If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Binky-hating 114-year-old pediatrician Dr. Leila Denmark has died: "When she began to practise, an appointment to see her cost $4. By the time she retired aged 103, she had more than doubled her fees - to $10"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 100
    More: Sad, Dr Leila Denmark, Sandy Springs, Eli Lilly, whooping cough, Grady Hospital, pediatricians  
•       •       •

8195 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2012 at 1:48 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-08 05:46:11 AM

Bathia_Mapes: Gordon Bennett: alien facehugger

[i6.photobucket.com image 542x382]

This?


Yes, thank you!
 
2012-04-08 05:49:21 AM

powhound: In general, the term Binky refers to the nipple thing parents stick in their kids mouths to make them stop crying. Or, as mentioned above, to ease certain issues such as colic (which is to make them stop crying).

Like ring pops. Ask a teenager why they are sucking on a Binky...it's good for a laugh.


The difference being that when a colicky baby is crying, it's because they're in pain. I don't think the good lady doctor would object to a mother trying to relieve her child's pain by letting them suck for a few minutes on a pacifier.

Her objections to their use seem to stem more from them being used to quiet a baby down instead of interacting with them (holding, rocking, rubbing the baby's back, etc.).
 
2012-04-08 05:55:44 AM

Bathia_Mapes: powhound: In general, the term Binky refers to the nipple thing parents stick in their kids mouths to make them stop crying. Or, as mentioned above, to ease certain issues such as colic (which is to make them stop crying).

Like ring pops. Ask a teenager why they are sucking on a Binky...it's good for a laugh.

The difference being that when a colicky baby is crying, it's because they're in pain. I don't think the good lady doctor would object to a mother trying to relieve her child's pain by letting them suck for a few minutes on a pacifier.

Her objections to their use seem to stem more from them being used to quiet a baby down instead of interacting with them (holding, rocking, rubbing the baby's back, etc.).


I feel that she if referencing the people that have kids and don't really nurture them.
 
2012-04-08 06:07:56 AM

Gordon Bennett: Bathia_Mapes: Gordon Bennett: alien facehugger

[i6.photobucket.com image 542x382]

This?

Yes, thank you!


The site said that wasn't really a binky, but a plushie toy. Either way, it's wonderfully evil looking on that baby's face.

The search I used to get the image was "alien facehugger pacifier".
 
2012-04-08 06:08:37 AM

AbbeySomeone: I feel that she if referencing the people that have kids and don't really nurture them.


Indeed.
 
2012-04-08 06:13:37 AM

fusillade762: KrispyKritter: 9beers: Bondith: What the hell's a binky?

How the hell do you not know what a "binky" is?

i wish i was born knowing everything like 9beers.

a binky is a cutesy name for a pacifier

Huh. And here I was thinking it was a corruption of the term "blankie" or blanket.

To the wikis!

Binky may refer to:
A stuffed animal or similar toy for small children
A brand name for a pacifier, used to comfort infants or small children
A blanket, used to keep infants or small children warm (new window)

And did anyone else read that as "bikini" and wonder why a baby would wear one?


I got through the whole article and was still trying to figure out why she hated bikinis.
 
2012-04-08 06:38:53 AM

Bondith: What the hell's a binky?


Binky is the horse of Death. While I'd be happy not to see Binky, hating him isn't really nice. It's not as if Binky can help who his owner is.
 
2012-04-08 07:43:28 AM
My wife met her once a few years ago. Everyone says she was an excellent doctor right up to the end. God bless her.
 
2012-04-08 07:57:34 AM

relcec: ...by the time she retired aged 103, she had more than doubled her fees - to $10 per visit...

bullshiat


Nope. There was a doc in Athens, Ga who died a few years ago who would charge 5 bucks if you were poor, would cut off skin tags/moles for 10 (instead of the $100 the dermatologists charge). The guy said he worked just to pay the taxes on his investments. Literally born the son of a sharecropper, he credited his success to hard work, determination, and in his early years having an accountant "so crooked he had to screw his shoes on."

He was also the official doc for Effie's, the local bordello. Never thought to ask how they paid him.
 
2012-04-08 08:22:46 AM
She was a cool lady.

My step-mom took my sisters to her for much of the last 15-20 years. They went to the funeral/reception just the other day.

I know she used to see people in a little two room shack. A waiting room and a patient room. That was it.

