Privatization hits tiny tots; Claremont turns over its preschool

The Children's Source is on schedule to start operating the city's preschool and tiny tot programs on Oct. Read more
Felipe

Upland, CA

#1 Aug 9, 2010
When did "childcare" come to mean anything other than mothers taking care of their children?
JEG

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#2 Aug 9, 2010
Felipe wrote:
When did "childcare" come to mean anything other than mothers taking care of their children?
Sometime after the Equal Rights amendment. It passed the House and the Senate in 1972 and was ratified in 1982. During that span of time, head of household status was stripped from men and many women were at the forefront like it or not in sharing that effort. It took mom out of the house and into the workforce. The kids suffered and now have no respect for adults like they did prior to this amendment. Young males have emotional issues like never before due to not having Mom and Dad when needed and Daughters were not taught to be ladies because mom was too busy competing with men. Showing there daughters to be more like men. This is an uncomfortable subject because I'm 54 years old and have been in the middle of it. Seen it and lived it. Girls do things now openly that would have never been talked about. Those were private things in those days.
the real SAW

West Covina, CA

#3 Aug 9, 2010
JEG wrote:
<quoted text>Sometime after the Equal Rights amendment. It passed the House and the Senate in 1972 and was ratified in 1982. During that span of time, head of household status was stripped from men and many women were at the forefront like it or not in sharing that effort. It took mom out of the house and into the workforce. The kids suffered and now have no respect for adults like they did prior to this amendment. Young males have emotional issues like never before due to not having Mom and Dad when needed and Daughters were not taught to be ladies because mom was too busy competing with men. Showing there daughters to be more like men. This is an uncomfortable subject because I'm 54 years old and have been in the middle of it. Seen it and lived it. Girls do things now openly that would have never been talked about. Those were private things in those days.
I was of the opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified.

The fees for these programs are so high, I don't know who could afford them. When I was employed, programs for tots in my community were offered for only 12 hours per week, per participant and were put forth as socialization and recreation experiences for pre-schoolers. Fees were $120 for a four-day per week, 12 week program, or $60 for a two-day per week, 12-week program.

There are many reasons that both parents work. And, who is to say that women should not have careers just as well as men. Studies have shown that children who have good day-care are just as well adjusted as those who are home all of the time.
JTS1962

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#4 Aug 9, 2010
The Equal Rights Amendment wasn't ratified. It did indeed pass both the House and the Senate but it needed 38 states to ratify it within 7 years. Only 35 did.
Michael Keenan

Claremont, CA

#5 Aug 9, 2010
This program was making money. The city only recently up the cost to attend making it unaffordable and forcing parents out because of new fees and subsequently outsourced a public program by way of an a false excuse or so-called budget issues.

And why if there is a budget issue why outsource when there is no money. And the private contract was for five years. Why not just for two years until the economy improves? The budget is just and excuse for false crockadile tears. I smell a Bell City cronyism and a give away of Claremont coummunity resources.

Since: Apr 10

La Verne, CA

#6 Aug 10, 2010
If the program could not be provided as a more affordable financial alternative, it should not be provided by the City anyway. City programs like "Tiny Tots" are usually just presented as a recreational and social interaction excercise for pre-school children where they spend a small portion of a day.
JEG

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#7 Aug 11, 2010
the real SAW wrote:
<quoted text>
I was of the opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified.
The fees for these programs are so high, I don't know who could afford them. When I was employed, programs for tots in my community were offered for only 12 hours per week, per participant and were put forth as socialization and recreation experiences for pre-schoolers. Fees were $120 for a four-day per week, 12 week program, or $60 for a two-day per week, 12-week program.
There are many reasons that both parents work. And, who is to say that women should not have careers just as well as men. Studies have shown that children who have good day-care are just as well adjusted as those who are home all of the time.
Yes you are right. This amendment was never ratified. No one should say a woman should not work. But who said caring for children is not work? It's a ton of work. Having Mommy at home during those wonderful years of development can be a handful for a woman but so rewarding. As far as those studies go, as far as I'm concerned, there skewed. Would you, or did you stay with a daycare until 6-7pm each day. If a child had a choice, I'll bet they would rather have a parent. We could argue that all day and it wouldn't matter. I believe that if a child is born, it deserves to have two caring people, a Mommy and a Daddy who share in the care of that child. It's a short term sacrifice with long term dividends. Mommy or Daddy can always return to the workforce later.
the real SAW

