Opinion

Our approach to raising our family has been a grand experiment.  We have departed from the societal norm in almost every respect:  we home school, we have a home based business, we have managed on a single income, and we shun owning an automobile.

Child care

While working at a video store between 1989 and 1996 our net income was very modest.  We supplemented our income doing technical computer repair work for individuals, but that did not amount to much.  From 1996 to 2000 our income rose due to software opportunities, but it was not a huge leap.  During these years we paid the bills and I gradually learned my new craft--software design and architecture--and in 2000 I was hired by DMR Consulting.  Our income rose steadily after that, but by then we had already managed with four children on little income, so we were doing fine overall.  We did not have much in the way of savings, but we had RRSPs and the kids had RESPs since 1998--we simply redirected the child tax benefits into RESPs instead of spending the money on perceived needs.  Despite any hardships, we were stalwart with our choice of homeschooling our kids.  A curriculum of math, reading, writing, science, music, computer science, physical activity (walking mostly), and practical tasks made our days full and dynamic. 

We had financial help through this period, yes.  Kelly's parents were instrumental in providing us with a table and chairs so that we would not have to use a piece of plywood with sawhorses for a table.  We were given duvet covers, living room suite, old TV, and an old washing machine (back in 1992) that were really helpful.  We could have done without a washing machine and used a Laundromat I suppose, but the convenience was appreciated.   We used a diaper service for the kid's nappies and we did not take expensive vacations.  We used the library and had the luxury of free video rentals through my workplace.  We ate well, but we did not eat out as a rule.  It took us 15 years (in September 2004) to celebrate our anniversary with a vacation away from the kids while aunties babysat for a week, but we were not hard off.  Our vacations in the interim were "confined" to parks, the occasional movie, the occasional dinner, and most of all just being efficient and creative at home.  We learned to make our own sushi, our own Thai, our own Chinese food, our own pizza, and our own barbequed hamburgers.  We learned about East Indian meals such as dal and treats like pakoras--very cheap and very tasty.  We ate oatmeal (Arnold says that oatmeal is the best anyway) instead of boxed cereal.  We bought rice and wheat by the 20 pound bags.  Everything was considered and planned with the end result being that Christmases and birthdays were rather rich events.  The money we saved at one time begat a special treat at another.

We did not suffer.  Yes, there were times when the "special money jar" was raided for 50 cent pieces to pay the rent, and there were IOUs (payday loans which my boss allowed) from the till sometimes, but we managed.  Money received for birthday and at Christmas was used to "catch up" and was very much appreciated.  The kids never went without food, clothing or shelter.  Kelly sewed, we bought (or were given) used things and we appreciated them.  We did not concern ourselves with outward appearances, but we kept clean.  We found many ways to trim our budget and get the most for our money.  All of this afforded us what would be considered a luxury:  raising our own kids at home without involving disinterested third parties as the primary role model.

With regards to the subject of daycare, it can be said that all children are in daycare.  The term "daycare" in the modern vernacular is a euphemism used to describe the substitution of parental duties to a commercial entity.  However kids with stay at home parents are also in daycare technically.

It is difficult to establish a moral difference between parental daycare and commercial daycare.  Studies seem to show that children raised in commercial daycare generally turn out to be just fine.   It would stand to reason that a child raised by a bad commercial daycare is no worse off than a child raised by bad or neglecting parents at home.  If there is no moral difference, then why are some parents so defensive and passionate about parental day care?  Granted, there are a great many commercial day care parents who would aggressively defend their decisions and state that it does not matter who raises their child as long as the child is cared for.  Some studies seem to suggest that the wealth and happiness of the parents is the prime driver for happiness in children despite where and how they are raised.  For those of us who have chosen the natural path, so to speak, we find commercial daycare to be at best a cop-out, and at worst luxury at the expense of child negligence.  Obviously most parents love their children, but the allure of commercial daycare is a true test of wealth over nurturing.  It cannot be stated too firmly that we realize that there are many families out there who truly struggle with their financial situation.  We would never presume to judge those parents' actions with regards to daycare.  However, if you have read the first page of this article you will see why we would not have much sympathy for those parents who choose daycare in trade for their own pleasures.  We have every idea of "how hard it is"--we've been there.  We just chose to not want and it worked out just fine.  Our kids were not rich, but they were loved and had what they actually needed, not what we perceived they needed based on the commercial or social engineer's world.

If there is no moral difference between parental daycare and commercial daycare, then is it fair to say that children raised in the former are generally better off than the latter?  Typically this really depends on how the studies are organized and presented.  Advocates for state-raised children will skew study results to their favour thus placing the parental daycare camp on the defensive.  It is especially important to state here that choosing parental daycare does not somehow rid a child of social interaction.  In this day and age where the parents perceived needs seem to trump the child's actual needs, having two or three children in quick succession, thus creating a natural social environment at home, is abnormal.  The self-imposed one child policy that many parents choose, or an intentional spacing of children far enough apart where the elder is disinterested in the games of the younger could be considered an antisocial construct in itself thus creating an external need for socialization.  In truth, socialization requires exactly two individuals.  It is doubtful that a million insignificant social interactions are better than a few significant ones, yet this seems to be a thesis for many social engineers.  Having parental daycare is not a recipe resulting in little social interaction.  In actuality the stay-at-home parent must actively find things to do, must create, and must think.