I first met her 18? years ago. I remember her telling me that people got ear infections because they screwed around with ears too much. The only thing you should put in your ear is your elbow.
 
2012-04-08 09:01:25 AM

ox45tallboy: Bathia_Mapes: Bondith: What the hell's a binky?

"Binky" is the brand name of a pacifier, but people often use the term in a generic manner to refer to all brands of pacifiers.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

Except Nuks. My son had a Binky, but he threw it away before he could really talk enough to give it a name (I called it a binky, his Mom called it a "passy". My sister's kids, however, had Nuks that they called "nuk", and they held on to them until they were almost three years old.


"soothie" for soother for us get off my lawn types.
 
2012-04-08 09:11:28 AM

e lo: For those who did not RTFA: She was a true pioneer of women in American medicine (not the first, but she was one of those who had to fight her way in), and a scientist on top of it. She played a part in the original research that led to the whooping cough vaccine, and treated families for sometimes as many as 5 generations.

As a fellow physician scientist, I'm saddened by her passing.

/Too saddened even to go for the obvious "getting a kick" meme...


Very Much THIS!!
RIP Dr. Denmark. Thank you for paving the way!
 
2012-04-08 09:20:41 AM

GladGirl: My grandfather worked as an investment banker up until 2 weeks before he died last week at age 99. Some people are hardcore.

Me? I like to cut out of work at 4:30.


oh no - sorry about your grandfather :-(
that's very sad - but definitely bad ass. assuming that he liked his work of course.
 
2012-04-08 09:23:37 AM

swingerofbirches: I've never understood why you would have a child to just give it away to someone else and have to pay to do so, by working at a job where you barely break even.

I'm a progressive, not one of those fundie-Christian homeschool people, but I am against daycare except it being used in emergencies.

I have attachment issues from having been in daycare from the time I was 6 months old. I often ate dinner at daycare, sometimes I was the last one there. They are not always kind people. They don't care about your children-at least they don't care as much about your children as much as you should care about them.


sounds to me like you're a judgmental prick - maybe you shouldn't turn your nose up on those "fundie-Christian homeschool people" after all... sounds to me like ye were made for each other.
 
2012-04-08 09:33:36 AM

Bondith: What the hell's a binky?


images.zap2it.com
 
2012-04-08 09:44:12 AM

Bondith: What the hell's a binky?


1. The crease that is created in a bottle cap after the cap is removed with a bottle opener.
2. A pillow filled with pea gravel.
 
2012-04-08 09:44:49 AM
Let's see. Born 1898 and say she was 25 when she started practice in 1923. That four dollar office visit today (counting for inflation) would be about $50.
 
2012-04-08 10:01:29 AM

ox45tallboy: GypsyJoker: ox45tallboy: TomD9938: /binky = nook

Binky > Nuk

[www.nestingmode.com image 500x500]

[images.wikia.com image 359x392]

[images.quizilla.com image 400x225]



If I ever have a horse, that is what I'll name it.

+1
 
2012-04-08 10:08:32 AM
I am sure she was still boning up on the latest medical theory at 90.

Some conservatives and those at the other end of the economic spectrum on public support probably thought the $10 office visit was too much.

and binky=plug=pacifier
woobie=blanket (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2-NFhEI-DM)
 
2012-04-08 10:11:42 AM

Jim_Callahan: Father_Jack: I'd say this is the more interesting part of the article:

Even so, she felt that children were healthier then than they were when she retired. "When I was a child, there was no such thing as a baby doctor on Earth. We had very little medicine, very little surgery, no immunisations and no baby food," she told an interviewer. "Yet the children weren't sick like they are today because their mothers fed them right ... Today, 85 per cent of children in the United States go to day care, and they are sick all the time. I'm not one to say let's go back to the past, but there is something to be learned from that."

whether this is just oldie nostalgia (something of which we are all guilty, things are always better when we were growing up and in our young adulthood, no matter when that was), i wonder what there's to be said for the part italicized by le me above.

Well, it's factually incorrect for a start. Childhood illness is way the hell down from the 1910s.


Yep, it's simply not true AT ALL that children a century ago were healthier than they are today, According to the CDC, "In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday (1)." (new window)

That said, I do agree with her comments about (sugar laden) baby food, using pacifiers as substitutes for proper nurturing, and her implied criticisms of day care. As a society we will internalize the lessons and change the way we do things in future. After all, we no longer consider it cool to start giving our kids ciggies when they're 7, let them ride to town standing up in the back of the pickup, or telling them that school is for rich kids...get back out there and hoe the cotton.
 
