# Why can't she like Polly Pocket and other froo froo stuff?



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

I have a three year old daycare child who until she came to me, had never seen a character before. Disney or otherwise.

But, since she is now in the company of other girls, she has decided that she loves the frilly stuff.

We have dress up clothes, but she only likes the dresses, and sparkley shoes, and the purple purse. I have dog costumes, and doctor kits, but she doesn't have any interest in them.

She loves to sit at the counter and play Polly Pockets. I have blocks and legos, but she doesn't have any interest in them.

I bought a bunch of flannel wipes from a WAHM to wash their hands and faces after lunch. TWO of them have disney princesses on them. Those are the ones she asks for.

The other girls have Dora T-shirts. She wants one too. The other girls have disney Panties, she only has plain white, and wants the "pretty panties".

Mom says "That isn't who we are" She would like me to discourage her from playing with the girly things, and encourage her to play with the dr kit, and the building toys. She has even hinted that I get rid of all the "girly toys". I said, "sure, if you replace them with toys that are more to your liking".
(she would like me to buy a train set and table) But, I am certainly not going to go out and buy a train set and train table. I don't have space for a train table anyway.
What on earth is wrong with this child having a natural attraction to shiny girly stuff? It's not like I have Barbies, or princess dolls here. We don't watch much TV, and when we do, it's usually sing-a-long songs.

Why is it so bad for her to love this stuff???


----------



## j924 (May 17, 2005)

It sounds like a forbidden fruit issue. It must be disconcerting for the mom to have worked so hard to steer her dd away from commercial/"typical girly" things to now have her somewhat obsessed with them. I have had parent reactions similar to this(although usually with the boys playing dress up














What has worked with me is to rotate the toys Pollys on a Monday blocks on Tuesday etc. That way all the kids get a bit of time with all the different toys. It also appeases the mom with out you having to exert too much effort.


----------



## erin_d_a (Jun 27, 2007)

I can understand not wanting your kids to get caught up in commercialism or hoping to raise them without pressuring them toward "girl" or "boy" toys, but some kids just are drawn to those thing. My DD saw a dora doll in the store when she was nine months old and had never seen the show and FELL in love with that doll. Some kids just like stuff for whatever reason.

If it is a gender neutral thing, well you can try to raise your kids in that way, but sometimes girls are going to go fru fru and boys are going to go for the tractors (and the other way too) You can't be so ridgid in what YOU want for your kids that you don't let them be who they are.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

I don't think it is bad at all. As long as there is a variety of toys and you aren't "pushing" one type or another on the child, I don't see the problem. The child herself has chosen what she likes and I am sure she will change her mind many, many times as she grows up. Some girls love the girly stuff and some don't. I am not into most girly things, but my sister is much more so and we were raised about the same.

Having no girly toys would be silly IMO. As long as you have a good variety, then I think you are fine. And if you can do some kind of toy rotation as the other poster suggested, at least for a more structured hour or so, that may help as well.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

I feel you. I take issue with (I was a nanny and pre-school teacher for years) parents who do this imposition thing. "What _*I*_ like and approve of _must_ be what my child is drawn to... and I would like to eliminate anything that isn't in keeping with what _my_ preferences are..." The whole girly-stuff-debaucle just gets old. So you were a tom-boy... so you liked climbing trees and playing with a science kit... that does _not_ mean your little girl will follow in your foot steps.

My mom told us all about what a tom-boy she was, ad nauseum, throughout our childhood... refused to let me have Barbies or pink things until I was about 10... berated me for liking girly things to the point of brainwashing. Dd loves pricesses... she thought dresses were called princesses for a few months. "I want to wear a princess, please..." I'm not so into pink for myself, but she can go nuts on pink for all I care. I don't love the Disney Princesses... but if dd gets into them a bit, I'm not gonna freak out.

Stick with your approach; that if that mom wants to replace the toys she is suggesting you dispose of, fine. Maybe even go one further and try theme weeks/days. Rotate out the toys. One week is about castles, knights, princesses, etc... the books, toys, games, etc all center around the theme... then the next week it's Jungle theme... all animals, Africa, the Amazon, etc... kwim? Maybe she'd be more easy-going if the play were structured like that, so that it wasn't such a constant presence...


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

She's drawn to it because she's never seen it before.

That being said, I feel for the mom. Frankly, I don't want my daughter playing with that kind of stuff, either.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

To be perfectly honest, I sort of get it. I would prefer not to send DD to a daycare that had character items. (DD's doesn't have any.) I just hate the character obsession and Disney is not part of our value system. It would annoy the heck out of me if DD was begging me for princess panties.

I wouldn't have an issue with generic dress-up or doll play, but I am really trying to avoid the media-driven gimmee-gimmees.


----------



## <~*MamaRose*~> (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
She's drawn to it because she's never seen it before.

That being said, I feel for the mom. Frankly, I don't want my daughter playing with that kind of stuff, either.









So how are you planning on getting around this problem yourself (I swear no snark just curious)?


----------



## dancingmama (Dec 18, 2001)

I agree with loraxc. I totally support princess play -- love it, cuz dd loves it. But I HATE disney princess stuff. The rampant consumerism of it, the commercialization, all of it. I would not like it if our dcp had character stuff either. Girly/princess, fine no problem.


----------



## cyncyn (Nov 19, 2004)

I feel for the mom too. When I was selecting daycare and preschool I did look at the toy selection to see if they were the kind of toys I like. By that I mean natural materials, non-commercial, open for creative play, etc. DD has very few character items or plastic toys, most were gifts that will eventually "go on vacation". She does enjoy playing with those items when she is with other kids. After she saw her cousin's brightly colored plastic dollhouse, she wanted one, even though she has a wooden one at home.

Seeing a bunch of Polly Pockets might have been a deal-breaker for me, if I was evaluating a new care provider. So would seeing a box of plastic Transformers or happy meal toys. It is more about the plastic and advertising tie-ins than whether they are girl or boy toys. But really, I don't get worked up over it. DDs current preschool does have some plastic items. The current favorite character toy there is My Little Pony, from the teacher's daughter's own stash. I didn't see those on my visits before enrolling her. Too bad dd's ponies went on vacation







: (they'll be back soon for a visit - I'm not totally mean) DD much prefers the plastic frogs and turtles anyway.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
To be perfectly honest, I sort of get it. I would prefer not to send DD to a daycare that had character items. (DD's doesn't have any.) I just hate the character obsession and Disney is not part of our value system. It would annoy the heck out of me if DD was begging me for princess panties.

I wouldn't have an issue with generic dress-up or doll play, but I am really trying to avoid the media-driven gimmee-gimmees.


The only character item I have is the two Disney princess washrags.

The Polly Pockets were left over from my daughter. (It's not like I have an unlimited supply of money to replace all of my toys)

I do rotate the toys. In fact, the polly pockets only come out in the summer when I have the grade schoolers.

The rest of it comes over on the bodies of other children.

But, this mom has issues with ANYTHING that people would consider girly. Just the fact that she likes the dress-up sparkly shoes drives her insane.

One of the other girls has a cute little Gymnastics outfit. It's purple with an irridescant silver front that kind of changes colors. Then, it has a little purple skirt. This child has Gymnastics on Tuesdays, so i change her into it after naptime. The other little girl is just wild about it. She wants it so bad. I almost feel sorry for her because you can see how bad she wants that thing.

Her Mom tells her "not in a million years". (the kiddo keeps asking though LOL)

I just don't GET what is wrong with a girl liking those froo froo things. It's almost like a taboo to some people. This same Mom is perfectly O.K with her son liking these things though. HE walks out in the girly dressup shoes, and THAT is cute.


----------



## stormborn (Dec 8, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
I just don't GET what is wrong with a girl liking those froo froo things. It's almost like a taboo to some people. This same Mom is perfectly O.K with her son liking these things though. HE walks out in the girly dressup shoes, and THAT is cute.

Now that makes it strange, IMO. How the heck does she explain that to her kids? Brother may play with the dress shoes but you can't? Weird.

Really... I am drowning in pink froofroo stuff from my girly girl (who some have expressed surprise that I spawned







) and would MUCH prefer that it would all go away. But that's who she IS, it wouldn't be right to try to change it. So I keep the opinions to myself. Most character things I won't buy, but if she gets them for gifts or handmedowns I don't forbid it.


----------



## maxsmum (Nov 29, 2006)

I can't relate to this as a parent yet, but as a child who desperately wanted barbie. My mom and dad tried to do the gender nuetral thing with us (three girls). No frilly dresses, no sparkly anything, and no barbie. and what did I want, pink frilly everything and barbie. I really do think not letting me have it at all made me want it more. I still wish I had that stuff as a kid.

It is hard, where do you draw the line? I hate all of that commercialized crap - but will witholding all of it from my child make him a better person?


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
<snip>
I just don't GET what is wrong with a girl liking those froo froo things. It's almost like a taboo to some people. This same Mom is perfectly O.K with her son liking these things though. HE walks out in the girly dressup shoes, and THAT is cute.

See, that's not fair. And I know I may be alone in this,







: but the girly froo froo aversion and a parent's attempts to impose that same ethic onto a small child is totally covert hostility and conditioning, and I'll even go as far as to say it's bordering on coercion. _Especially_ encouraging an enjoyment of dress-up, etc, in the boy but dismissing it in the girl... that'll make her resent her brother along with her folks! Trying to build future feminists by brainwashing little girls into 'anti-commercialism' via girly froo froo aversion is manipulative and will likely backfire.

I totally agree that the Disney Pricesses are an insidous media-driven money making machine... ok. But if our reactions to commercialism come from an educated, tolerant, informed position, then our children will see _that_. Dd loves the Princesses... she was given a Cinderella dvd, and some Barbie Princess things too... jammies and plate/dish set. She has a generic princess tent, and sparkly shoes. She also has a fondness for cows that goes to point of sympathetic obsession. I will nurture her loves and desires in a healthy fashion... My hope is that she will never covet something to the point of fanaticism, because she will have access to the things that interest her, even if they don't interest me... and in a healthy, teachable way.

If mom doesn't like the toys you offer, and how you structure your daycare, she doesn't have to keep her dd there. You have no say in how other parents dress their children... if it's such a big deal, she should take it up with them.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *StrugglingMomX's2* 
So how are you planning on getting around this problem yourself (I swear no snark just curious)?

Not offended at all. I actually have no problem with my dd playing with girly 'stuff'. (Although to be honest she ignores her dolls in favor of her brother's trucks, while her brother goes and plays with her dolls. Go figure







)

What I do object to is...commercialized 'girly' stuff. Disney princesses, for example *winces*. Let's just say, as much as I LOVE WDW, the Disney Princess phenomenon is not something I want my child to embrace as healthy.

I don't like commericalized boy-ey stuff either....you know...emblazoned superheros on powerwheels, that kind of thing.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

While I might dislike the girly-girl stuff to an extent, it isn't my place to reverse engineer gender by disallowing my child to make crucial decisions about their own self.

So, for example, I see women and men like myself go to far. It is okay to adopt the OTHER gender's stereotypes but not okay to adopt the mainstream stereotypes.

Why do so few people not understand the deeply offensive and downright abuisive nature of wordlessly telling one's child that they are WRONG and even contemptible to identify as a girl or a boy as that child sees fit?

We seem to know it is wrong when a boy is being told not to wear ponytails - but if our boy is toy truck crazy and our girl wants to wear pink! Oh, the horrors! It is the same damn thing.

I think that girls and boys who are pushing back on their pushy parents (like me) are STRONG, and to be admired for being willing to stand up for themselves and their personal identity.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

My DD loves to dress up in all her froo-froo finery! She even wears it all to town. She loves all things girly. That is just her. But she also loves to play with her brothers stuff and they come and play teaparty with her. I just dont get it... Even in our "*******" family playing with toys is just that. They are just toys. I get so tired of parents trying to create the "perfect citizen" that they forget that they are just kids and kids like to play and pretend... Makes me sad for the kids...