The truth of the matter is that parental daycare is the natural choice and the parents, with hard cases aside since hard cases should never drive policy or decisions,  are the most suited to raise their own children.  Nature dictates this to us obviously through many species, especially in mammals.  In fact, it is only through modern convention that we have created a situation whereby parents are finding themselves "incapable" of raising their own children.  It is bizarre that this modern perception was formed by the very thing that left-leaning advocates of socialized daycare typically claim to despise:  a heavy reliance on a capitalist system that produces lots of "stuff" on which to liquidate hard-earned income.

Most parents would cite financial reasons for using the commercial daycare industry, namely that two incomes are necessary for their family to survive.  At this one would have to define how much income is needed for "survival".  If survival requires cross-nation vacations a couple of times per year, an iPod with iTunes for the parents, 7.1 surround sound home entertainment systems, a car (or two), movie nights, dinners or lunches at restaurants, newspapers delivered to the door, and Xbox games then there is a problem with the word "needs".  It seems an obvious statement that "needs" are relative to the individual. 

In reality there are actual needs and perceived needs.  Actual needs include love (and love's children which include respect and the like), shelter, food, clothing, medicine, transportation, and education.  Transportation can be defined as walking, biking, transit or automobile:  seventy five percent of those options are relatively inexpensive, albeit less convenient.  However, if a person is resourceful and clever, the first three options probably provide the most benefit to the body and mind.  Driving is tedious and does not allow a person exercise (walking/biking) or the ability to read and learn (transit) while in transit.  The point here is that if parents choose daycare for financial reasons then maybe a reexamination of their finances to determine what is really necessary, not making excuses for the commercial daycare option.

Effective child rearing is probably one of the most challenging careers yet people, generally women, have been convinced that their roles at work are more important.  Raising a child is a dynamic process that requires full focus, ingenuity, intelligence, wisdom and especially love--over a great number of years.  Many women claim they "love" their job.  While this may be true, and for women who begin child rearing in their mid-thirties and have established their careers, it is understandable why they would choose paid work over raising their own children.  Starting a completely new career after ten or more years of service to oneself would be a terrific challenge.  Obviously, based on the current status quo, this challenge is not one that is warmly accepted by mothers.  The paradox in this situation is that for the most part these mother's jobs are easily substituted by almost anyone in short order, yet the task of raising their children, arguably best achieved by themselves, is farmed out to commercial entities.  In this paradox, women choose to take the easy path and justify their decisions by providing needless excess material things for their children in order to try to remediate the time they have spent away.  Parents tend to base their wealth on the material assets of their neighbours, not on the asset of having a new human life to lovingly mold at their fingertips.  Children are naturally unaware of "being without" excess goodies and toys unless they are exposed to social environments that espouse materialism.  A child with second-hand clothes will think nothing of it unless another person makes it a point.  A child without a trip to Disneyland will think nothing of it if they have not been bombarded by commercial influences during their formative years.

In the case of our family, one could posit that we were privy to an ideal and unrealistic situation that allowed our decision to come to pass successfully thus far.  One could say that the familial assistance that we received is not always available to families, that having lumps of cash occasionally deposited into our account is what permitted us to proceed, or that we were "just lucky" to have "good kids".  To us these postulations are insulting.  We did in fact work hard and often without good rest for months on end.  We raised not one or two, but five children--plus we homeschooled them!  We also managed to build a career from nothing--with not a single shred of formal education--by learning instead of wasting time.

In the final analysis we created our system from scratch utilizing our own efforts and treading lightly on the backs of those that offered us opportunities.  Nearly twenty years ago while people our age were making money, getting additional degrees, travelling, having fun, and not thinking of the future, we were raising our family.  Our family is rooted in self-reliance to a great extent, and an acute understanding of the value of things.   There was no luck involved, but we are thankful to God for all the opportunities that presented themselves and especially for the wisdom to recognize opportunities and act upon them.  This is not luck:  it is the very definition of taking risks.  The risk involved in raising your own children at a young age on one small income instead of waiting for your ship to come in and then farming the kids off to daycare is about the biggest long-term risk in life that one can undertake.

It is worth noting that 16 years after we moved into our first rental house we still have the same living room suite that we inherited, used, from Kelly's folks.  We hand-wash our dishes because our current kitchen is not spacious enough for a dishwasher (and the boys are happy to help out).  We did not upgrade our CRT TV to a flat-screen.  We all still have the same beds and many of the same things we had nearly 20 years ago.  Many of our books are from used book stores.  Our computers are new and our game systems are modern, but we have also maintained a lot of the old things and by doing so we have cut costs.  These savings directly contributed to our ability to live on a single income.

Honesty is paramount in either decision with regards to child rearing.  If a couple does not have concerns about who raises their child as long as their child is safe, then they should state this honestly.  There is no need to make excuses about finances, or how much the workplace may be irreparably damaged due to their absence.  Those that claim to prefer commercial daycare need to be honest and admit that their perceived material needs trump the child's actual needs.

 

 

 

I'll figure out something to say here one of these days.