2012-04-08 10:28:48 AM
CSB time:

She was my pediatrician.
 
2012-04-08 10:33:12 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-08 10:39:09 AM

Jim_Callahan: Well, it's factually incorrect for a start. Childhood illness is way the hell down from the 1910s.


Hmm... Are they? Are you certain? I imagine fatalities are down. Does anyone track the common cold, influenza, etc. in children and have the figures? If anything, given the advances in medicine, I'd not be surprised if you were making that up because you want to argue. With the advances in medicine, the increased frequency of visiting a physician, and access to information I'd not be at all surprised to find that the number of illnesses has gone up simply because we're able and willing to diagnose them better.

So, yeah, have you got a citation? Keep in mind what you're contradicting, it wasn't me that wrote it by the way, and how unusual it sounds when one thinks about it. It's hard to not believe you're pulling that out your ass and my searching seems to indicate that you're doing exactly that.

If you're attempting to equate infant/child mortality rates with those of today then you're not even remotely addressing the subject matter. If you're limiting it to a single country that you're familiar with then, again, you're not even remotely addressing the subject.

I'm a bit older than you are, probably, and it is my biased opinion that you're incorrect but I lack the statistics to know this to be true. About all I can find for statistics is infant and child mortality rates which actually doesn't have a damned thing to do with what the other person said and I'm not sure where you're getting your "facts" from. Saying it is factually incorrect seems a bit much given the lack of information so, yeah, again - a citation is in order. I don't mind being wrong (I'm not able to make a statement to be wrong with other than what I've observed and that's not valid) and I'm genuinely curious.
 
2012-04-08 10:46:50 AM

StoneColdAtheist: Jim_Callahan: Father_Jack: I'd say this is the more interesting part of the article:

Even so, she felt that children were healthier then than they were when she retired. "When I was a child, there was no such thing as a baby doctor on Earth. We had very little medicine, very little surgery, no immunisations and no baby food," she told an interviewer. "Yet the children weren't sick like they are today because their mothers fed them right ... Today, 85 per cent of children in the United States go to day care, and they are sick all the time. I'm not one to say let's go back to the past, but there is something to be learned from that."

whether this is just oldie nostalgia (something of which we are all guilty, things are always better when we were growing up and in our young adulthood, no matter when that was), i wonder what there's to be said for the part italicized by le me above.

Well, it's factually incorrect for a start. Childhood illness is way the hell down from the 1910s.

Yep, it's simply not true AT ALL that children a century ago were healthier than they are today, According to the CDC, "In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday (1)." (new window)

That said, I do agree with her comments about (sugar laden) baby food, using pacifiers as substitutes for proper nurturing, and her implied criticisms of day care. As a society we will internalize the lessons and change the way we do things in future. After all, we no longer consider it cool to start giving our kids ciggies when they're 7, let them ride to town standing up in the back of the pickup, or telling them that school is for rich kids...get back out there and hoe the cotton.


You're making the same mistake he made - you're equating illness with mortality rates. They're not the same and many of those diseases would have killed then but are fairly routine now. The two, illness and mortality, are causally linked but they're hardly the same.

Do you have any actual statistics to back up your statement that illnesses are down now?

Not mortality - that's not even remotely the same thing. Hell, if anything, a child living longer is able to get ill more often. Illness is not death.

Are you not understanding the doctor's statement and the other farker's statement? Conflating infant and child mortality rates with illnesses such as the common cold isn't actually a very valid way to view the data. I have no idea where we could even find such data to prove the lady's statement wrong but, well, if you do then I'd be interested in said statistics.

My own, biased, views are indeed that children seemingly ill more often today than they were. I'm biased though and I'm not at all sure how to prove it or disprove it. I do know that you're using the wrong data to back that "fact" up though. Again, illness isn't mortality and just by having lived longer they're able to get ill more often. I don't think you're "fact" is valid in this discussion.

I realize that I probably seem pedantic but the two are truly unrelated and I'm genuinely curious. My Google-fu isn't revealing any information. Simple increases in diagnosing would make it seem likely that you're wrong.
 
2012-04-08 11:12:08 AM

Bondith: What the hell's a binky?


www.mgbeng.com
 
2012-04-08 11:21:23 AM

pxlboy: CSB time:

She was my pediatrician.


And...?
 
