Charmaine on FOX News Sunday: Day Care and its effect on children — the data
FOX News Charmaine recently appeared on FOX News Sunday to discuss the data and wisdom and public policy of day care.
She is debating a professional who loves day care.
Charmaine reviews the data that confirms the mother’s intuition that the more time a mother spends with her child, the better the child will be. The better the world will be.
Moms know best. Who knew?
Child care liberal feminist activists take the other side. So that women can make money. Because money, to feminists, is the most important thing in the world…besides sex. And power.
(Money, Sex, Power. Liberal feminists would do well to remember a Democratic President who warned against this trifecta: Harry Truman.
Three things ruin a man
power, money, and women.
I never wanted power.
I never had any money,
and the only woman in my life is up at the house right now.
He also dropped the Atomic Bomb…my kind of guy.)
Anyway. Charmaine’s short clip is available here. Please forgive the extra click thru on the Family Research Council site.
Thank you (foot)notes:
See: Emptying the Nest: Does Day Care Work?
Lauren Bacall and Harry Truman
As a child, Truman would wake at 5am to practice Chopin.
The piano player can get the girl, as I tell my sons,
Practice chop-sticks and get the chicks. Also see: Women’s Work: A journalist warns women that once they leave the career track, they may never get back on, in The Washington Post.
I’ve been reading this blog for a while, haven’t noticed many if any direct responses to my comments, but that’s okay. As a successful freelance writer, I’m used to rejection.
But I detect a lot of venom and ad hominem categorical generalizations of women who have a different opinion from your wife. But I even have trouble saying that, because you, Jack, wrote this post, not Charmaine. I’d love to read what she has to say. Does she likewise dub women who make different choices as “Child care liberal feminist activists [who] take the other side.” And believe that they do so in order that “…women can make money. Because money, to feminists, is the most important thing in the world…besides sex. And power.”
How many of such women have you met? None of the parents – women or the men who are the parents of the kids who are in childcare, btw – are anything like you describe.
I guess I’m just disappointed in your use of monolithic brushstrokes. Very disappointed, as well as noticing that Charmaine doesn’t provide these insights herself.
Jill, You are correct: Charmaine does data;
Your Business Blogger does marketing.
She’s academic.
I’m business.
She’s data.
I’m polemic.
We (the royal ‘we’) spent 20 years studying the family and public policy. She did her disertation on family leave and studied hundreds of parents who used day care. I was Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Resources for Virginia.
Her study was funded by a $220,00 grant by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Bankard Fund at the University of Virginia where she was the Project Director.
We found in her work that a reason for placing children in child care wasn’t always given by feminists. It was also men. And the main reason was…pick up trucks.
The husband wanted a new truck and needed extra money for the truck loan. Kids go to day care; mom goes to work.
But the women didn’t seem to complain, much.
In a number of conversations with day care providers, we learned that some “parents would burn rubber” after dropping off the kids — so anxious (and late) were the parents to get going and get gone.
Please search “day care” on this site. Most of Charmaine’s published writings and words on talking head shows are archived.
I have met a terrible number of these liberal feminists who crave money, demand to break the glass ceiling and rejoice in casual sex. The love of Money, Power, Sex is their (wo)man-tra. These characteristics seem to be a requirement of women to belong to the American Political Science Association — of which Charmaine was a dues paying member; an EEO hire of sorts. Whenever you hear ‘affordable day-care’ you can bet a pro-abortion liberal feminist is the day care demander.
You are also correct in that I am the One Man Jack Flack for Charmaine. A high quality problem when a guy marries way over his head.
Charmaine is currently on deadline but has even sharper critiques of feminists than Your Business Blogger…but she won’t voice them. She prefers the winsom argument.
Thank you for your comment,
Jack
Jill-Why don’t you start with the Search Box or go to Archives for Charmaine’s views? Plus I believe Jack has used metaphorical characterizations not argumentum ad hominem.
Pat is on target again: delectare et docere.
Thanks very much for responding, I appreciate it. I’m the kind of blog reader/author who takes the existence of a place to leave comments as an invitation to engage – I know that’s not how all blog authors use comments, but that’s how I view them, even when I know there may not be forthcoming responses.
I’ve read up on both of you and have, as my previous comments demonstrate, left fairly intelligent commentary or questions precisely because I’m aware of your pedigrees, as well as my own. We all have some significant experience under our belts.
I’m just in shock at how different our experiences are when it comes to this comment you write: “I have met a terrible number of these liberal feminists who crave money, demand to break the glass ceiling and rejoice in casual sex. The love of Money, Power, Sex is their (wo)man-tra. These characteristics seem to be a requirement of women to belong to the American Political Science Association — of which Charmaine was a dues paying member; an EEO hire of sorts. Whenever you hear ‘affordable day-care’ you can bet a pro-abortion liberal feminist is the day care demander.”
I just do not know anyone who fits that description. And I’m a lawyer married to a lawyer with numerous friends from college and post-college who have advanced degrees, intact marriages, no job, parttime jobs and fulltime jobs, some kids in daycare, some not.
Now – I remember Judith Warner’s book and how it outraged my friends as well as myself – we felt that what she described was so niche – and in fact the critiques of her book often hinged on the small and rather cookie cutter profiles of those she interviewed.
I just don’t find that what you describe comports with the reality I’ve experienced or anyone I know has experienced, over 13 years in Ohio. And I believe Charmaine’s book was released in the mid’90s, correct (1996 Amazon says).
There’s no question Charmaine has the skill, talent and personal experience to speak to this issue. I for one would be thrilled to see an update of the ’96 book.
As you might be able to guess, I’m a huge disliker of labels and the liberal feminist one you use just seems very dated – to me. I’ve written about that before – I almost don’t even know what it means anymore, it seems so cliche in some ways. Just yesterday, in fact, I left a comment on Feministing.com to say that I wish we could come up with new words or descriptors, because I don’t think we are helping anyone’s understanding by repeating the same labels over and over – especially when those to whom we want to attach the labels don’t accept them either.
There must be a more constructive way to look at this issue, yes?