----------



## WalkingByFaith (Dec 29, 2006)

This is a daycare right? Other people pay for their children to come there too, not just this little girl, right?

IMO this mom is way out of line and has absolutely no right to ask you to remove toys because she doesn't want her dd playing with them. Some of those toys may be favorites for other children who attend..it's not fair to them. It's also not fair for her to ask you to discourage her dd from playing with certain items..that's just







: .

If mom wants to keep those particular items out of her own home and discourage her dd from any type of stereotypical "girl play" while at home more power to her...but unless she's planning on raising her dd soley in a completely likeminded community she's going to have to come to grips with the fact that A) her dd is a girl B) some girls just like "girly" things and C) touching a Polly Pocket or putting on a pair of sparkly shoes isn't going to cause any serious or lasting harm to her dd.


----------



## Throkmorton (Jun 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
I just don't GET what is wrong with a girl liking those froo froo things. It's almost like a taboo to some people. This same Mom is perfectly O.K with her son liking these things though. HE walks out in the girly dressup shoes, and THAT is cute.

Yep, makes no sense. She really cannot expect you to remove all the girl toys from your daycare. I wouldn't even do it if she offered to replace them. I mean, her own DS would be so heartbroken without sparkly shoes to wear! A PP said it is probably a forbidden fruit thing. The girl just wants sparkly dress up clothes and a baby. So what? My DS also likes sparkly clothes and his "baby"

I have tried to keep a balanced mix of girly/boyish toys in my house, but there is inevitably more boy stuff (DS is older, has many tonkas from relatives) I never believed that gender stereotypes could be so cut and dried at a young age (whether they are born that way, or just watch closely) until DD, who has never been in daycare or anything, put the transformers in the stroller, strapped them in, snuggled them up and drove them around the living room, singing lullabyes. She's 14 months.


----------



## amitymama (Nov 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
While I might dislike the girly-girl stuff to an extent, it isn't my place to reverse engineer gender by disallowing my child to make crucial decisions about their own self.

So, for example, I see women and men like myself go to far. It is okay to adopt the OTHER gender's stereotypes but not okay to adopt the mainstream stereotypes.

Why do so few people not understand the deeply offensive and downright abuisive nature of wordlessly telling one's child that they are WRONG and even contemptible to identify as a girl or a boy as that child sees fit?

We seem to know it is wrong when a boy is being told not to wear ponytails - but if our boy is toy truck crazy and our girl wants to wear pink! Oh, the horrors! It is the same damn thing.

I think that girls and boys who are pushing back on their pushy parents (like me) are STRONG, and to be admired for being willing to stand up for themselves and their personal identity.









:


----------



## zipworth (Jun 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WalkingByFaith* 
This is a daycare right? Other people pay for their children to come there too, not just this little girl, right?

IMO this mom is way out of line and has absolutely no right to ask you to remove toys because she doesn't want her dd playing with them. Some of those toys may be favorites for other children who attend..it's not fair to them. It's also not fair for her to ask you to discourage her dd from playing with certain items..that's just







: .

If mom wants to keep those particular items out of her own home and discourage her dd from any type of stereotypical "girl play" while at home more power to her...but unless she's planning on raising her dd soley in a completely likeminded community she's going to have to come to grips with the fact that A) her dd is a girl B) some girls just like "girly" things and C) touching a Polly Pocket or putting on a pair of sparkly shoes isn't going to cause any serious or lasting harm to her dd.











The damage to the child's self-esteem will be worse than the exposure to froo-froo IMO.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Mom says "That isn't who we are" She would like me to discourage her from playing with the girly things, and encourage her to play with the dr kit, and the building toys. She has even hinted that I get rid of all the "girly toys". I said, "sure, if you replace them with toys that are more to your liking".
(she would like me to buy a train set and table) But, I am certainly not going to go out and buy a train set and train table. I don't have space for a train table anyway.
What on earth is wrong with this child having a natural attraction to shiny girly stuff? It's not like I have Barbies, or princess dolls here. We don't watch much TV, and when we do, it's usually sing-a-long songs.

Why is it so bad for her to love this stuff???

Well, imho, I don't think you have any right to determine what is right or wrong for this family. I don't think you have any obligation to buy toys specifically for this little girl, but I think that as a caregiver you should respect the parents.

I can't believe that people here are actually saying that you should ignore what the parent is asking and let the little girl have whatever *you* think is appropriate. Perhaps you don't know the reasons behind the parents' decisions, but it's also not your place to question it. It could be a cultural or religious reason... or it could just be that that is how they want to raise their kids.

It doesn't matter why it is "so bad for her to love this stuff." It's not your place to question it. Just as it is not your place to question if she wants to give breastmilk instead of formula, co-sleep or use a crib, cloth or 'sposie diaper. I'm not trying to be snarky, I just think that it's a personal child-rearing decision that shouldn't be questioned... one that as the child's caregiver, you should try to respect to the best of your ability (obviously not to the extent that you spend your own money to bow to her wishes, but as she asked... to dissuade her dd from playing with the toys she doesn't want her playing with).


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Well, imho, I don't think you have any right to determine what is right or wrong for this family. I don't think you have any obligation to buy toys specifically for this little girl, but I think that as a caregiver you should respect the parents.

I can't believe that people here are actually saying that you should ignore what the parent is asking and let the little girl have whatever *you* think is appropriate. Perhaps you don't know the reasons behind the parents' decisions, but it's also not your place to question it. It could be a cultural or religious reason... or it could just be that that is how they want to raise their kids.

It doesn't matter why it is "so bad for her to love this stuff." It's not your place to question it. Just as it is not your place to question if she wants to give breastmilk instead of formula, co-sleep or use a crib, cloth or 'sposie diaper. I'm not trying to be snarky, I just think that it's a personal child-rearing decision that shouldn't be questioned... one that as the child's caregiver, you should try to respect to the best of your ability (obviously not to the extent that you spend your own money to bow to her wishes, but as she asked... to dissuade her dd from playing with the toys she doesn't want her playing with).

I see your point, but on the other hand I don't think it's the OP's job to be controlling. And I see the parents in this case as controlling. Personally, I'd let the kid play with what she wanted and the parents could find another provider if they wanted someone to be that controlling.

I can see not liking a day care provider for having a bunch of commerical tie-in products, but for having sparkly dress-up clothes? And just not wanting the girl to play with anything girly? I don't see any relationship between that decision and breastmilk/formula or cloth/sposie. To try to control a child's personality and interests really bugs me. Children should be encouraged to find their authentic selves and celebrated for who they naturally are. I guess if that makes me judgmental, so be it.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Well, having in-laws in a muslim country, I can *certainly* see why "sparkly" clothes might be discouraged for cultural reasons. In 100 different ways, we, as parents, guide our children on their paths to find their personality. Like it or not, it's not all nature... there's a lot of nurture in the final product that are our adult children.

This mother is paying for childcare... her wishes should be respected. Period. This is exactly the reason I swore my dd would never go to day care. It's obvious that a parent's wishes are blatantly ignored and questioned when someone (a caregiver) believes differently. I *do* see a connection between this and diapering or feeding... a parent has a certain way they want to raise their child (they have decided what they think is best for their family) and it is being questioned. What if the OP was saying, "what the hell... I know formula is healthy for the baby and this person wants me to feed the baby breastmilk... and you can't even MICROWAVE it, so I have to spend all this time dealing with heating it up without destroying the nutrients in the milk... damn, I'm just going to give formula. I mean, what is so wrong with formula!?!" We would ALL be up in arms about it. How is this any different? It's what this family has chosen to be best for them.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
This mother is paying for childcare... her wishes should be respected. Period.

The mother made a choice in this daycare , and she can't demand that the provider changes her polices and buys new toys. I think for all the talk of respecting child's wishes on this board, there is something to be said for not ripping toys out of kids' hands...









I can use cloth dipers that a parent left me, I use the healthy snack that a parent left me, but I can't force a kid to not like pink dresses!

If I don't approve of certain toys in my house - I can make them "dissapear" after the kid goes to bed. As a daycare provider, I can't buy a stash of new toys for every child that comes in. If this is important to the parent, they should discuss it upfront. I hope you are not suggesting taking every froofroo pink thing out of this child's hands as soon as she picks it up? And saying, "Well... all the other kids can play with those toys, but here is your box, and don't you touch anything else!"







:


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
She's drawn to it because she's never seen it before.

That being said, I feel for the mom. Frankly, I don't want my daughter playing with that kind of stuff, either.










Yeah, I felt that way too until my dd turned into a major girly-girl when she was about 2.5 years old.







It was all her own choosing, so I really didn't have any control over it. That type of thing is usually a phase. Now that dd is 5, she still likes to dress like a fairy sometimes, or sit at her little vanity and put on sparkly powder and chapstick. That said, ds who is 3 also likes to dress like a fairy and sit at the vanity and put on powder and chapstick. He also loves to have his nails painted, whereas dd doesn't. He says he loves pink. He's also one of the most "boyish" little boys I've ever seen. Dd also likes to play tee-ball, doctor, museum, and variety of other imaginary games. It all balances out eventually.









OP: I would tell the child's mother that you like to keep a nice balance of toys for ALL of the children to play with.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole*
and she can't demand that the provider changes her polices and buys new toys

Oriole, why don't you go back and actually read what I posted:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
*I don't think you have any obligation to buy toys specifically for this little girl*, but I think that as a caregiver you should respect the parents.

... you should try to respect to the best of your ability (*obviously not to the extent that you spend your own money to bow to her wishes*, but as she asked... to dissuade her dd from playing with the toys she doesn't want her playing with).

I never once said anything at all about buying new toys. Why do people misquote others to try to make their own points? Make them on your own merits.

And yes, I am saying take these things out of the little girl's hands. It's the wishes of the parent and not *AT ALL* something that the daycare provider should question. If that's what the parent wants, that's the rule. It's always the parent's prerogative to switch day care providers and in this case, if I were her, I would. Obviously the caretaker is blatantly going against her wishes. It's not our place to question the way this woman is raising her daughter. Nor is it the daycare providers. She needs to either concede to the parent's wishes or ask them to take their business elsewhere.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I honestly think it's too much to even ask her to dissuade the child from playing with what she wants. They hired a day care provider, not someone to police what toys their daughter likes. I wouldn't spank a child if the parents wanted me to, and I wouldn't control a child to the point of saying what available toys she can play with either. How would the child feel watching everyone else play with what they want while she's not allowed to play with some things? I don't see that as being a day care provider's responsibility at all.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I honestly think it's too much to even ask her to dissuade the child from playing with what she wants. They hired a day care provider, not someone to police what toys their daughter likes. I wouldn't spank a child if the parents wanted me to, and I wouldn't control a child to the point of saying what available toys she can play with either. How would the child feel watching everyone else play with what they want while she's not allowed to play with some things? I don't see that as being a day care provider's responsibility at all.

Turn that around... what if someone were spanking your child and in your house you had a strict "no spanking" rule. How is this any different? Would it be too much to ask the day care provider to *not* spank? It's a policy of your house and she would be going against your wishes.

If I had a family that asked me to spank, I would simply say that I'm not able to hit a child and that they need to have someone else care for the child.

Bottom line for me... if a daycare provider didn't respect my wishes (I am paying her to care for my children the same way *I* would care for them... I'm not paying her to raise them as her own), I would switch caretakers.

