real wake up call for me, to hear that. Not sure if it's relevent in this thread though now I've mentioned it. -------------  http://lilypie.com"> |