threat = thread

Typo :-)

I am also tired of this thread. I will just end with this. As for not being too bright,I don;'t remember using any personal attacks.
Also, I have been doing statistical analysis as part of my job for about 22 years. When trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, you first try to isolate the factor you are testing. For example if you want to test the hypothesis of whether children are happier when spending time with parents or non-parental caregivers, you need to examine groups where all other factors are constant. Your examples of instances where other factors have an influence are fine for anecdotal references, but have nothing to do with the issue at hand. As a sociologist, I would think you would understand this. A final non-scientific test could be to ask the child whether they would rather spend the time with Mom and or Dad, or at Daycare. I would think that the majority would want to be with their parents.

if I asked my 2-year old if she wanted candy or a carrot, she'd say candy 100% of the time but that doesn't mean that's what best for her. If you look back time, most societies didn't leave parental responsibilities to just biological parents. It was generally accepted that children were raised by the "village"...only recently with the way our American society has developed into isolated, nuclear family units has the trend been that it's "better" for kids to stay at home with a parent. You're right, no one loves my child the one me and her dad do but that's okay, she still gets great care at daycare. and she doesn't need my kind of love ALL DAY long! it's quality of parenting time, not quantity... studies have proven this

quote:

I also find it hard to beleive that someone with a background in sociology would argue that it isn't advantageous in general for a child tospend time with a parent as opposed to a non-parental caregiver.

Having a cousin who's a phsychologist you should know the answer. If you admit that (all else being equal) it's better that a child be raised by a biological parent rather than a hired caregiver then you're tacitly agreeing that having both parents working has some sort of negative cost to the child in question. If you agree there is a negative cost then you must accept that not having a SAHM/D is negatively affecting your child and all that this implies. You see where this is leading.

It's natural for people to internally rationalize the decisions they make that are in their own best interests. Remember when we thought getting a divorce was actually BETTER than staying together just for the kids? Deep down we all knew that was bunk before all the studies demonstrated just that, but it made us not feel so bad about getting that divorce if we could convince ourselves that the kids would not be adversely affected.

So long story short, that's why we can't say that it's better for a child (all else being equal) to be raised by a biological parent.