BTW - dd has never been in daycare and I've never cared for any other children.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

I would tell the mother that I was not comfortable dissuading any of the children from playing with any of the toys, and that she was welcome to find another caregiver if that was a problem. There are a lot of things that I wouldn't do as a caregiver because i don't feel it's healthy - I wouldn't feed a baby on a strict schedule, I would't let a baby cry to sleep, I wouldn't spank, etc. These things are not only (IMO) not healthy for the child in question, but they aren't healthy for the other kids that have to see it - Jest like it wouldn't be healthy for the other kids to hear this child be chastized (even gently) for playing with the very same toys that the other children are playing with.

There are toys that I wouldn't want my kdis playing with (guns, for example). If I walked into a daycare and saw kids running around fake shooting with toy guns, I would assume that the DCP did not have the same values for raising children as I did, and would choose not to put my child there.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

I don't think it is the job of the daycare provider to police the toys. And, some of the problem is what other kids are wearing. She certainly shouldn't have to address that issue.

The mother should look for a new daycare, perhaps a Waldorf inspired one. No offense to the op, I bet your daycare is lovely, I just mean it's her issue so she needs to take care of it.

The fact that she doesn't want her dd to play with girly stuff, but doesn't mind that her ds does, suggests to me that she is trying very hard to break down gender barriers. I can appreciate that, but it sounds like she might be taking things to extreme.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Turn that around... what if someone were spanking your child and in your house you had a strict "no spanking" rule. How is this any different? Would it be too much to ask the day care provider to *not* spank? It's a policy of your house and she would be going against your wishes.

If I had a family that asked me to spank, I would simply say that I'm not able to hit a child and that they need to have someone else care for the child.

Bottom line for me... if a daycare provider didn't respect my wishes (I am paying her to care for my children the same way *I* would care for them... I'm not paying her to raise them as her own), I would switch caretakers.

BTW - dd has never been in daycare and I've never cared for any other children.

I would do the same thing. I would never leave my daughter with a child care provider who spanked, and if someone wanted me to spank his/her child, I'd tell him/her to find another provider. Exactly as I'd do with this - I would say I don't police which toys kids are allowed to play with and if the parent wants that, they need to find a different provider.

My daughter hasn't been in daycare, and I've never cared for other children either.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama* 
I don't think it is the job of the daycare provider to police the toys. And, some of the problem is what other kids are wearing. She certainly shouldn't have to address that issue.

The mother should look for a new daycare, perhaps a Waldorf inspired one. No offense to the op, I bet your daycare is lovely, I just mean it's her issue so she needs to take care of it.

The fact that she doesn't want her dd to play with girly stuff, but doesn't mind that her ds does, suggests to me that she is trying very hard to break down gender barriers. I can appreciate that, but it sounds like she might be taking things to extreme.

Thank you everyone.

I thought about this, and this morning, I told the Mom, that I would bring the Polly Pockets out only a few more times before school starts. (they are a summer only toy) and that is as far as I am willing to go with this.

I told her that I would NOT take the shoes off her feet, or the pretty headband away from her. BUT, I reminded her that when school starts in two weeks ALL the kids will be back, and the competition for those toys would mean that she wouldn't have them as often.

Her dd quickly pointed out the cinderella t-shirt the other three year old was wearing. Mom just shuddered. LOL

"I can't do anything about that"

What I DO do for them is, I NEVER give these kids anything processed or from a package. I feed them differently than I do the other kids. THAT makes me feel bad, because if A child brings in a birthday cupcake, these two can't have one. They don't know what they are missing, but they see how attractive these things are, and obviously, they want one too. If it's a holiday, I have Mom bring them muffins, so they have something to unwrap.

I decided that this is MY daycare. If she doesn't like my policies, she can keep looking. BUT, she wont find anyone else. I am one of the only in our area that uses gentle discipline, wears the babies, willing to feed them the way they choose. Willing to use cloth diapers.

There are no waldorf schools around here. If there were, they would be in Scottsdale where people can afford that type of center. What is available out here are a few large chain centers with a high teacher turnover rate. On the west side is a few montessori schools, but they are also extremely high priced. The average family can't pay for that. Especially with the cost of living out here.


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

I think the mom is expecting too much for a daycare with several other children.
Maybe daycare isn't for her. She should find someone who will watch only her children (preferably in her home) if she wants to dictate so much of their environment. Otherwise she needs to lighten up a bit on the control issues.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *onlyzombiecat* 
I think the mom is expecting too much for a daycare with several other children.
Maybe daycare isn't for her. She should find someone who will watch only her children (preferably in her home) if she wants to dictate so much of their environment. Otherwise she needs to lighten up a bit on the control issues.

That's what I'm thinking too. I respect the client mom's ideas BUT I think it's very hard to control things like that when you have a group of families who may have different ideas. It just gets too unweildy IMO.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *onlyzombiecat* 
I think the mom is expecting too much for a daycare with several other children.
Maybe daycare isn't for her. She should find someone who will watch only her children (preferably in her home) if she wants to dictate so much of their environment. Otherwise she needs to lighten up a bit on the control issues.

I think this too. While I totally understand the other Mom's POV, I think she has unreasonable expectations for group daycare. It is unrealistic to expect a group daycare provider to: 1. follow an individual child around and take toys away from her, 2. to expect all the other children/parents to conform to her values or to 3. physically keep one child away from all the others so she is not exposed to their stuff. She needs to look for individual childcare or a group daycare that shares her values (e.g. a Waldorf group).


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
What I DO do for them is, I NEVER give these kids anything processed or from a package. I feed them differently than I do the other kids. THAT makes me feel bad, because if A child brings in a birthday cupcake, these two can't have one. They don't know what they are missing, but they see how attractive these things are, and obviously, they want one too. If it's a holiday, I have Mom bring them muffins, so they have something to unwrap.



See, I think it's easier with food, especially since you have two kids from the same family, with the same rules. It's just like if they were vegetarian - "X & Y's family doesn't eat this kind of food." But the toy thing is just weird. It would be like saying "Y can have a cupcake because she's a girl, but X can't, because X&Y's mom thinks only girls can eat cupcakes." It would be hard to police the toys ev en if she had the same rules for her boy as she does for her girl - but she really can't expect you to enforce her sexism. It would be like saying "I'm a racist, so please don't let my white kids play with any brown baby dolls - and certainly not any brown children!"


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Is her boy allowed to play with trucks and other traditionally boyish toys?


----------



## ginadc (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:

While I totally understand the other Mom's POV, I think she has unreasonable expectations for group daycare.
Totally agree with this. My DD is in group daycare three days a week. I made sure that we were in sync on the big things that were important to me, and the other things just have to take care of themselves. It's just unrealistic to expect day care providers in a room with three, four, five, or however many other kids to actually yank toys out of a child's hands and tell them that they can't play with them.

If I were as determined as this woman seems to be to control my child's every move when she's not with me, then I would have hired a nanny to whom I could dictate all the specifics.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
Is her boy allowed to play with trucks and other traditionally boyish toys?


Yes, in fact, he can play with girl toys, boy toys she has never said a thing about it.

BUT, I think the big difference is she LOOOOOOOVES these things. She absolultely obsesses about them. She doesn't care if someone else has the pink shoes on their feet. She doesn't care if others have all the "pretty" things. But, apparently at home, she says "When I go to ***'s I play with the pink shoes". She goes home and tells Mom what all the girls wore that day. LMAO.

BUT, she also tells her who had a band aid that day and why they have it. She tells Mom who threw a block, who didn't eat their lunch, who cried... etc. She's just got lots of information.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

The client mom is clearly controlling. With her children as well as the dcp.

*nextcommercial* is NOT disrespecting this woman by standing her ground about what allowances she is or is not willing to make, re; how she runs her daycare or how she interacts with the children. There is _huge_ difference, ethically, between policing toys because someone has a preference re; gender-barriers, and formula vs. breastmilk or spanking.

In life, we as parents make choices to provide the spiritual, moral, and acedemic education of our children, within the framework of our own cultural mores, beliefs, paradigms. If a dcp's practices don't sit well with a parent's values, it is up to the parent to find a way to reconcile that, either by working with the dcp to find ways to work it out, or by selecting another care provider. It sounds like the pro's of *nextcommercial's* daycare far outweigh the fact that she makes some girly toys available to all the kids she cares for, or cares for kids that wear charcter clothes...


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
This same Mom is perfectly O.K with her son liking these things though. HE walks out in the girly dressup shoes, and THAT is cute.

This irritates me. What's good for one should be good for the other.







:


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.


If a mother came here and said that she wanted to disallow her daughter from playing with the same toys that her son is allowed to play with, AND she wanted someone else to enforce her sexist parenting standards and was upset that they wouldn't - well, no, I would not be offering her support. I would probably tell her that I thought she had her priorities skewed and that if she wanted these standards enforced, then she should find a provider with the same values.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.

I would not rally around any parent hypocritical enough to let her son play with girly toys and not allow them for her DD. Maybe you should stick to speaking for yourself instead of making assumptions.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

I think the mother has some strange ideals for her kids. I'll tell anyone that I think they're being ridiculous about an issue. (My uncle, for starters... he doesn't want his 3 yr old dd playing w/ little boys the same age. Thinks if he doesn't keep control of her now then they'll have probs when she's a teenager.







: )

As for THIS issue, I'd tell the mom I think she's going overboard. I would definitely question to her, "Why is it ok for Johnny to wear pink sparkle shoes and a princess dress but Sarah can't?"

As a childcare worker (worked in my mother's daycare for 5 yrs and then at a fitness club in the childcare center), HECK NO is anyone gonna tell me how to run my center. I can't police everything the kids play with, nor will I. It's not dangerous or deadly or gonna hurt her in ANY WAY.

I'm judging what's gonna work best in MY CENTER or MY HOME. You bring your kid here you NEED to expect that the kid will probably be exposed to something you may not have in your home. I can only do so much to work with you. My house, my rules.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.

I've read this thread, and in a sense I agree with you. However, I think the issue is that this is a day care where there are other children, and this woman's *one* child should not dictate the type of toys that are kept there.

I think as a parent it is our job to source a DCP who is in alignment with our parenting philosophies. That goes for discipline, nutrition, education, toys, attendant child ratio, etc.

I assume this woman hired Nextcommercial as her DCP after interviewing her and AGREEING with how the day care is run, and is now imposing her preferences upon not only the DCP, but the other children as well (because really, who is going to put a child in a room full of toys and then not let play them with certain ones while everyone else does?).

The bottom line is that the DCP does X, Y, and Z. The mom hired the DCP knowing that they do X, Y, and Z, and now wants the DCP to do A, B, and C. I think that's unreasonable. And if she was unaware of the type of toys when she hired said DCP, I think it is in the best interest of the child for the DCP to offer her the opportunity to go elsewhere.









I think putting a child into a room full of toys and then saying "no honey, *you* can't play with this one" and taking it away while another child plays with it in front of her is far more damaging then her playing with "froo froo" stuff to begin with.

And if I were the DCP, the options would be:

1.) These are the toys I have. I am not buying more, nor am I going to restrict what the children play with.

2.) If your child is not allowed the play with the toys I have, then I will absolve you of your contract and you can find a DCP who fits your parenting philosophy. I wish you all the best.

How is that a double standard? Because she is not bending over backward to put the needs of *one* child before that of a whole room full of children?


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

How so? I'm all for waldorf inspired toys, and limited plastic, and breastfeeding, etc. etc. etc. If those are my choices though, I will not be putting my kid in a family run daycare where clothes and toy policies do not coincide with my own. *shrug*


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I do personally judge her and think she's overly controlling, but that isn't really my business except that she doesn't sound like someone I'd probably be friends with.

