Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 If you're going to debate with me, you'd best do your research first instead of coming at it from an emotional level. Will do!! You can count on it It's funny how we need statistics now to prove something that has been proven evident for centuries... But I'll play your game.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 WOW so quick to debunk me!! JUst to prove your feminist point! http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3690/is_200609/ai_n17194464/pg_5 holding babies is parenting! Baby, baby doll, the same thing!! Once again, you failed to read the article. Expectant fathers show a decrease but when an infant cries, it shows an increase: A further complication concerns changes in men's testosterone levels in response to infant stimuli. Expectant fathers showed a decrease in testosterone (Storey et al., 2000), whereas new fathers hearing baby cries (Fleming et al., 2002) or holding their babies (Storey et al., 2000) experienced an increase.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Will do!! You can count on it It's funny how we need statistics now to prove something that has been proven evident for centuries... But I'll play your game. Keep working. You're 0/3 at present.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Keep working. You're 0/3 at present. _____________________________________ LOL!!!
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Working mothers 'bad for children' [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][sIZE=2] John Carvel, social affairs editor Friday November 14, 2003 The Guardian [/sIZE][/FONT] The children of mothers who return to work full time in the years before they start school have slower emotional development and score less well in reading and maths tests, according to a study published today by the Institute for Social and Economic Research. The disadvantage starts in primary school and persists into early adulthood, with lower educational attainment, higher unemployment and greater likelihood of childbearing early in life. An early return to work by the mother reduces the child's chances of progressing to A-level from 60% to 50%. The employment patterns of the father have little effect, said the study by John Ermisch and Marco Francesconi, professors at Essex University. They found that in Britain, the adverse effect on children was the same whether mothers returned to work full time before the child's first birthday or before the age of five. This ran counter to studies overseas suggesting that a return to work in the first year had more impact on the child. They said the consequences were less severe for the children of better-educated mothers. And the positive effects of higher household income brought about by the mother returning to work went some way to compensate for the negative effect of reduced contact in the early years. Prof Francesconi said last night: "Even the children of highly educated mothers who go back to full-time work early will have lower educational attainment. But the disadvantage will not be as much as it is for less educated mums." He said the findings came in part from studies comparing the outcomes for siblings, looking at the relationship between educational attainment and the age at which the mother returned to full-time work. This confirmed that the negative effect of an early return could not be explained by differences between families. The study was presented as the first large-scale appraisal of international research on working mothers. It said: "The long-term effects of maternal employment have their strongest manifestation in lower educational attainments for children in their late teens and early 20s." Much of the report looked at what happened to children in two-parent families. But it was gloomy about the prospects for the children of lone parents with low educational qualifications being encouraged by the government to take low-income jobs. The National Family and Parenting Institute said the ISER report ran counter to a recent study of women from Bristol University that showed the timing of a mother's return to work had no influence on their children's development. For many people the choices about working or not working are entirely financial - particularly on the question about whether to work full time or part time. "Other research shows parents would like to spend more time with their children. Often it is working practices, particularly for men, that prevent this. We work the longest hours in Europe and the institute is campaigning to change that. "There are undoubtedly many women who would prefer not to work, or to work part time. But those options are simply not there for them. Parents are increasingly finding creative ways to be with their children more, such as shift parenting."