2012-04-08 11:24:42 AM
I agree with her on the childcare stuff, which is why I stay at home with my kid while my wife works.

I agree that pacifiers are often just used to shut a kid up. I disagree that that's always a bad thing. My kid would get tired and miserable and cry and scream because he wanted to go to sleep...and get himself so wound up he couldn't sleep. So I'd give him a pacifier, it would calm him down and he'd nod off.

That happened only after I'd ruled out a dirty diaper or hunger or some kind of physical pain as the reasons for the crying. And the kid learned to soothe himself by the time he was 15 months. I had no difficulty at all weaning him from the pacifiers, but they were a godsend for that first year.
 
2012-04-08 11:24:47 AM

UnspokenVoice: I realize that I probably seem pedantic ...


Yes...you do. ;^)
 
2012-04-08 11:42:53 AM

StoneColdAtheist: UnspokenVoice: I realize that I probably seem pedantic ...

Yes...you do. ;^)


I suppose... LOL Though does that make the doctor correct? I've done a bit more searching and, frankly, I can neither prove nor disprove her statement. I don't think they kept track of the number of runny noses that kids had back then. I mean, yeah, it is obvious that mortality rates are lower now (at least in this country) but that wasn't really what she said and I'm kind of hoping that she knew that. I'm a bit curious is all and it seems that two of you immediately read into her statement the mortality rates which, well, are only tangentially related and oddly so - more kids alive means more numerous illnesses. *sighs* That has to be the most awkward sentence I've written today.
 
2012-04-08 11:45:08 AM

pxlboy: CSB time:

She was my pediatrician.


That is actually cool. I love chatting with older lucid people about their youth and the way things are. It gives you perspective.

Sadly I could out last year that my retired family GP and pediatrician died. I would have loved for him to meet my daughter. He was born in California and was interred during WWII then joined the military and served with distinction and became a well known and respected civil leader. Alas I had moved away from where I grew up and hadn't seen him in 20 years. You never think they age too...

When was the last time you saw her?
 
2012-04-08 11:56:07 AM
Her health advice about not letting kids drink anything other than water is pretty tight, and one that many of her fellow Alabamans would do well to heed - a major anti-obesity tenant is that you should never drink calories.
 
2012-04-08 12:06:39 PM

transplendent: a major anti-obesity tenant is that you should never drink calories.


There goes most Farkers' raison d'être...

/is there zero calorie booze?
 
2012-04-08 12:27:00 PM
www.rseprohumanablog.cl

A one hundred fourteen year old Leela?
 
2012-04-08 12:30:51 PM

UnspokenVoice: StoneColdAtheist: UnspokenVoice: I realize that I probably seem pedantic

Yes...you do. ;^)

I suppose... LOL Though does that make the doctor correct? I've done a bit more searching and, frankly, I can neither prove nor disprove her statement. I don't think they kept track of the number of runny noses that kids had back then. I mean, yeah, it is obvious that mortality rates are lower now (at least in this country) but that wasn't really what she said and I'm kind of hoping that she knew that. I'm a bit curious is all and it seems that two of you immediately read into her statement the mortality rates which, well, are only tangentially related and oddly so - more kids alive means more numerous illnesses. *sighs* That has to be the most awkward sentence I've written today.


Let's not lose track of what TFA actually says...

Even so, she felt that children were healthier then than they were when she retired. "When I was a child, there was no such thing as a baby doctor on Earth. We had very little medicine, very little surgery, no immunisations and no baby food," she told an interviewer. "Yet the children weren't sick like they are today because their mothers fed them right ... Today, 85 per cent of children in the United States go to day care, and they are sick all the time. I'm not one to say let's go back to the past, but there is something to be learned from that."

Obviously, this is a bit of a vague statement, and the author inaccurately summarizes her quote. Be that as it may, infant mortality is THE standard reference to childhood health (tho not the only one), so jumping straight to that statistic (probably the only accurate one available from then to now) is a logical and reasonable one.

That said, it's clear from the article that Dr Denmark disapproved of commercial baby food (too much sugar and salt to be healthy food), and was grossly offended by the attitude that it's okay to treat children as 'fashion accessories' to be dropped off a day care every morning. (Before anyone who has to use day care gets all upset (single mothers, etc), pls note my careful wording.)

One childhood health epidemic that incontrovertible is the dramatic increase in childhood obesity today, compared to a century ago, and its attendant other morbidity issues...hypertension, type-2 diabetes, etc. These are all direct consequences of how children are fed and cared for, and are all nearly completely preventable.