But if she had kids in a child care program I was running, then either she would have to agree with the program I ran or put her kids in another program. It isn't fair to expect a child care provider to be continually taking toys away from a child while the child has to watch other kids play with them. And it isn't fair to the rest of the kids to take away any stereotypically girlish toys.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
How so? I'm all for waldorf inspired toys, and limited plastic, and breastfeeding, etc. etc. etc. If those are my choices though, I will not be putting my kid in a family run daycare where clothes and toy policies do not coincide with my own. *shrug*

Because she has her reasons that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps her child is in therapy and has gotten this recommendation. That's what I'm saying... how are we to know? We don't. After 5 years, I sometimes just get a little tired of seeing all of the judgments passed on people who are not even here to defend themselves. Just ignore me. I'll stand on my soapbox all alone.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Because she has her reasons that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps her child is in therapy and has gotten this recommendation. That's what I'm saying... how are we to know? We don't. After 5 years, I sometimes just get a little tired of seeing all of the judgments passed on people who are not even here to defend themselves. Just ignore me. I'll stand on my soapbox all alone.



















Eh, I think we've all got our own little soapboxes at one point or another.

You do bring up a valid point. We are all going on only what *nextcommercial* has told us, which is only what she sees.









I still don't think it makes any sense, though.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Because she has her reasons that we are completely unaware of. Perhaps her child is in therapy and has gotten this recommendation.

If my child were in therapy and had recommendations passed down from her health care provider that she play/not play with certain toys, I would STILL find a DCP provider that coincided with that philosophy. Or at the very least be upfront at the beginning about the special needs and work to find a solution *before* agreeing to hire this person.

I would source out a DCP who was comfortable affording the level of care that I would, warming breastmilk, changing cloth diapers, wearing the baby, etc. I would make compromises when needed depending on the urgency of my needing a DCP. I would never expect an entire day care center to bend to the whims of my parenting at the expense of other children, because hovering over *one* child takes time away from time spent with *other* children. If I wanted the care to be focused on my child and my child only, I would hire a nanny.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Velochic,

I just wanted to say that I do not judge the lady as is, because it's true, she's not here to defend herself, so I am merely discussing a situation as if it is presented correctly: making certain demands on DC provider is unreasonable, imho, as it is unfair to impose your family values on the other kids in the daycare, or to expect that your kid will be followed around with a special bucket of approved toys. And I surely won't be the one telling the other parents to dress their kids differently or to keep certain toys at home, just because this one mom doesn't like it (regardless of her reasons).

On the other hand, if initial information that we are basic this discussion on is distorted, then naturally none of what I said applies







:


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.









: Huh? I personally have no such illusions as to *nextcommercial* being "one of us"... for all I know, the client mom is an MDC mom, too. If she is, and she posts about her dcp's refusal to change her toy-policing policies and such, I'll laugh and suggest she take a look at the bigger picture and chill out.

One could say _you_ are blatantly playing devil's advocate, just because of your own espoused dislike of:_seeing all of the judgments passed on people who are not even here to defend themselves_.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and makes unrealistic demands of it's duck-care-provider, I'm gonna call it a controlling duck.. no judgements, just observation.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
<snip>
I think putting a child into a room full of toys and then saying "no honey, *you* can't play with this one" and taking it away while another child plays with it in front of her is far more damaging then her playing with "froo froo" stuff to begin with.

_Especially_ while those same standards aren't applied to her _own brother_ whom is _also_ in this woman's care... what's up with that? *Velochic* what do you think of that element of this situation?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
<snip>
BTW - dd has never been in daycare and I've never cared for any other children.

Your position thus far clearly illustrates that to be the case.

Fwiw:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
<snip>
I thought about this, and this morning, *I told the Mom, that I would bring the Polly Pockets out only a few more times before school starts.* (they are a summer only toy) and that is as far as I am willing to go with this.

I told her that I would NOT take the shoes off her feet, or the pretty headband away from her. BUT, *I reminded her that when school starts in two weeks ALL the kids will be back, and the competition for those toys would mean that she wouldn't have them as often.*

Her dd quickly pointed out the cinderella t-shirt the other three year old was wearing. Mom just shuddered. LOL

"I can't do anything about that"
<snip>
I decided that this is MY daycare. If she doesn't like my policies, she can keep looking. BUT, she wont find anyone else. *I am one of the only in our area that uses gentle discipline, wears the babies, willing to feed them the way they choose. Willing to use cloth diapers.*

*Nextcommercial* has offered what should be acknowlegded as a sound, reasonable, and equitable compromise, and this reflects that she has diplomacy in mind, and the parent's preferences. If the client-mom doesn't accept this olive branch, it sounds like her options are slim-pickins... Again, the pro's here seem to far outweigh the cons.


----------



## amydawnsmommy (Mar 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
I have a three year old daycare child who until she came to me, had never seen a character before. Disney or otherwise.

*How* did the parents ever manage this?

Did they have strict rules about friends, presents, outings, etc?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
But, since she is now in the company of other girls, she has decided that she loves the frilly stuff.

We have dress up clothes, but she only likes the dresses, and sparkley shoes, and the purple purse. I have dog costumes, and doctor kits, but she doesn't have any interest in them.

She loves to sit at the counter and play Polly Pockets. I have blocks and legos, but she doesn't have any interest in them.

I bought a bunch of flannel wipes from a WAHM to wash their hands and faces after lunch. TWO of them have disney princesses on them. Those are the ones she asks for.

The other girls have Dora T-shirts. She wants one too. The other girls have disney Panties, she only has plain white, and wants the "pretty panties".

Mom says "That isn't who we are" She would like me to discourage her from playing with the girly things, and encourage her to play with the dr kit, and the building toys. She has even hinted that I get rid of all the "girly toys". I said, "sure, if you replace them with toys that are more to your liking".
(she would like me to buy a train set and table) But, I am certainly not going to go out and buy a train set and train table. I don't have space for a train table anyway.
What on earth is wrong with this child having a natural attraction to shiny girly stuff? It's not like I have Barbies, or princess dolls here. We don't watch much TV, and when we do, it's usually sing-a-long songs.

Why is it so bad for her to love this stuff???

I'm guessing the mother (and possibly father) is concerned that their child will get wrapped up in commercialism and be consumed with it. And I can see that. But the problem is the more they make these items forbidden the more the child will want them.







: Oh dear.

I really don't think intervening in her play is appropriate or necessary. And there is no way you should have to buy a train table because a parent wants you to buy one. If the parents want you to have one so bad, they should buy it for you!


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
The mother made a choice in this daycare , and she can't demand that the provider changes her polices and buys new toys. :

Amen

Not to mention the mother has no right to dictate that none of the other kids can play with this stuff. however if the other kids are still allowed to play with it then the daycare provider will be constantly having to keep this girl away from them (playing with them is obviously her preference), dealing with her tears etc . . . what a drag. A daycare provider should not be put in that position.

If parent feels that strongly about not letting their children play with those things then they need to be sure that the daycare provider feels the same way. You compromise stuff when your kid is in daycare. If it means that much to someone to control every aspect of their child's life they should rethink weather or not their child should be in a group daycare. If you want your children to grow up that sheltered from anything you consider evil then you are going to have to make the sacrifice and do the work to shelter them. Or you are going to have to let them out into the big bad world and just accept that they may be exposed to something you would rather they not.

I know as a childcare provider I would not even consider getting rid of toys I thought were appropriate, nor would I keep any child in my care from them. The parent would of course be free to make other arrangements. if there are no other daycares she is free to hire a nanny or stay home.

and outside of saying she expects a lot from a home daycare provider with several kids in her care I am not judging her. she is free t make up whatever rules she wants but she cannot expect everyone to jump on the bandwagon with her. it is her responsibility to create environments suitable to her. It is great if she can find a daycare provider willing but being unwilling does not make someone a bad daycare provider. It just means she knows what is best for the group and is not willing to make them all suffer because one mom has decided this is the way she wants her children raised. I am picky. I have certain standards and ways I want my children raised. Thats why they are not in daycare or school. thats why I work the graveyard shift. it is a sacrifice and it is harder than working 9-5 and just putting them in daycare but i don't expect people to bow to my whims, i don't expect them to get it, I don't expect them to sacrifice for them. at least not at a price i can afford







. . . .


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.

I would actually be telling the mother to lighten up. I think a lot of parents here ask way to much of a group daycare provider. They expect their child to be the providers primary focus. not going to happen a group situation. I had as many as 5 toddlers at once and they were all equally important. We did what was best for the group and the kids just had to adjust (and they all did). When I did daycare if parents complained or expected too much I would remind them of how I did things in my home and how i ran my daycare and tell them they were free to go somewhere else. I certainly wouldn't hold it against them if they decided to go elsewhere. But they were usually not willing to pay more or decided the good out weighed the bad.

Regardless of what it is they want she can't dictate how people run their daycares but only decide weather or not she wishes to continue using their services.

you can't go to McDonald's and ask for a prime rib. If that is what you want you can only decide weather or not McDonald's is where you really want to be eating. Daycares are business that are going to what is best for the majority of their clients. I had neither the time nor inclination to cater to one family at the expense of all the other families who were more cooperative and understanding of what it meant to put your child in group daycare.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 

you can't go to McDonald's and ask for a prime rib. If that is what you want you can only decide weather or not McDonald's is where you really want to be eating. Daycares are business that are going to what is best for the majority of their clients. I had neither the time nor inclination to cater to one family at the expense of all the other families who were more cooperative and understanding of what it meant to put your child in group daycare.









Amen!


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amydawnsmommy* 
*How* did the parents ever manage this?

Did they have strict rules about friends, presents, outings, etc?

They don't really socialize. They don't have any immediate friends in the neighborhood, and mom and dad like to come home, and stay home. They have Grandma and Grandpa, but there are no other cousins.

So, before they came to me, they didn't really run into anything like that.

The only character they recognized, was Thomas the Train.

Mom and I talked again tonight. I pointed out, that the three year old REALLy focuses on one thing at a time. She gets totally into one thing, then eventually moves on to the next ONE thing. Maybe right now, it's fashon. Maybe she is always going to love fashon. Maybe she will become obsessed with music in three months.

Mom says "We just hate girly high maintenance things". "It's shallow, and not what we are about. Look at how I dress". (She wears men's clothes)

So, Mom just doesn't like it. It's probably how I felt about cheerleaders. I even remember putting little ideas about cheerleaders in my dd's head. (Yes, I was anti cheerleader.. I thought they were perky little twits)

I have also been known to insult drivers in retirement communities.


----------



## bobica (May 31, 2004)

as a former "tomboy" who is raising one of the girliest girls i've ever met, i think it's way out of line for this mom to expect all environments her daughter spends time in to be devoid of "girly" stuff. in a million years, i never thought i would have a child who lives to play dress up, change outfits, wear sparkles and tiaras, etc. but, that's what she's interested in & that's cool by me.

from day 1 dh & i provided dd with open ended toys, gender neutral toys, girl biased & boy biased toys. turns out, if it's not pink & sparkly, it's not as interesting







:

ITA with a pp who suggested a nanny. if these types of issues are very important, it is just unrealistic to have *these* needs met at daycare.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
you can't go to McDonald's and ask for a prime rib..

HEY!! I am not prime rib.... But, I am at LEAST Applebees.

Certainly not McDonalds.....


----------



## myjulybabes (Jun 24, 2003)

So I was reading, and thinking "what would I say if it was the mom posting?" And assuming she gave the same info, I think I'd still have to say that I sympathize, but that her expectations of group daycare are a little out of line.

I don't know, maybe 3 is a little young, but I know for sure by 4 or so, my dd understood that the rules were different at home vs at (bio)Dad's, or Granny's, or her friends'. It simply wasn't a big issue...Granny lets you play Barbie? That's nice. Mommy doesn't like them, so we don't have any here. I guess that's not completely the same, because she didn't spend as much time at those places as a child might spend in daycare...but she did end up internalizing more of the "home" rules than what she learned other places.


----------



## Ceili (Nov 21, 2001)

When you apply the common test of replacing gender with race (or sparkly dresses with darker skinned baby dolls in this case), the gender bias becomes glaringly obvious. It's not okay to demonize girly things, that sends the message that girly things (and thus girls) are bad.