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 WORKING MOTHERS STUNT CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT[/FONT] NEW YORK CITY, July 18, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Mothers who go back to work before their baby reaches 9 months consign the child to poorer mental and verbal development by age three than those with stay-at-home mothers, according to findings from Columbia University reported in the July-August Child Development journal. Researchers measured the cognitive and verbal development of children and found lower scores for three-year-olds whose mothers neglected them by working at least 30 hours a week. They also found that no matter how positive were other factors such as the quality of child care and the home itself, children with full-time working mothers were disadvantaged. Boys, and children of married parents, were found to be most affected by a working mother's neglect. Some tried to downplay the findings. "There are effects but they are not huge effects," says Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a co-author from Columbia Teachers College. "Your child's life will not be ruined," she said, adding that "sensitive" working mothers who show a greater interest in the baby can mitigate the effects. "The things I would say to [working] mothers are be highly sensitive when you are with the baby and get the best child care you can afford" -- meaning one caregiver for one or two children. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02071807.html
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 And here's the rebutting article from the University of Bristol. An editorial reference from a rag like The Guardian holds no merit to this study. http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2003/245 The latest study of working mothers in the UK has found that most children don’t appear to suffer any setback to their cognitive development – how well they can read, write and speak - when it comes to school later on.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 WORKING MOTHERS STUNT CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT[/FONT] NEW YORK CITY, July 18, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Mothers who go back to work before their baby reaches 9 months consign the child to poorer mental and verbal development by age three than those with stay-at-home mothers, according to findings from Columbia University reported in the July-August Child Development journal. Researchers measured the cognitive and verbal development of children and found lower scores for three-year-olds whose mothers neglected them by working at least 30 hours a week. They also found that no matter how positive were other factors such as the quality of child care and the home itself, children with full-time working mothers were disadvantaged. Boys, and children of married parents, were found to be most affected by a working mother's neglect. Some tried to downplay the findings. "There are effects but they are not huge effects," says Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a co-author from Columbia Teachers College. "Your child's life will not be ruined," she said, adding that "sensitive" working mothers who show a greater interest in the baby can mitigate the effects. "The things I would say to [working] mothers are be highly sensitive when you are with the baby and get the best child care you can afford" -- meaning one caregiver for one or two children. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02071807.html Do us both a favour and provide articles from valid sites versus sites that are completely biased. Provide real studies with all the information, not a crappy excerpt from something called the lifesite...
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 A more recent study dated April 25, 2006 from the University of Texas. During the first three years of the infants’ lives—at 1, 6, 15, 24 and 36 months of age—researchers collected data about the home environment, the mother-child relationship, and mothers’ attitudes toward parenting, employment and separation from their infants. They measured mothers’ time use when the babies were 7-8 months old. At 15, 24 and 36 months, they measured the babies’ intellectual development, use of language, social behavior and emotional attachment to their mothers. “The results were surprising,” admits Huston. “I thought we would see some relation between the amount of time and child development, but we didn’t at all.” Instead, working mothers made up for their time away from home by spending more time with their babies in their free time, on days off and by reducing time in other activities.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Do us both a favour and provide articles from valid sites versus sites that are completely biased. Provide real studies with all the information, not a crappy excerpt from something called the lifesite... http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd030199e.html And You only pick articles and studies that favor your theories while debunking mines. You're convince with what you believe regardless of how my articles I show you! Nothing will sway your believes. And if I am too, then we're both obstinate.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd030199e.html And You only pick articles and studies that favor your theories while debunking mines. You're convince with what you believe regardless of how my articles I show you! Nothing will sway your believes. And if I am too, then we're both obstinate. Actually, this excerpt came from your article. First paragraph: Children of women who work outside the home suffer no permanent harm because of the mother's absence, concludes a study of 6,000 children by Elizabeth Harvey, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Here's a research article funded by the Canadian Government, found on a government site: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/bulletins/1999-000002/page05.shtml The authors conclude that the mothers' time spent working had very little effect on children's learning capacity. Preschoolers scored about the same on the PPVT whether or not their mothers worked more or less than 26 weeks in the previous year. In fact, children with mothers strongly attached to the labour market scored slightly above the national average and those with mothers less attached to the labour market scored slightly below.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 I just don't have the enegry to conitnue. I'm very sleepy. I usually do more thorough research than this but I've been just copying & pasting. You’re going to continue to debunk my statement and these articles. I am too tried to continue this, not because of defeat but exhaustion. So I say,” to each it’s own!” You want to be a working mom or stay at home mom, fine. All I’m saying is that I’m “old fashion” and that is never going to change and I'll probably preach it to young boys! LOL! I want the mother of my child to stay home when our baby is an infant. If she wants to work, let it be part-time. I want the mother of my child to nurture him or her the natural way, as nature intended. Because if you rely on statistics and society, your child will grow up with A.D.D, Down syndrome, autism, cancer, etc., and I’m too tried to get into that. I can write a book because I’m seriously into health. You wouldn’t stand a chance! Guaranteed! You couldn't imagine how pathetic we are relying on the government for everything.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Here's a research article funded by the Canadian Government, found on a government site: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/bulletins/1999-000002/page05.shtml Government! LOL! Don't get me start on that!!! This was done in 1999 and from what I see it's insinuating that it's best that mothers work and not be home with their child! How do we know any of these articles are substantiated???? I'll just go by tradition....