Gotta run...back later.
 
2012-04-08 12:37:04 PM

Bathia_Mapes: powhound: In general, the term Binky refers to the nipple thing parents stick in their kids mouths to make them stop crying. Or, as mentioned above, to ease certain issues such as colic (which is to make them stop crying).

Like ring pops. Ask a teenager why they are sucking on a Binky...it's good for a laugh.

The difference being that when a colicky baby is crying, it's because they're in pain. I don't think the good lady doctor would object to a mother trying to relieve her child's pain by letting them suck for a few minutes on a pacifier.

Her objections to their use seem to stem more from them being used to quiet a baby down instead of interacting with them (holding, rocking, rubbing the baby's back, etc.).


Yeah, I totally understand. Our kids did not have colic, but the first one did cry quite a bit more than the second and at times like that the Binky came in handy. It is my understanding (could be off on this) that having something in the mouth to suck on frequently is not healthy for the growth of the kid.
 
2012-04-08 12:37:43 PM

lohphat: transplendent: a major anti-obesity tenant is that you should never drink calories.

There goes most Farkers' raison d'être...

/is there zero calorie booze?


No. Alcohol has 7 calories per gram.
 
2012-04-08 12:51:31 PM

Riffington: lohphat: transplendent: a major anti-obesity tenant is that you should never drink calories.

There goes most Farkers' raison d'être...

/is there zero calorie booze?

No. Alcohol has 7 calories per gram.


pendletonpanther.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-08 01:08:52 PM
I'm lucky I made it past infancy....not because of any unusual childhood illnesses, but because apparently I was a particularly colicky baby and tended to cry a lot. A LOT, according to Mom's oft-told stories. When I was older she frequently told me "I understood those stories I read in the newspaper about women who threw their babies against a wall or over a fence....." My pediatrician was adamantly against the use of pacifiers, so Mom (still today) believes that they are Evil... I wonder if a binky would've soothed me 'way back when?

PS The "rest of the story" is that the minute Dad walked in the door when he came home from work, Mom would thrust my screaming self into his arms and yell "She's your baby, too, you take her!" According to Dad, though, I would cease my crying immediately when he cradled me and he would routinely then tell my Mom "You just don't know how to hold her right." To which Mom would reminisce "It's a miracle I didn't just push him down the stairs."
 
2012-04-08 01:17:13 PM
I read some of the articles Dr. Denmark wrote in my "Children and Family Development' course in college. Fifteen years later, I'm a stay at home Dad with my 2 year old baby girl. She's had 1 cold in two years and 3 fevers directly related to teething. Other than that she's been healthy as they come. She gets fed healthy (not perfect but healthy) balanced meals 4 times a day and is has no weight or physical development issues. I disagree with the lack of milk Dr. Denmark supported as infant neurologists have found that the extra fat within milk is vital to brain development up to 2 years old. Many children ween well before 2. I highly respected most of what she supported, especially her stance against Day Care. I firmly believe her part in my education is a large contributor as to how my daughter is ahead of the curve developmentally. I'm saddened by Dr. Denmark's passing.
 
2012-04-08 01:40:28 PM
I'm with her on the binkies. Never used them with either child.
 
2012-04-08 02:03:28 PM
I've been working in child care for the past ten years, and while it doesn't make me an expert, I do feel I have a little experience in the area.

I have the advantage of working in a very expensive establishment, with degreed teachers and low ratios, so the classrooms are maintained very meticulously. All the toys are cleaned daily, sick children are sent home right away, and everyone (teachers and kids) wash their hands throughout the day. I would say that although illness does occur in child care, it doesn't have to happen as often as it does at some of the other establishments. My own child has attended that school since he was six weeks old, and he's five now. He's only been sent home ill maybe once or twice a year. Many other kids only get sick once or twice in their entire stay with us. I think I get sick more often than they do.

When you pay an inexperienced 18 year old to watch your child, yes your child will probably get sick more often because they have no clue about how to keep a kid healthy. All child care centers are not created equal :)

Oh yeah, and if you keep your child home for their first five years, they will probably get sick way more often in elementary school because they haven't developed their immune system very well. Hope you like getting calls from the school nurse ;)

My point is that if you have the ability to stay home with your child, go for it. But child care is not the devil, and can really help them physically, socially, and academically- if you get them in to the right place.
 