I don't like characters or commercialization either (it was a very sad day for me when my ds fell in love with Elmo... I'm still not certain how that happened), but you can be girly without being branded with Princesses or Dora (or Princess Dora).


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I gotta say I agree with velochic. So honey, you are not alone on that soap box. My issue is guns and swords, and other toys of violence. It sounds as if some of this stuff (froo froo stuff) wasn't present when the mom enrolled her child (all this talk of this stuff coming out in summer). If some daycare provider had guns and swords, I would be asking them to keep them away from my son. Most definitely. And just because a day care provider has done something always isn't reason enough to say that a parent can't ask that things be done differently. How else would providers improve and change? I remember when I worked as a preschool teacher we used to give the kids crap food, and it changed after parents asked for change. Quite frankly I am stunned at some of the toys the OP mentioned, at our school the toys were pretty much VERY neutral. Polly pocket would not impress me at a daycare provider.

And frankly I was offended about the comment about the mother wearing "men's clothes". I doubt she wears a men's suit and tie?


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
HEY!! I am not prime rib.... But, I am at LEAST Applebees.

Certainly not McDonalds.....









I have a gift certificate for Applebees, too. Do you deliver?







:


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I gotta say I agree with velochic. So honey, you are not alone on that soap box. My issue is guns and swords, and other toys of violence. It sounds as if some of this stuff (froo froo stuff) wasn't present when the mom enrolled her child (all this talk of this stuff coming out in summer). If some daycare provider had guns and swords, I would be asking them to keep them away from my son. Most definitely. And just because a day care provider has done something always isn't reason enough to say that a parent can't ask that things be done differently. How else would providers improve and change? I remember when I worked as a preschool teacher we used to give the kids crap food, and it changed after parents asked for change. Quite frankly I am stunned at some of the toys the OP mentioned, at our school the toys were pretty much VERY neutral. Polly pocket would not impress me at a daycare provider.

And frankly I was offended about the comment about the mother wearing "men's clothes". I doubt she wears a men's suit and tie?

But no one is talking about guns and swords. I totally feel you on keeping symbols of violence and actual representations of violence out of children's play-areas, off their radar entiely if possible, etc... totally.

But we're talking about a 3 yo little girl covetting what she is forbidden to have, desire, play with... sparkly purple dress up shoes, dressy dresses, and some little figurines.

I think anyone anyone here would agree that were *nextcommercial* to be guilty of exposing these kids to overt-characters, product placement, media-poison stuff, then she'd not have a leg to stand on if the client mom disapproved. But, mostly, the real issue lies in the fact that the girl sees what the other kids wear to day care, and sees what the other kids play with (including her _brother_-again I find it striking that that keeps going under the radar; hello? her son _can_ play with the girly froo froo stuff, but the _girl_ can't??) and she wants to be part of that. She sees the pleasure that her friends and brother find in these things, and wants to enjoy those things too.

Why exactly is that a bone of contention here?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

But we're talking about a 3 yo little girl covetting what she is forbidden to have, desire, play with... sparkly purple dress up shoes, dressy dresses, and some little figurines.
And I am talking about a 3 yo boy covetting, desiring, things I don't want him to have, guns and swords, etc. They are forbidden to him. You can call me controlling, but I don't take that label, just as much as making sure that my son doesn't eat crap is not controlling either. And I do think the toys in the day care provider's home are bordering on crass commercialism. I would not support my son being subjected to this stuff, say if it were pirates of the caribeean, transformers, or even thomas the train (I abhor that stuff, and it is not in our home even when my son LOVED it). I don't like product tie-ins of any sort. As for the son playing with this stuff, well, in our home I support opposite gender identified toys to a higher degree. He is given more toys that are not traditional boy things, and if we were a girl, the same would happen for her. Does it mean I forbid all things? No, but I am careful in what he plays with. Frankly I go along with the idea that we are only hearing ONE side of the story, I haven't found the OP to be very neutral in her descriptions of the situation, hence my offense at the term "men's clothing" when referring to the mother. And again, I do think it is within a parent's right to request that their values be respected by their day care provider, within limits of course, but like I said, how else do we get our providers to change if we don't ask?


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Also, the bone of contention with the OP wasn't so much that she was being asked by a parent in her day care to restrict toys (that has been the focus of the replies), but this question

Quote:

What on earth is wrong with this child having a natural attraction to shiny girly stuff?
I have heard in more than one reply from the OP a real disdain for this parent's values. I don't think these things are natural attractions, I mean, seriously, my son might LIKE thomas the train, but it is hardly something innate within him. I look at the question above as gender stereotyping. Natural attraction to sparkles? To shiny stuff? To disney princesses? To crass commercialism? Hardly. The OP called the mother's clothes "men's clothes". I hardly think that is the case. Like I asked, is she seriously wearing a suit and tie? Men's shoes?

I would never buy my daughter a barbie doll (nor my son either) and if a day care provider didn't respect that it is simply not a value in our family that we purchase or play with those sorts of toys, then yes I would be offended. I don't support my son wanting, or playing with products that are obviously gender oriented, or crass commerical products. I get upset at my partner when she buys him disney crap, or at grandma when she bought him thomas stuff. I think it limits imagination, and I find it stifling. I much prefer gender neutral toys (and to me legos and blocks are gender neutral) myself for my son. I don't view it as controlling at all.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.

I would NOT be rallying around the mom if she posted here. I'd be on the daycare provider's side. I'd still have the same opinion of the mother


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
I would NOT be rallying around the mom if she posted here. I'd be on the daycare provider's side. I'd still have the same opinion of the mother









Well, this is typically what we do.







I've been here long enough to see it happen over and again.

I don't want to hijack nextcommercial's thread, but let me explain where I am coming from and perhaps put some different perspective on it. Before I do, I'll state once again that I do believe it's nextcommercial's obligation as a paid care provider to do everything in her power (not buy anything, mind you) to conform to the parent's wishes for their children. It's not her place to decide if the mother is being too controlling or her ideas are weird. Her place is to do everything within reason to help the children be raised with the same principals that the parents are raising them.

My dd attends a private school. It's the only one of its kind in the state and we are very committed to having her attend this type of school because of *our* values. This school, as of this year, has instituted a MANDATORY hot lunch program. We are charged $4 per lunch and we are REQUIRED to take the hot lunch. Here are some things on the lunch menu for the first week of school: Cheeseburger, Nachos Supreme, French Toast sticks, Grilled Cheese. I have been up in arms about this. I am REQUIRED to pay for these crap meals. Guess what they tell me... I'm too controlling. I've tried to opt out of the program but they say they cannot provide hot lunch unless everyone participates. So I'm to pay $4 a day for a lunch I would NEVER allow my dd to eat. In my eyes it is JUNK food. The school thinks that I'm overreacting. What do you think? Am I being too controlling? This issue is of extreme importance to *MY* family and nobody else at the school seems to be able to understand why it's so important to me because this is a great alternative to the crappy lunchables they would send. The other parents think that this hot lunch is GREAT and cannot fathom why I think it is unhealthy. It's the healthiest meal these kids are going to get. My standards are DIFFERENT than theirs, so I get criticized for it. I see that this woman's standards are different as well, and she is being criticized for asking nextcommercial to try to work with her on her standards. If nextcommercial's post was about the mother asking that her dd be given something different to *eat* rather than play with would the reactions be any different. Probably...

My reason is actually a valid one, but not something I share with the school. My dd is probably borderline ADHD. She's really smart and energetic, but her environment (especially food) has a large impact on her behavior. If I keep her away from processed foods and artificial fillers, she has a great attention span, is a great kid (she never whines or cries or talks back... I mean she is just a joy to be around), is polite, and can remember every single thing told to her. I've explained to the school that if I have her eat the food I'm paying for... the food they are serving... she will be in trouble at school all the time. We also have diabetes in the family and I am concerned that her diet be filled with fresh, natural, wholesome food for that reason. They tell me I'm overreacting and being too controlling about my dd's diet.

So yeah, I think that people who don't live our lives haven't a clue about why we do the things we do, but usually we have good reasons for it. I'd probably say that Nextcommercial is a loving, caring person and THAT is what is most important to these parents. But why do you have to take the bad with the good just because someone else is judging you and saying "you're unreasonable and we don't do it like that so tough titties." This school of dd's is the only one of it's kind. So, what are we doing since they told US "tough titties!"... we're paying that $4 a day and still sending a sack lunch. But it would be really nice if someone would stop long enough to say, "Hey, they must have a good reason... let's listen to them before we judge them."


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

You know, I think part of the issue here is just that the mom and the DCP and the parents of the other kids at the DC are on different wavelengths. The mom wants this kid in a daycare with mainly gender-neutral toys and with other kids whose parents are not so into the whole character princess bit. I understand that. I wanted that too, and I got it. And yeah, it's important to me. Seriously, even two Disney princess washcloths would be irksome for me.

I agree that Waldorf or perhaps a Montessori where characters are banned would be better for the family's value system. I think the mom is just frustrated and is flailing around trying to control the situation. It IS unreasonable for her to ask that you forbid toys. Of course.

ETA: The only characters my DD recognizes are Elmo and Thomas. Ironically, she first encountered both of them in library books! (We're 95% TV-free.) Yep, it's possible. Oh, and I'm not even sure she knows what a princess is.

And I;d like to suggest another explanation for the little girl's behavior (besides "it is biologically hard-wired for girl children to love pink")...maybe she just wants to belong. The other girls have this stuff and are into this stuff, right? Maybe the DCP unwittingly makes it seem special and exicting, too? (My own DD went through a phase of wanting to wear dresses all the time. It took us a while to figure out that one of her favorite teachers ALWAYS complimented her when she wore a dress. After the teacher quit, she lost the preference for dresses.) Again, this is where the parents maybe need to seek out a different DCP if they want to avoid this stuff.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
So, Mom just doesn't like it. It's probably how I felt about cheerleaders. I even remember putting little ideas about cheerleaders in my dd's head. (Yes, I was anti cheerleader.. I thought they were perky little twits).









My mom was _very_ anti-cheerleader too, and very much raised me to believe that I shouldn't be "on the sidelines cheering the boys." I briefly considered trying out for cheerleading in high school (in addition to being a total goth and doing theater and music







), but decided it wasn't worth the anxiety it would produce with mom. Mom, by the way, is a former model, who was the only daughter in her household, who wanted to be out climbing trees with her brothers, and who had an artificial sense of "girl-ness" imposed on her. She raised me, a daughter who was a total tomboy and who still can't be bothered with makeup or hair blow dryers. _My_ daughter? Pink is her favorite color. Enough said. What goes around comes around!


----------



## Therese's Mommy (Jan 15, 2005)

I have only read the original post so I have no idea where this thread has gone, but I just want to tell you our experience. We don't have cable and live in an area where you can't really get much with an antenna. We don't let DD watch any TV (except some sports). We do let her watch videos but only have Charlie Brown specials (DH and I find them less commercial and in your face, plus to us they seem better than the other stuff out there these days). We can't stand Disney, Barney, and alot of the other mainstream stuff. That said, DH and I understand that we cannot dictate what other people do. If we are at someone else's house we don't tell them what they can and cannot have on the TV or what toys can and cannot be out for the children to play with. Now, if it was something totally inappropriate for children her age or we viewed the toy as dangerous I would speak up, but if we see it as a matter of parenting choice we just let it go. We are in control of what she sees and plays with so much and she is going to have to be out in the real world some day. When she asks for the stuff at home (which I am not sure that she has yet) we just say "we don't do that in our house and leave it at that". Being a mother who extended breastfeeds with no bottles or pacifiers I am actually much more concerned with her being exposed to other children using those things, but again in our house the dolls don't have these things and when she mentions binkies (like, "baby JP has a binkie") again we just say "we don't use those in our house, we use mommies side (her word)".