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I just don't have the enegry to conitnue. I'm very sleepy. I usually do more thorough research than this but I've been just copying & pasting. You’re going to continue to debunk my statement and these articles. I am too tried to continue this, not because of defeat but exhaustion. So I say,” to each it’s own!” You want to be a working mom or stay at home mom, fine. All I’m saying is that I’m “old fashion” and that is never going to change and I'll probably preach it to young boys! LOL! I want the mother of my child to stay home when our baby is an infant. If she wants to work, let it be part-time. I want the mother of my child to nurture him or her the natural way, as nature intended. Because if you rely on statistics and society, your child will grow up with A.D.D, Down syndrome, autism, cancer, etc., and I’m too tried to get into that. I can write a book because I’m seriously into health. You wouldn’t stand a chance! Guaranteed! You couldn't imagine how pathetic we are relying on the government for everything. I agree with your first paragraph. Truly each to their own. Back up your emotional statements in the second paragraph. Most of what you're saying is unsubstantiated conjecture, particularly if you know anything about health and children.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 You have a good one and don't let statistic and research rule your life because it can be the life of you or the death of you.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Government! LOL! Don't get me start on that!!! This was done in 1999 and from what I see it's insinuating that it's best that mothers work and not be home with their child! How do we know any of these articles are substantiated???? I'll just go by tradition.... For a guy looking to The Guardian and a site called lifesite, I'd put real money on the research articles I provided.
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 I agree with your first paragraph. Truly each to their own. Back up your emotional statements in the second paragraph. Most of what you're saying is unsubstantiated conjecture, particularly if you know anything about health and children. Please don't let me stay up any later! I done want to have to prove my integrity!
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 Please don't let me stay up any later! I done want to have to prove my integrity! Back it up...
Author Shan2k Posted June 2, 2007 Author Posted June 2, 2007 Back it up... I will! I'll tell you one thing. Formulas are not the way to go when nurturing a child... GOD gave you the ability to nurture. (If you believe in GOD or science). I'll write it up for you. In the mean time, I will find proof to why it is beneficial to stay home with your Infant child. I'm opinion, which will be proven as a fact soon, mothers miss out and letting stranger take care of their children when they have all the capability to do it. It somewhat robs you of those memorable time with you infant child. B.T.W That comment you wrote previously stating, "thank goodness we have a choice." You made it seem like it was imprisonment for a women to take care of her child. Like a deprivation..... Just seemed sad to me....
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I will! I'll tell you one thing. Formulas are not the way to go when nurturing a child... GOD gave you the ability to nurture. (If you believe in GOD or science). I'll write it up for you. In the mean time, I will find proof to why it is beneficial to stay home with your Infant child. I'm opinion, which will be proven as a fact soon, mothers miss out and letting stranger take care of their children when they have all the capability to do it. It somewhat robs you of those memorable time with you infant child. B.T.W That comment you wrote previously stating, "thank goodness we have a choice." You made it seem like it was imprisonment for a women to take care of her child. Like a deprivation..... Just seemed sad to me.... Back to personal again Shan? For the sake of this thread just roll over and be a good boy...
This_Too_Shall_Pass Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I come home and decide to login to LS and then I see this.... What the deuce happened to this thread??!! Wow. I'm not sure I'm feeling like a game of tennis any more. Maybe good old ping-pong is the way to go. TBF.. relax, girl. You don't want to overstress your nice self over mindless, circular arguments....you know what I mean. It could go on forever....it almost did, here.
Trialbyfire Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 TBF.. relax, girl. You don't want to overstress your nice self over mindless, circular arguments....you know what I mean. It could go on forever....it almost did, here. Hahaha...you should see me when I'm really serious about something...
Lizzie60 Posted June 2, 2007 Posted June 2, 2007 I wonder if this will ever be done... This is not work...this is sports... and we have to admit that women do not attract as much crowds/viewers than men do. It's a fact. Women in hockey? Basketball? in fact in all sports, so from that angle I don't know if that will ever be done. In work, though that's a different story IMO, it has nothing to do with rankings, popularity...
Recommended Posts