>>
>>Bill, I'll grant that Tamar is correct in one sense - there's been a much-needed culture change.
>Needed for what?
>To create a day-care industry?
>Does anyone seriously believe that having a six-week old baby in day care is better for either the child or the mother than having the mother at home with the child?
>That's the post-feminism norm and it's one the of the key factors behind those awful statistics I cited.
>Studies have shown that prolonged body contact between child and mother correlates directly with mental health of the adult-to-be and vice-versa.
>When schools shut down for a day here in Hamilton, there's panic. Schools and soccer programs have replaced parents as child-rearers.

I cannot believe I'm saying this, but Tamar and I are going to be on the same side of a debate. (I think) :)

Yes, in the abstract, I agree with you - the bonding period between baby and mother is very important. When my wife and I had Katy, we both agreed that my wife would not work until Katy started school. However, it's only because we were fortunate enough financially to do so. And because I work remotely from home most of the time, I took advantage of it to make sure I had as much contact with my daughter as possible.

But some parents are just not as fortunate - both single parent situations and "married with a kid" situations whether both parents must work to survive.

I actually know some people who run small independent day-care units and they are a godsend for some parents.