So, I guess my point is, as parents it is our job to decide what our dc are exposed to, but my goodness we live in a society where there are alot of parents making different choices. If someone chooses to let someone else watch their children outside of the home then they have to accept the fact that their children are going to be exposed to other things.

JMO,

Beth


----------



## Ceili (Nov 21, 2001)

Jwebbal - Would you feel okay with your daughter playing with swords and guns even though you're not okay with your son playing with them? The mom is okay with her son playing dress up, but not okay with her daughter doing it.

velochic - same thing. Is a healthy diet only important for one of your children or all of your children (I'm guessing from your post that you only have one?) But wouldn't you hold all of your children to the same diet standard unless one of them had a medical reason that didn't apply to the others?

This woman is saying I don't want my daughter to play dress up, but it's okay for my son. Wouldn't we be up in arms if she was saying I don't want my daughter to get dirty, but it's okay for my son or I don't want my daughter to play ball, but it's okay for my son. I think the fact that many of us dislike commercialized toys, especially highly exaggerated overly feminine princess toys, is clouding the gender bias here.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Jwebbal, if you had a daughter as well as a son, would you let her play with Thomas, but not your daughter?

You know, if this mother only* had a problem with Polly Pocket or other "brands" (although, really - Joy's Waldorf Dolls is a brand for Pete's sake!), I could understand where she was coming from. But sparkly shoes for dress up? With a DCP that is clearly not gender stereotyping because the boys seem as likely to play with the sparkly dress up as the girls? What on earth is wrong with that? Especially when she was no problem with her son wearing sparkly shoes. . .

It's astounding to me that some people support the kind of sexism that allows things that are associated in our society with femininity to automatically be demonized (but only for girls! It's cool for boys to be princesses!)


----------



## meganeilis (Mar 12, 2006)

The OP said herself that she was the best the mom could do in the area. No one else babywears, feeds organic, cloth diapers etc. It sounds like this mom did the best she could to find a DCP that fit her lifestyle and parenting choices, but of course as parents we should understand that "the best we can do" is rarely perfect. Whoever made the point that would rally around this mom if she was an MDCer hit the nail on the head. It's not uncommon to see comments about making your wishes completely clear to a DCP and not allowing your values to be compromised because you have to work, and here we are telling a DCP to disregard a parents wishes because she dresses in a masculine manner?


----------



## Canadianmommax3 (Mar 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
The mother made a choice in this daycare , and she can't demand that the provider changes her polices and buys new toys. I think for all the talk of respecting child's wishes on this board, there is something to be said for not ripping toys out of kids' hands...









I can use cloth dipers that a parent left me, I use the healthy snack that a parent left me, but I can't force a kid to not like pink dresses!

If I don't approve of certain toys in my house - I can make them "dissapear" after the kid goes to bed. As a daycare provider, I can't buy a stash of new toys for every child that comes in. If this is important to the parent, they should discuss it upfront. I hope you are not suggesting taking every froofroo pink thing out of this child's hands as soon as she picks it up? And saying, "Well... all the other kids can play with those toys, but here is your box, and don't you touch anything else!"







:

exactly!


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

The question wasn't about one being allowed, and the other not. The question is "why can't she like polly pocket and other froo froo stuff"

And I will keep repeating, I wouldn't want my daughter playing with that crap either.

I wouldn't want my son playing with it either, but that is besides the point. I am only hearing ONE side of this story, and I find the OP to be biased on the issue of gender. I keep referring to her use of the words "men's clothes" when describing the mother. Frankly I find it offensive. I think there is something under that.

If someone saw me wearing no make up and "men's clothes", and I was clear I didn't want my daughter playing with "froo froo stuff" I think some "well meaning" person might assume some nasty things about me. The bottom line is I am the parent, it is my decision, not yours how I raise my daughter. No child was ever left irreparably harmed by not being allowed to play with crass commercialized crap and "froo froo stuff" like princess washcloths and sparkly dress up clothes. Stop focusing on the son, and focus on the issue before us. Does this mother have a right to have her preferences respected. I don't see respect here, I see disdain for a mother that is questionable on the basis of how she presents.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

BUT, I think the big difference is she LOOOOOOOVES these things. She absolultely obsesses about them.
The more my child obsesses about something, the more I question it. The crass marketing that is aimed at children is frightening to me.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

Her dd quickly pointed out the cinderella t-shirt the other three year old was wearing. Mom just shuddered. LOL

I shudder too. What is funny about it? I am particular about what my son wears, does that make me an evil mother?

Quote:

What I DO do for them is, I NEVER give these kids anything processed or from a package. *I feed them differently than I do the other kids. THAT makes me feel bad,* because if A child brings in a birthday cupcake, these two can't have one. They don't know what they are missing, but they see how attractive these things are, and obviously, they want one too.
See, and this is where the food analogy comes in. I don't feel bad that I don't allow my son a lot of the crap other people feed their children. If my child was in daycare I would have a very difficult time letting him eat cupcakes as well. I see this whole issue as not respecting the choices a parent is making about their children. If the mother was amish, or muslim, or mormon, would we disrespect the mother's wishes for her daughter then?


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

She clearly has the right to parent however she wants, and I have the right to think it's ridiculous - and the DCP has the right to not think it's cool to run around taking toys out of a little girl's hands. (Toys which, FTR don't seem to be dominated by the crass commercialism you're talking about. While the OP mentioned Polly Pockets and a couple of princess wash cloths, it seems like the mom has more of an issue with the dress up clothing - but only certain kinds.)

I also think the mother is being disrespectful of this little girl's natural gravitation to certain things (and, not I'm NOT saying that girls inherently want to play dress up in princess clothes - I'm saying that THIS girl seems to be naturally gravitating towards them.) As well, I think what her brother is allowed or not allowed to do is completely relevant in this case - because it demonstrates the double standard underwhich the mother is operating, and under which she wants the DCP to operate.

Would you think we should respect the mother's parenting choice if she didn't want her son playing with baby dolls or her daughter dressing as a firefighter? Would you think the DCP should be obligated to enforce those values in her home, even though she didn't understand them?


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

>> Her place is to do everything within reason to help the children be raised with the same principals that the parents are raising them.<<

that's the thing. is it within reason to expect a person to do extra work (policing every toy a kid picks up, applying different rules, dealing w/ multaple inevitable tantrums when wanted toys are removed which would take at least an hour or two extra spent with just that one child per day) for no extra pay? i don't think so.

perhaps the mom in the thread needs to be more honest with herself about her standards and how to meet them. velochic, you seem to have been very upfront w/ yourself about what you feel you and your children require and have decided not to use daycare because it is your belief that daycare cannot meet the needs you see. looks to work well for you.

the situation is different for people who must work outside the home and use daycare weather they would like to or not. i have btdt and must say that when circumstances make it truly impossible to have what is wanted or borderline needed (my kid won't die if he plays w/ Disney toys but it is sub optimal) then the whole family must stick together and figure out how to make things as good as they can be. the world does not owe me or my son the time, work, and attention it takes to meet all of my desires at all times. that's not what i pay daycare for. i pay them to make sure he's stimulated, not depressed, and still alive when i get off work. i can go so far as to choose a place that will meet the bulk of my ideological wants (we wouldn't use catholic school as we're pagan i would prerfer a place that offered healthier meals) but in a group situation i'm not paying for all my specific wants to be met at all times. that's what SAHM's and private nanny's are for.

one benefit of this set up is that my 3yo is already acquainted with the idea that things are different in different places and that we have ideals as a family. he will learn that the rest of the world doesn't always agree w/ mom and he must learn how to negotiate that. why would i want to pay someone to help teach that lesson? it defeats the purpose. he will need to learn that trusted people who care for and about him have very different ideals sometimes. every choice is a trade off. SAHMs can control their kids environment more readily and that's perfectly acceptable. that's one of the benefits. one of the benefits of daycare though is early experience living and playing in group environments, a safe exposure to the wider world.

that said, it does ruffle my feathers some of the stuff he comes home doing. we just have to deal.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
If the mother was amish, or muslim, or mormon, would we disrespect the mother's wishes for her daughter then?


I would not be willing to enforce different rules for different genders in my home, regardless of the source of those rules. If someone wants their religious beliefs enforced (as opposed to respected), then they should probably find a provider who shares those beliefs. So, I would be willing to refrain from encouraging certain types of play, but I would not be willing to forbid it.


----------



## HarperRose (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I would not be willing to enforce different rules for different genders in my home, regardless of the source of those rules. If someone wants their religious beliefs enforced (as opposed to respected), then they should probably find a provider who shares those beliefs. So, I would be willing to refrain from encouraging certain types of play, but I would not be willing to forbid it.









:


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Stop focusing on the son, and focus on the issue before us. Does this mother have a right to have her preferences respected. I don't see respect here, I see disdain for a mother that is questionable on the basis of how she presents.

It all depends, I never once mentioned the son in my posts, to me it is a simple question of poor choice with high expectations. It is my choice how to raise my child, and it is up to other parents to decide how to raise theirs. Who am I to tell other kids in daycare to stop wearing certain things and to stop playing with certain dolls?

Mind you, I'm speaking from a perspective of DC provider (I want to open one some day







). If I didn't have dress code when I opened up my daycare, then you can't demand from me to tell other parents how to dress their kids!

If you didn't bother to ask about toy policies when you signed up - then sorry, you can't demand from me to eliminate a bunch of stuff, just because you don't like it.

Nor can you demand me following your child around and telling her "ts ts ts.. your mom doesn't want you to play with those toys, there is your stuff in that corner". How does that make sense? It will take me all day long diverting a child from the froo froo stuff, and lets face it, it won't attract her to the toys YOU want your kid to play with.

If it was a religious matter - I would hope the parent would discuss the limits right up front, and I could tell her that I am not able to live up to those expectations, but to demand those changes after the kid is in?!

My religion has nothing to do with how OTHER parents raise their kids. If I want catholic principles to be taught to my kid - I will send them to the catholic school or hs. I will not be demanding public school to read Bible to my child.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Can someone show me exactly where this mother asked that things be taken out of her daughter's hands?


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I think Velochic is probably right that people would be more likely to agree with the mom if she were the OP. Because the mom would undoubtedly do a better job of conveying her point of view and making it sound reasonable. For instance, where the OP said the mom wanted her to discourage her daughter from playing with the girly stuff, the mom might have said that she had noticed the DCP tended to automatically steer the girls toward certain toys, and that she had asked her to try not to do that. (I'm NOT saying I think the OP actually does that.)

It sounds like this mother's attitude is a lot like mine. I don't have an opinion about whether her requests to the DCP are appropriate, but I do feel like she's probably being misrepresented on this thread. For instance, I seriously doubt she wants the DCP to grab girly toys out of her daughter's hand. There are plenty of subtle, gentle ways to try to get a kid more interested in certain toys than in others, and I imagine that's the kind of approach the mom is looking for.

And I totally get why the mom is less bothered by her son wearing girly stuff. I doubt she really cares if either of her kids occasionally puts on a tiara or a tutu. What she probably wants to avoid is having her kids get the message that a) it's important to look pretty, and b) looking pretty means wearing tacky pink sparkly stuff. No matter how much pink sparkly stuff her boy wears as a toddler, the fact is he's just not very likely to get that message growing up in this society. Whereas it may be an uphill battle to keep her daughter from absorbing it. She probably just wants to keep the indoctrination to a minimum.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

as to the gender issues i do think it's a little confused that the boy has access to all the toys he wants w/o characters on them but the girl, in an attempt to avoid her being disadvantaged later in life by confining to preset gender roles is being placed in the least favored position and the most limited one.

like i said though, it's not abusive or anything, just seems like a strange, counterintuitive call to make.

it seems to me vital for children to explore gender roles early on. my son LOVES makeup but plays w/ it less and less. guess he got whatever he wanted out of the experience. as an adult i have pearls and pretty panties and power tools. i arrived at that place b/c i had access to all options. some women i know live VERy "girly" lives but because they expiramented w/ all options as kids know they are not bound to a paper doll template of womanhood.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I still see the issues I bring up being disregarded. "men's clothes" and "why can't she like froo froo stuff?"

