Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW
I'm not trying to be sexist but babies need their mothers early on in life, it is when their personalities are formed and they learn the most about how to behave from the examples set.
|
Looks, then, like you managed to be sexist without "trying!"
I know families where Mom goes to work and the kids are just fine, and others where Mom stays home and the kids are a complete mess. Frankly, I think we falsely romanticize the era when it was normal for Moms to have no better employment than as unpaid, homebound cooks, cleaning ladies, and laundresses! It includes the unstated assumption that women are less than equal to men, in that it assigns the roles solely based on gender. There were problems aplenty at that time, but society chose not to discuss them.
I also know families, where Dad does most of the nurturing, that are quite successful.
It's not so much a matter of one parent or the oher staying home as it is how they spend time with their kids. My parents did a few things that I think really worked - they always limited our TV viewing, we ususally sat down as a family for supper (no TV), they read to us and made sure that we had reading material that interested us, they set expectations, they let us earn privileges and some (not all) of the things we desired, and (most importantly) they listened. Abusive techniques, such as spankings and thrashings, were not a featured part of the program. Generally speaking, negative reinforcement is not a good tool to train any animal; why then do so many folks believe that it is appropriate for humans? Answer - because applying negative reinforcement is the lazy way out, as it takes less time and effort.
"One size fit all" approaches to life usually don't work. My mother was much happier and, therefore, able to do a better job as a mother, when she was working.