2012-04-08 02:57:50 PM
Had the pleasure to meet her a couple of times.

Yeah. Hardcore is a good word.
 
2012-04-08 03:06:07 PM

Ouisch: I'm lucky I made it past infancy....not because of any unusual childhood illnesses, but because apparently I was a particularly colicky baby and tended to cry a lot. A LOT, according to Mom's oft-told stories. When I was older she frequently told me "I understood those stories I read in the newspaper about women who threw their babies against a wall or over a fence....." My pediatrician was adamantly against the use of pacifiers, so Mom (still today) believes that they are Evil... I wonder if a binky would've soothed me 'way back when?

PS The "rest of the story" is that the minute Dad walked in the door when he came home from work, Mom would thrust my screaming self into his arms and yell "She's your baby, too, you take her!" According to Dad, though, I would cease my crying immediately when he cradled me and he would routinely then tell my Mom "You just don't know how to hold her right." To which Mom would reminisce "It's a miracle I didn't just push him down the stairs."


You were likely picking up a lot of your mother's stress, which would help to explain why you calmed down when your father held you.

I do think using a pacifier to relieve colic is a good thing and it would probably have given you some relief (and your mother too) as it did with my son.
 
2012-04-08 03:11:44 PM
Tek:

Absolutely no offense to day care workers, especially those who are educated and provide a quality product. That being said, even if you have THE BEST Day Care in the nation, it is still non-the-less a service oriented product. Service oriented products, by their sheer definition, are designed to provide a 'cost-effective product' which ultimately are a 'one size fits all' product which is counter intuitive to having a child.

Take Cars for example. Harkening back to the 80's and 90's. I could buy a good American car, like a mid range Chevy or Ford for a reasonable cost, that also provided adequate safety for my family and was a good deal for what I got. I could also spend more and get a higher quality Cadillac which provided everything the Chevy would and more. Finally, I could purchase a $250K sports car which provided the best of the best, but which ultimately is unattainable by most people.

Same goes for Day Care. There's the place down the street that is a corporate facility that abides by all Federal, State, and Local guidelines. The children are well cared for, the cost is median, and as far as I know on the whole the kids are healthy and well taken care of. However, their teachings and philosophies are built out of a 'mass population' one size fits all marketing/legal/developmental/profit algorithm. Their job, is to make money, not provide THE BEST for the kids. Around the corner is a place that is what I call 'hippy day-care.' It too is corporately owned, and they provide all of the above, but tailor their environment to the earthy crunchy hippy parent of the 21st century. Their cost is a bit higher, but they provide 'extended' service above the corporate place. There are a half dozen 'home facilities' that are Government approved, but I question their practices and methods. Not to mention, a home operation the 'adult to baby' ratio is far lower as their financial output to income is higher than that of the two corporate facilities whom have the advantage of bulk purchasing above that available to most home care facilities. Yet, they are among the lowest in cost. Finally there's the educational facility on the university campus. As a grad student, I will be utilizing this, but only during my class hours, and it is an educational facility, not a 'care facility.' They are the cheapest because of my status of student, and IMO the best available of the above options because they are allowed latitude in their procedures in the name of developing their science. While confined to University, State, and Federal regulations their pure motivation is to improve the science of child teaching practices. Their costs are kept low by bulk purchase advantages, education discounts on insurance, and their labor is either already paid (and educated to the obscene) and there researching or paying to be there and learning. Ultimately it's a win/win for me, but they won't accept children until they're past two. Because even they believe that until that point, children should be with their parents.

However, I don't believe that children should be placed in a facility prior to completion of weening, parental bonding, and early nutrition. My child is the greatest and most important endeavor I've ever attempted. I have a decent education, not ivy league, but I hold my own and I'm continuing that education. To release my child to a stranger, even one highly educated, who is confined by governmental and corporate rules and restrictions and who is oft times required to apply a formula to developmental procedures is not logical IMO. The things I have cared most in life I have done on my own. As a musician I write and play my own music, I don't employ people to do it for me. As a homeowner I repair my own house when it's called for and maintain it to the best of my ability. When I have called professionals it's been for huge jobs that detract time from more important tasks like marriage, family or education.