Oh well, I give up. It was my mistake to bring up religion, as that isn't the issue, it was simply my way of bringing up how we all want our ways of parenting our children respected by those around us. My MIL most definitely takes my wishes into account whenever she watches our son. I don't ask difficult things, and she does her best.


----------



## meganeilis (Mar 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
Would you think the DCP should be obligated to enforce those values in her home, even though she didn't understand them?


It's not just the OP's home, it's a place of business, and the mother in question is a paying customer. If someone in this transaction should be calling the shots, it should be the mother.

Also we should take into account that the toys in question most likely belonged to the OP's child, making it more likely that she is steering girls towards them because if they were ok for her daughter, they should be ok for everyone. Feelings of "my family does it this way in *my* home" seem to be more prevalant than "this is how I run my busiiness".


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

I think Velochic is probably right that people would be more likely to agree with the mom if she were the OP. Because the mom would undoubtedly do a better job of conveying her point of view and making it sound reasonable. For instance, where the OP said the mom wanted her to discourage her daughter from playing with the girly stuff, the mom might have said that she had noticed the DCP tended to automatically steer the girls toward certain toys, and that she had asked her to try not to do that. (I'm NOT saying I think the OP actually does that.)

It sounds like this mother's attitude is a lot like mine. I don't have an opinion about whether her requests to the DCP are appropriate, but I do feel like she's probably being misrepresented on this thread. For instance, I seriously doubt she wants the DCP to grab girly toys out of her daughter's hand. There are plenty of subtle, gentle ways to try to get a kid more interested in certain toys than in others, and I imagine that's the kind of approach the mom is looking for.

And I totally get why the mom is less bothered by her son wearing girly stuff. I doubt she really cares if either of her kids occasionally puts on a tiara or a tutu. What she probably wants to avoid is having her kids get the message that a) it's important to look pretty, and b) looking pretty means wearing tacky pink sparkly stuff. No matter how much pink sparkly stuff her boy wears as a toddler, the fact is he's just not very likely to get that message growing up in this society. Whereas it may be an uphill battle to keep her daughter from absorbing it. She probably just wants to keep the indoctrination to a minimum.
Oh daffodil I LOVE you, thank you for taking the words right out of my brain and expressing them so much more eloquently than it seems I have been able to. I think focusing on the differences between the son and the daughter isn't the point, and NO ONE said the mother was asking the DCP to forbid toys, JUST ENCOURAGE the OTHER stuff. If it were me, I would have my son encouraged to play with dolls, and my daughter cars. I think it's helpful in this society that is SO gender stratified.


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I think Velochic is probably right that people would be more likely to agree with the mom if she were the OP. Because the mom would undoubtedly do a better job of conveying her point of view and making it sound reasonable.

I think that is mostly true. However, I'm not sure that most posters would agree with the mom so much as sympathize with her. I think most people would agree that you really can't dictate that much with a daycare provider, and that if she wanted a daycare experience with no characters and no frilly dress-up, she should look into Waldorf.

I, on the other hand, think that Nextcommercial sounds like a wonderful daycare provider, and I'd leave my kids with her anytime.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Mom says "We just hate girly high maintenance things". "It's shallow, and not what we are about. Look at how I dress". (She wears men's clothes)

It is no more shallow than boy stuff. and it may not be what she is about but it is certainly what her little girl is about. and her complete lack of this stuff may well be why her d is so fascinated with it. I know a fair number of boys who get absolutely obsessed with my dds Polly Pockets and sparkely dresses. I mean. . . SPARKLES!!!!! come on, who isn't a little bit mesmerized by sparkely things? She should be happy that her dd is able to be exposed to things at daycare and she doesn't have to mess with them. This way her dd can find some sort of balance without the mom having to be troubled with the high maintenance (huh?) nature of them.

Quote:

I don't want to hijack nextcommercial's thread, but let me explain where I am coming from and perhaps put some different perspective on it. Before I do, I'll state once again that I do believe it's nextcommercial's obligation as a paid care provider to do everything in her power (not buy anything, mind you) to conform to the parent's wishes for their children. It's not her place to decide if the mother is being too controlling or her ideas are weird. Her place is to do everything within reason to help the children be raised with the same principals that the parents are raising them.
That is not her job. Her job is running a daycare and doing what is best for the daycare. if that clashed with some families values they are free to ask for change. the daycare provider is perfectly free to make a judgment call about what they are willing to do so long as she is honest. if it is not suitable to the parents they are free to go else where. also as long as the daycare provider is being honest about what will and will not happen (for example saying "sure we will put the pollys away" and then not doing it is not cool. saying "you are asking too much, that is everyones favorite toy, sorry" is perfectly fine.) they need not feel obligated to change anything. No one is forcing them to leave their children there. group daycare means being part of a group. In my home we watched sesame street after lunch and before nap. One parent said "i don't want my child watching." so i asked if they were going to come take them somewhere during that hour. that was their option. i wasn't going to wrangle one child away from the Tv when everyone else was watching. not to mention I had stuff to do during that hour like clean up lunch, change diapers, make sure the beds were ready for nap etc. if a parent said "I don't want my child to take a nap" then I told they needed to find a daycare that didn't do naps because here everyone napped. There was no way to get 4 kids down for a nap while one was up. there was no way to supervise the one while i was putting the rest to bed. Its fine that they had those wishes but it simply wasn't going to work in my daycare. and I felt no obligation to accommodate them. I guess this could be seen as being bad for business but you lose one person so you can serve the rest better. We own a retail business. some patrons are profit suckers. we really don't mind losing those every now and then. Sure they buy something but they are so high maintenance that we actually end up in the whole by the time they are gone. Some customers are just not worth your time. Same with daycare. the thing with home day care is one customer making you miserable and making demands to be accommodated could effect your ability to care for even your own child as you see fit. And even when i had 4 other 2 year olds at my house things were still done on my dds schedule and to our values. I would rather sacrifice the paltry income that daycare brought in than sacrifice her needs.

and nextcommercial, i was not comparing *you* to McDs. of course not. It was just looking for an obvious analogy. You are obviously a very compassionate and concerned daycare provider.


----------



## joensally (Jun 19, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meganeilis* 
It's not just the OP's home, it's a place of business, and the mother in question is a paying customer. If someone in this transaction should be calling the shots, it should be the mother.

Also we should take into account that the toys in question most likely belonged to the OP's child, making it more likely that she is steering girls towards them because if they were ok for her daughter, they should be ok for everyone. Feelings of "my family does it this way in *my* home" seem to be more prevalant than "this is how I run my busiiness".

As a place of business, the business can choose how they run their business and then accept the consequence of that choice as evident by their patrons staying or going. The DCP has multiple customers, all of whom have a vision of ideal and those visions may very well be in conflict.

The reality is, when we place our children in the care of others, they likely will not do everything precisely as we wish. Compromise is often necessary (obviously not around safety).

Assuming that these children will attend school (given that the mom works), they will likely encounter overly-gendered ideas and representations. This is an opportunity for mom to navigate this when her daughter is open, and could provide opportunities for discussion. I think in that spirit, the OP could try working with the mom to find a way to reinforce the values of the mom in the context of a place where other kids are wearing "froo froo" clothes as their day-to-day attire. I'm sure that if there were no princess dress up clothes another parent would inquire







.

Velochic - that's a horrible spot you find yourself in with the school. Have you brought them articles? Literature from whatever health authority exists where you are? Asked them to measure conduct issues before the introduction of this diet versus after (comparative analysis). Grades? Can't you just see the boing after the glycemic load hits, and all the sleepy post-lunch kids!? They could also look at PE performance pre and post (as a proxy for actually weighing the kids, which is problematic). Is there a veg or fruit anywhere on the menu? I would also pose it to them as a business problem - that all evidence indicates that it's predictable that the kids will be negatively affected health wise by such a diet, and it could affect their performance, thereby making the school less desirable in the future.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
So yeah, I think that people who don't live our lives haven't a clue about why we do the things we do, but usually we have good reasons for it. I'd probably say that Nextcommercial is a loving, caring person and THAT is what is most important to these parents. But why do you have to take the bad with the good just because someone else is judging you and saying "you're unreasonable and we don't do it like that so tough titties." This school of dd's is the only one of it's kind. So, what are we doing since they told US "tough titties!"... we're paying that $4 a day and still sending a sack lunch. But it would be really nice if someone would stop long enough to say, "Hey, they must have a good reason... let's listen to them before we judge them."

I see a big difference between food issues and which dress up clothes and toys the little girl plays with.


----------



## erin_d_a (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:

If the mother was amish, or muslim, or mormon, would we disrespect the mother's wishes for her daughter then?

I wouldn't in my home because I'm a Christian and would be up front about that from the beginning. If you don't want to have me as your daycare provider because my religious views differ from yours, that is fine, but I am not willing to bend my religion to accomodiate someone elses. That isn't to say that I won't be respectful, and if I have a Muslim or Jewish friend over for dinner I'm not making them a big ham dinner. I'm not going to be callous or rude, but I'm also not willing to compromise my religious principles to accomadate someone elses, NOR do I wish someone to do that for me.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
If the mother was amish, or muslim, or mormon, would we disrespect the mother's wishes for her daughter then?

I can't speak about other religions but the Amish who live plain chose to live separately from the rest of society. Not all the time-many go to McDonalds and shop at WalMart FE-but they chose not to be part of the dominant culture so I don't think this is a good analogy.

I've used daycare too and I do know about not having everything one wants. My kids' school is far from perfect-they are learning a religion that I don't practice. I'm okay with it though.

I am lucky to have more options but even if one is able to homeschool and not use daycare isn't it likely that _someone_ is going to have the wrong toy(s) in their house? Even people who believe strongly in non-commercialism sometimes make exceptions and may have a few "commercial" or inappropriate toys lying around. Or their child may have commercial clothing that the parent has decided to allow.

I really believe in being tolerant of all lifestyles and to me that includes people who let their kids play with the wrong toys. As long as a wide range of toys are provided. I'm not against putting things away sometime but there's only so much one can do. I do think it can get to the point where protecting people from popular culture can just get too unweildy and would infringe on other's rights.

If someone has a zero-tolerance policy towards warplay and they go to the park and see kids playing badguys do they have the right to ask the kids to stop? In some cases I think that would be okay but not in all.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

What if the mother came in and said she didn't want her daughter to play with cars and trains and only wanted her to play with dolls and tea sets? I bet there'd be more judging about that. I see expecting her daughter to only play with gender neutral or stereotypically boy toys to be just as controlling.

And I wear "men's" clothes, mainly things I've lifted off my husband, and I don't wear makeup. I was a tomboy growing up and never played with girl toys. But I didn't expect to decide for my daughter what her interests should be or make her be more like me. She is her own person and has her own personality and gets to have whatever interests she wants. This is a big deal for me and it isn't something I can remain neutral about, any more than I could remain neutral about someone who was spanking or shaming a child. I don't like any kind of overt controlling behavior over children. I think a parent's job is to help a child find himself or herself, not to try to mold a child into what they want. I recognize that I am judgmental and if it were me I'd probably tell her that maybe my daycare wasn't a good match for her child if those are her expectations.

