If you hadn't had kids...

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
If you hadn't had kids...
1649
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm
And your dh made enough $$ to support both of you comfortably, do you think you would be working?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 12:41pm

Hmmm, when I asked that of my sons teachers this year....I was given an answer of both, you couldn't have one without the other....and after watching both of my sons flourish under their teaching and caring this year... you can certainly keep your dd's teacher....I think I have the better deal.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 12:49pm

I am taking this the ninth degree but can you imagine a teacher that doesn't care for the children?


"Oh, you fell and you're bleeding. I'm sorry but you have to call your parents. I only teach you not care for you."


"Oh, your father hit you this morning and you have cigarette burns on yourself. You just need to figure that out yourself. I only teach. I don't do any social work or caregiving."


"Your mother is expecting? Don't share news with me. I only teach. We don't have conversations with each other. I might

"I do not want to be a princess! I want to be myself"

Mallory (age 3)

      &nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 12:54pm
there's that black & white issue again....most GOOD, DEDICATED teachers ARE teachers first, but there is ALSO a certain amount of caregiving involved. I'm truly suprised that your dd's teacher doesn't recognize that. Of course, that may be because of the way you presented the question -- as an EITHER/OR....and not given her the option of BOTH with educator being the primary emphasis.

i'm so glad my world is full of colors as well as lots of shades of gray.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 12:56pm
FYI, the middle example of the bruised child is against CT statutes as teachers and ANYONE who works with children in ANY capacity are, by LAW, mandated reporters of any kind of abuse.

utterly ridiculous to think that there is NO caregiving involved in education....

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 12:58pm
So when people ask you if you consider yourself to be your child's mother or your child's caregiver, you say...caregiver?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 1:04pm

I know exactly what you are talking about, I can't believe there are teachers out there who feel that way and admit it!

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 1:25pm
"Well maybe you should all stop with the incredible ammounts of time and effort?"

Why??? Why should I stop doing something I thoroughly and wholeheartedly enjoy?

"It takes INCREDIBLE AMMOUNTS OF TIME AND EFFORT to STOP the bond from forming...not to enable it to form. I didn't make this up. Nature did. Its nature's way that the bond forms inspite of, not because of, incredible ammounts of time and effort being directed toward the whole bond forming thing."

What exactly are you saying here? Are you suggesting that it's somehow unhealthy to put incredible amounts of time and effort into bonding with your children? Are you suggesting that just because bonding occurs naturally, that any additional or further efforts are unneccessary or just a plain waste of time? Hardly!!! I love putting in more than the bare minimum. I guess it's just the way nature designed me. BTW, I tend to give 110% across the board, not just when it comes to parenting.

"This allows for incredible ammounts of time and effort to be applied by adults to other tasks...like aquiring food, for example. Because no baby is bonding with anyone after they've managed to starve to death. THAT is nature's way.

Hmm, it appears that we have some very different ideas about what consitutes "nature's way". Do you really think that it's "nature's way" for a mother to leave her child in dc/substitute care starting as early as 6 weeks of age, to NOT bf her child for a bare minimum of a year, for children to have 10, 20, even 30+ substitute caregivers BEFORE reaching school age, for children to be in dc/substitute care full time (40-50+ hours per week), YEAR ROUND, to use formula, bottles, breast pumps, and feeding schedules, to place an infant in a cage, I mean, crib, etc. Hardly!

In fact, "nature" very much intended children to be bf on demand in terms of YEARS, rather than months and without the use of bottles, breast pumps, or feeding schedules, as well as being allowed to self-wean. "Nature" also intended children to be *worn* in slings or carried constantly, hence the term *baby wearing*, and certainly did NOT intend them to be put into cribs/cages to sleep, but to co-sleep with their parents. And just for the record, it was also "nature's way" for mothers to take/wear/carry their infants/young children WITH them when they went out into the fields to gather, NOT to LEAVE them. So basically, your whole "strave to death" scenerio is well, silly.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 1:35pm
Well actually, the research contrindicates what you are saying. More often than not it was the older children/grandmothers who cared for tribal babies. Every healthy/strong body was needed for food gathering/planting/hunting. Many of these activities are a little difficult with a baby strapped to you. Also it was not in any way uncommon for whatever breastfeeding mother was around to nurse whatever infant needed nursing. Hey maybe those anthropology courses are paying off.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 1:58pm
I don't care.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-10-2003
Wed, 06-09-2004 - 2:09pm
LOL!! She must still be translating her daughters "chinese" language since she hasn't gotten back to us. :)

Pages