How would u apply the following statement to sociological theory?

I am a divorced single parent. I beleive it is in the best interest of my child to stay at home as well as engage my child in nursery at a balanced level at age 3. I believe that children should have support of a parent in a near constant state to provide the basis of a healthy foundation of nurturing and love at the most fundamental level. I do not understand parents who leave the upbringinging of a child to institutions who can not form the special bonds as parents from such a young child from say 6-9 months onwards. Why have a child if this is what u do?How would u apply the following statement to sociological theory?
From a sociological perspective, social developent involves learning cultural and social norms, values, and mores. If you do not allow your child to explore the world a bit on their own, you hinder thier social growth. Go ahead and homeschool, etc...do what you gotta do to form the bond...but if you isolate your child from it's peers, other adults, and other authority figures for too long, you'll end up with a maladjusted child and that will only hurt your child.





Realize that you can have your cake and eat it too. Keep your kid at home for it's education and day care, but enroll it in arts or sports programs with other kids and taught by other adults. Also, spend time with other parents and children together.





P.S. People whose children are involved in social institutions do not abandon their kids. Most kids are at home with their families for more than 16 hours a day (except those who are literally raised by nannies, tutors, and hired help) One part of being a good parent is to realize that children do not belong to you. They are their own people, with their own lives. We can be with them, and be there for them, but we cannot live their lives for them.How would u apply the following statement to sociological theory?
Children do need the love and support of parents, but they also need to develop a social network of all kinds of relationships. Children who have had good nursery education have a much wider network of friends, and can relate to adults on other levels, not just parent/child.





I don't think you should be so moralistic. These days the cost of housing is such that there often isn't an option to not go out to work. Many people might retort to you that the fact you have divorced is not in the best interests of your child, but I think that would be an unnecessarily sweeping statement that doesn't appreciate that in your particular circumstances, there may have been very good reasons for a divorce. Unfortunately, though, I think your views are also unnecessarily sweeping.





By the way, I don't really understand how you can apply a statement to theory - I can apply theory to a statement, but not the reverse.
i think a child should have both parents so because your divorced


youve already chosen to give your child a poor foundation for


the future.why have a child if this is what u do ?
i agree with you completly i am a stay at home mum to my 11 month old although i do put him to nursery for 2 hours a week to give myself a break and to let my child interact with other children of his own age
This is just you saying that you think your personal way is superior to everyone elses. I actually do socilogy at uni but I am not going to back up what you say with something that allows you condemn other people, or feel better than them.


Just so you know, there is no sociological backing for what you say, we talk about society and never individuals.
i TOTALLY agree with you, there!!





and have you noticed that in a lot of countries where the village raises the child , the child very rarely gets into trouble as a teen and adult? and in most of these countries the child is never out of reach of his or her mother or father for the first 3 - 5 years.





i agree the child needs to learn social skills, but i don't agree it needs to be done with people with whom the child does not feel comfortable socializing or will not be bonded to for a lengthy period of time.


if , perhaps, your sister worked at the place (daycare or whatever) and you needed a sitter because you are a single parent that would be ideal; but chances are someone else will be raising that child. and in my opinion, that's wrong.





if you can't raise 'em, don't be havin' 'em.





my parents raised 9 kids on under $30,000 a year. my mom stayed home with us till the youngest went to school ;then became a school bus driver to keep the same hours as we had.
I believe that parents should be at home with their child,whether it's the mother or father,for the first 5 years at least.


This is when a child is doing his / her `firsts`


Like 1st tooth,1st word,1st step etc.


I know it's hard being a single parent,and wanting to do what you think is the best for the child.


I think more emphasis is needed on the parents being at home,rather than rushing of to work long hours and not having the energy to give their child the quality time they need.


If a lot of parents were to stop and think things through,society wouldn't be in the state it is today.


There certainly wouldn't be so many unruly children running about with Abso's tattooed over them.


I can't understand how parents can `dump` their child with a child-minder / baby-sitter / creche or who ever may look after the child.
I am in total agreement with you. I think this is part and parcel of the whole 'thug' society we now know. If more mothers were taking their job seriously and bringing up their own children, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today! I too am a full time mother and extremely proud of the morals and principals my children have. They are streets above most of their peers, and certainly a lot more confident! I know from my eldest child that she feels secure in the knowledge that I am there for her 100% and that when she gets home from school I am here for her to talk to! It definately makes for a happier child!