So the story that has stirred the mommy wars up again is the recent release of a study that links time spent in daycare to behavior problem in kids. Although the link was slight and the study pointed to benefits of daycare as well (kids from high quality day cares had a better vocabulary), the sensation of the headlines caused a stir. Read the New York times article here.

Of course the mommy blog world (and others) have been jumping all over this. Anger and "how dare they say that" from the working moms who dropped those kids off at exactly six weeks old and have had them there ever since. And then the relief/justification and "I told you sos" from the stay-at-home mommy crowd. (and the few voices wondering why daddies aren't voicing any opinions on this.) Reading through the response which devolved into the typical battle of which is better - to work or stay at home, I was struck at how warped the study was to begin with. It defined a successful child as one who sits quietly (passively) in a desk, has a large vocabulary, makes good grades, and has suppressed all hints that she might actually be a child. I know that such things like pressure to get good grades, getting into the right preschool, and scripting a child's life for them are popular parenting techniques these days, but those have absolutely nothing to do with what makes a child a "good kid" in my opinion. The system is messed up and our definition of success displays our misplaced priorities.

So I am a stay-at-home mom and I have my reasons for that, but this study does nothing to support that decision. I'm not interested in supporting a broken system so why should I care about the elements that go into composing it?

Just my $.02 for what it's worth.

Labels: Gender Issues, parenting