Upland, CA

#8 Aug 11, 2010
JEG wrote:
<quoted text> Yes you are right. This amendment was never ratified. No one should say a woman should not work. But who said caring for children is not work? It's a ton of work. Having Mommy at home during those wonderful years of development can be a handful for a woman but so rewarding. As far as those studies go, as far as I'm concerned, there skewed. Would you, or did you stay with a daycare until 6-7pm each day. If a child had a choice, I'll bet they would rather have a parent. We could argue that all day and it wouldn't matter. I believe that if a child is born, it deserves to have two caring people, a Mommy and a Daddy who share in the care of that child. It's a short term sacrifice with long term dividends. Mommy or Daddy can always return to the workforce later.
I agree with you.
Felipe

Upland, CA

#9 Aug 12, 2010
Motherhood is the most important career.

Since: Apr 10

Upland, CA

#10 Aug 12, 2010
Felipe wrote:
Motherhood is the most important career.
And, also, Fatherhood.
J Akin

San Diego, CA

#11 Jun 3, 2011
JEG wrote:
<quoted text>Sometime after the Equal Rights amendment. It passed the House and the Senate in 1972 and was ratified in 1982. During that span of time, head of household status was stripped from men and many women were at the forefront like it or not in sharing that effort. It took mom out of the house and into the workforce. The kids suffered and now have no respect for adults like they did prior to this amendment. Young males have emotional issues like never before due to not having Mom and Dad when needed and Daughters were not taught to be ladies because mom was too busy competing with men. Showing there daughters to be more like men. This is an uncomfortable subject because I'm 54 years old and have been in the middle of it. Seen it and lived it. Girls do things now openly that would have never been talked about. Those were private things in those days.
You couldn't have said it better! People want to bury their heads in the sand. I have two little ones and a teenager. The young people of today are classless and lack moral! The product of these two parent working families! Sorry but regardless of what the studies say the proof is how terrible the young people of today behave.
JEG

Upland, CA

#12 Jun 14, 2011
J Akin wrote:
<quoted text>
You couldn't have said it better! People want to bury their heads in the sand. I have two little ones and a teenager. The young people of today are classless and lack moral! The product of these two parent working families! Sorry but regardless of what the studies say the proof is how terrible the young people of today behave.
Among those classless and immoral is another product of the times and our system of values. The "Destructive Narcissist". This is a personality disorder that has slipped into our life with all of the bad parenting and media exposure during immaturity. I'd suggest any of you to look up this disorder and you'll find someone who is a huge "pain" to everyone around them. Once I read the symptoms, I see it all over. As long as they're successful, it's not so bad. If they're not successful, they'll lie like they are and you'll be no good and targeted for crossing them. Now that I understand them, I can get out of there path of destruction.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Claremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
In God we Trust 1 hr The R word 1
Why are Republiocans such a problem 1 hr deep pool 8
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) 4 hr stewart scott 29,295
News FONTANA: Fight with police ends in arrest, $1 m... (Dec '13) 9 hr paul 2
News SB man whose arrest was caught on tape booked o... (Oct '09) 9 hr jake 15
Why does Glendora Lie Cheat and steal? 13 hr Swag 5
Glenodra does not change 2015 13 hr philly busters 3

Beach Hazards Statement for Los Angeles County was issued at March 31 at 2:23AM PDT

Claremont Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Claremont People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]