Early education is why my child will go to school, not so I can go to work. With even the lowest day care costs equaling approximately 1/3 my former salary, the acceptable ones equaling 50%, and the best ones totaling approx. 90%, it didn't make sense to contract out the job of parent. All they truly provided was an ability for me to pay them. It didn't seem like a sound investment of my money, nor the best option for my child. She gets custom care tailored directly to her, for absolutely no cost at a 1/1 ratio. She has not been subject to any cost saving or profit increasing policies as part of her rearing. She is provided with rules and restrictions based on love for her and her development and nothing else.

The true underlying motive of ANY facility that accepts fiat for service is motivated at it's core by profit and not the true well being of the consumer. While the Day Care business require 'well being' be met as a means of generating profit, can any profit driven entity truly provide the best? Between greed and government regulations, I say it's an impossibility. In my mind this leaves the most important job on earth of raising the next generation to the unpaid, unappreciated, and unacknowledged genetic parents. If people feel that career advancement, profit margins, and fancy cars are so important that they must contract out the upbringing of their child so be it. However that model doesn't fit me. I prefer the application of unabashed science for education practices. For parenting, I feel that nothing beats love as motivation, money just isn't as important to me as love.

Time = Money
Time to make money costs money. (40+ hours a week of child care)
At the end of the day you have more money (to pay for the care) and if you're lucky, material things. As well as a kid who doesn't know you and you don't know them.

What have you truly gained? Anything more important that your child?

Just sayin'
 
2012-04-08 04:52:43 PM
Personally, I don`t think daycare is bad per se, but I think America puts children in there way too early due to lack of mat leave.

1) Kids can start day care in the US as young as 6 weeks because their Mothers have to go back to work. Their immune systems are too underdeveloped at that point and stresses babies out IMHO.

2) This provides Mom and Baby only 6 weeks of breastfeeding, further weakening the babies immune system.

The rest of the civilized world offers about 6 months to a year for new mothers. Hell, even China offers 3 months.

As a nation we need to band together to offer more support to new mothers and provide at least 6 months for optimal breastfeeding and less-stress childrearing.

I`m so glad I moved to Canada were I get 6 months to a year off
 
2012-04-08 06:00:18 PM
CSS:

My midwives were all against pacifiers and said to let the kid suckle anytime (anytime!) he got cranky, uncomfortable, whiny, shrieky, lonely, sleepy...basically anytime he indicated he wasn't 100% happy. Which I tried to accomodate as much as an overworked, sleep deprived new mom could. My therapist heard this and said "get the kid a damn pacifier and you'll both be happier".

And I did and we were. The therapist was right, kids need to learn to self-soothe and a pacifier helps that. And I didn't feel guilty about it like the midwives were trying to make me feel. There's a reason I pay that woman to look after my mental health.

Also, let's be honest, sometimes you just need to shut a baby the hell up. Nothing else is wrong, they just wan't to fuss - cork 'em.
 
2012-04-09 12:09:25 AM
Well, as their lord and master, I don't like her either. She'd better watch herself. I'm a wanted man. I have a ban sentence on twelve forums and if she wants to come face to face with me, Lord Binky, then I'll meet her, anytime, anywhere, in a steel cage, where'll I bleed her. Real quiet...
 
2012-04-09 01:47:01 PM

TekSkek8: I've been working in child care for the past ten years, and while it doesn't make me an expert, I do feel I have a little experience in the area.

I have the advantage of working in a very expensive establishment, with degreed teachers and low ratios, so the classrooms are maintained very meticulously. All the toys are cleaned daily, sick children are sent home right away, and everyone (teachers and kids) wash their hands throughout the day. I would say that although illness does occur in child care, it doesn't have to happen as often as it does at some of the other establishments. My own child has attended that school since he was six weeks old, and he's five now. He's only been sent home ill maybe once or twice a year. Many other kids only get sick once or twice in their entire stay with us. I think I get sick more often than they do.

When you pay an inexperienced 18 year old to watch your child, yes your child will probably get sick more often because they have no clue about how to keep a kid healthy. All child care centers are not created equal :)

Oh yeah, and if you keep your child home for their first five years, they will probably get sick way more often in elementary school because they haven't developed their immune system very well. Hope you like getting calls from the school nurse ;)

My point is that if you have the ability to stay home with your child, go for it. But child care is not the devil, and can really help them physically, socially, and academically- if you get them in to the right place.


Dad, is that you?
 
2012-04-09 04:34:22 PM
Wow, am I ever late to this thread.
 
2012-04-10 12:17:17 AM

BinkyBoy: Wow, am I ever late to this thread.


Dude...that is just so wrong!

Tell us about your mother... ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report