I have to assume that someone with religious beliefs that clashed with the way I live and the way a daycare i was running worked would choose a different daycare situation. I'm not religious - if someone wanted any kind of religious setting they'd be better off with their kids being somewhere else. But I have no plans to become a child care provider so this is a moot point.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

If someone has a zero-tolerance policy towards warplay and they go to the park and see kids playing badguys do they have the right to ask the kids to stop? In some cases I think that would be okay but not in all.
But this analogy doesn't work in this situation. What does work is, if I send my kid to day care, and express my wishes that I do not want my child engaging in war play, and ask you to discourage it (or even to remove war toys from the toy selection), do you comply? Or do you ask "what can't her child like guns and swords and other warplay stuff?"

I see the OP doing the latter, not the former, which is why I have issue with it.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes, because all of us girls grow up after wearing pink sparkles and now we are sure to coordinate our spit up with our pink tutus and sparkle tiaras.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
But this analogy doesn't work in this situation. What does work is, if I send my kid to day care, and express my wishes that I do not want my child engaging in war play, and ask you to discourage it (or even to remove war toys from the toy selection), do you comply? Or do you ask "what can't her child like guns and swords and other warplay stuff?"

I see the OP doing the latter, not the former, which is why I have issue with it.

I know you keep saying to stop mentioning the son, but IMO he's a crucial piece of the puzzle. Your above analogy is closer to the OP's than the one you quoted, but to be really accurate you'd have to go one step further and ask how a DCP would respond if you told her that she was to allow your daughter to play with weapons, but not your son.

That's crucial because it illustrates that the mom *doesn't* have a broad philosophical problem with the toys themselves; she just has a problem with girls playing with them.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
I know you keep saying to stop mentioning the son, but IMO he's a crucial piece of the puzzle. Your above analogy is closer to the OP's than the one you quoted, but to be really accurate you'd have to go one step further and ask how a DCP would respond if you told her that she was to allow your daughter to play with weapons, but not your son.

That's crucial because it illustrates that the mom *doesn't* have a broad philosophical problem with the toys themselves; she just has a problem with girls playing with them.

But the mom didn't actually say (did she?) that her son could play with the girly stuff and the girl was to be forbidden from it. The way I read it, she asked that the girl be given a little extra encouragement to get interested in the non-girly stuff, and some subtle steering away from the girly stuff. She probably figures the boy doesn't need that, because he's undoubtedly already being subtly steered away from girly stuff.


----------



## princesstutu (Jul 17, 2007)

It sounds like the OP only brought up the son and the way the mother/client dresses to give us a better perspective on what she (the OP) is dealing with. I, for one, appreciate that background info. It is very telling, IMO, that the mother has no problem with the son dressing up, but can't stand for the daughter to do so. And, the mother dresses "like a man" herself...interesting info.

It only helps me judge the mother more, but hey...that's what this thread is for, right?









I think the mother/client is being ridiculous in her expectations, simply b/c she doesn't have those same expectations for her son. This is clearly not a "family policy". It seems to be a way of restricting the girl child. I think that's messed up and I wouldn't support that sort of parenting, either.

This reminds me of a woman I know. She hates the way her 3 yo dresses and how girly she is. She thinks her 6yo son is gay and loves it when he "dresses like a girl". I find it disturbing and think the woman needs more therapy.

If I knew the mother/client in question, I might suggest the same thing.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *joensally* 
Velochic - that's a horrible spot you find yourself in with the school. Have you brought them articles? Literature from whatever health authority exists where you are? Asked them to measure conduct issues before the introduction of this diet versus after (comparative analysis). Grades? Can't you just see the boing after the glycemic load hits, and all the sleepy post-lunch kids!? They could also look at PE performance pre and post (as a proxy for actually weighing the kids, which is problematic).

Sadly, it doesn't sound like any of this would work for velochic. She mentioned the Lunchables the other kids would be bringing in without the hot lunch program. If that's what the other kids are eating, I don't think the hot lunch is going to cause any noticeable downturn, yk? I mean...cheeseburger vs. Lunchable? Not much to choose from there. I'd guess, without actually having done a comparison, that the cheeseburger may be healthier.

Jwebbal - I get what you're saying about the "men's clothes" remark. But, I also note that it was the mom herself who brought up her own clothing style with respect to the discussion. Maybe she doesn't wear actual "men's clothes", but she obviously does make a point of _not_ dressing in a "girly" fashion, and brought up that contrast to the OP on her own. I really don't think the OP is out of line to comment on something the mom herself brought up.

Also, with respect to this:

Quote:

See, and this is where the food analogy comes in. I don't feel bad that I don't allow my son a lot of the crap other people feed their children.
I don't see where the OP said she'd feel bad about feeding her children less crap than other kids eat. She said she feels bad when she has to tell two of the kids her care that they're excluded from something the other kids are enjoying. That's not the same thing at all. I don't feel bad at all about not having cookies and cupcakes in my home...but I'd still feel bad if I had to tell another child that he/she couldn't have one if they appeared at a party or something.

Overall, if my kids were in a daycare and there was something about it that I didn't like, but none of the other parents had an issue with (or even preferred), I'd bite my tongue or go somewhere else. The other parents obviously have no issue with Polly Pockets or Disney (as evidenced by another little girl wearing a Cinderella shirt). The mom absolutely has the right to raise her kids the way she wants to raise them, but the OP also has the right to run her daycare in a way that works for herself and the majority of the kids in attendance.

Velochic: I see one major difference between your situation and that of the mom in the OP. Nobody is asking the mom in the OP to pay an extra fee so her daughter can play with Polly Pockets, yk? That aspect of your situation strikes me as outrageous.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
She probably figures the boy doesn't need that, because he's undoubtedly already being subtly steered away from girly stuff.

Why do you say that?


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceili* 
When you apply the common test of replacing gender with race (or sparkly dresses with darker skinned baby dolls in this case), the gender bias becomes glaringly obvious. It's not okay to demonize girly things, that sends the message that girly things (and thus girls) are bad.

No, it sends the message that being a girl doesn't have to mean wearing sparkly dresses. To really replace gender with race in this example, imagine a scenario where the DCP has black dolls that look like rappers and gang members, and white dolls that look like doctors and nurses. And that the black kids she takes care of usually play with the black dolls, and wear the rapper dress-up outfits, and the white kids usually play with the white dolls and pick the doctor outfits to dress up in, and the DCP feels fine about that. But the mom of a black kid wishes that the DCP would get rid of those black rapper and gang member dolls, and that she would encourage her kid to play with the doctor and nurse stuff, which leads the DCP to ask, why can't he just have fun dressing up like a rapper?


----------



## SamuraiMom (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
To me, this is the underlying question... what is it to us to judge this woman and decide what is best for HER family?

We rally around the OP because she is "one of us". If it was the mother here complaining about the day care worker, we'd be rallying around her. I've never seen such a blatant display of double standards.

I don't think that this would be the case at all, in fact if so many of us were to have disagreed with the OP then we would have said so. If we were fortunate enough to have the mothers side of the story than this discussion would be more balanced, however she is not here and this is what we have to work with....in a space where we are allowed to share our opinions on such things. I actually havn't read any post's stating what is best for this womans family, only that most of us feel that she is gone a little over board.
I mean it seems kid of odd to me that she would allow her boy to explore his feminin side and not her girl.


----------



## Em T (Mar 14, 2006)

When you say:

But this analogy doesn't work in this situation. What does work is, if I send my kid to day care, and express my wishes that I do not want my child engaging in war play, and ask you to discourage it (or even to remove war toys from the toy selection), do you comply? Or do you ask "what can't her child like guns and swords and other warplay stuff?"

this doesn't work, to me. Because that would imply the daycare worker would be able to control the play of all the children, even the ones whose parents have no problems with them playing cowboys or army or other combative games. If there are a bunch of children playing ______ & you don't approve of it she would have to forcibly remove your child even if he/she was having fun & not allow him/her to participate. That seems like a lot of hassle for the provider. Much better to place your child somewhere with policies in agreement with your principles.
Daycare should be safe & fun & loving but it's never going to be a perfect reflection of anyone's philosophy but that of the provider.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daffodil:
She probably figures the boy doesn't need that, because he's undoubtedly already being subtly steered away from girly stuff.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Why do you say that?

Because Polly Pockets and Disney princesses are obviously female, and you don't see similar male figures, so that gives kids the message that being pretty is for girls, not boys. And because the boy probably doesn't see other boys playing with the girly stuff as much as he sees girls playing with it. And because it's entirely possible that the DCP expects boys to like "boy stuff" and girls to like "girl stuff," and that she subtly conveys that message to the kids she cares for, as will many of the other adults that boy encounters. And because the girls who dress up in sparkly stuff are likely to hear a gushing, "Oh, you're so pretty!" while boys in tiaras are more likely to get a giggle that implies, "It's funny to see you wearing stuff that's for girls." And so on and so forth . . .


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Steering the boy away from girl things isn't parallel - what would be parallel is if she wanted the boy steered away from "boy toys" like trucks.


----------



## WNB (Apr 29, 2006)

The DC-parent is asking for a little more support from the DC-provider in helping her daughter resist some influences she considers unhealthy. I think it's reasonable for DC-provider to expect toys DC-parent wants removed to be replaced at DC-parent's expense with other toys of similar quality, subject to the approval of both parties. I don't think it's reasonable for DC-parent to ask DC-provider to subject the child to different rules for play than the other children in the program are subject to.

If the OP has marketed her DC service as one which does not rely on the play centered around (commercial) "characters" -- meaning, all the parents who send their kids there knew that when they signed up -- she could gently remind her customers of that aspect of her service with a request/suggestion that kids' clothing and accessories steer clear of prominent use of such commercial characters, since it's not just the toys that serve as marketing tools.

I think there's room for compromise on the part of both parties here, and that neither party is being unreasonable.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Because Polly Pockets and Disney princesses are obviously female, and you don't see similar male figures, so that gives kids the message that being pretty is for girls, not boys.

Okay - I can't argue that one (although I've never thought Polly Pocket was particularly "pretty"). I grew up in the 80s, so I've seen lots and lots of "pretty boys" and didn't really think of this aspect of it.

Quote:

And because the boy probably doesn't see other boys playing with the girly stuff as much as he sees girls playing with it. And because it's entirely possible that the DCP expects boys to like "boy stuff" and girls to like "girl stuff," and that she subtly conveys that message to the kids she cares for, as will many of the other adults that boy encounters. And because the girls who dress up in sparkly stuff are likely to hear a gushing, "Oh, you're so pretty!" while boys in tiaras are more likely to get a giggle that implies, "It's funny to see you wearing stuff that's for girls." And so on and so forth . . .
This is all jumping to conclusions, which is why I questioned your assertion that he's "undoubtedly" being subtly steered away from girly stuff. While it's possible that the OP conveys messages about her expectations regarding gender preferences, I haven't seen any evidence of it in this thread. The little boy wears/wore the sparkly shoes, and that's all I've seen. I know that when ds1 puts on one of dd's tiaras (she _loves_ tiaras), I say something like "you look so cute", which is exactly what I'd say to dd.

While it's definitely possible that the little boy is receiving subtle steering in the direction of "boy" toys, I think that "undoubtedly" is drastically overstating it.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Because Polly Pockets and Disney princesses are obviously female, and you don't see similar male figures, so that gives kids the message that being pretty is for girls, not boys. And because the boy probably doesn't see other boys playing with the girly stuff as much as he sees girls playing with it. And because it's entirely possible that the DCP expects boys to like "boy stuff" and girls to like "girl stuff," and that she subtly conveys that message to the kids she cares for, as will many of the other adults that boy encounters. And because the girls who dress up in sparkly stuff are likely to hear a gushing, "Oh, you're so pretty!" while boys in tiaras are more likely to get a giggle that implies, "It's funny to see you wearing stuff that's for girls." And so on and so forth . . .

When I worked in dc we had Polly Pocket type dolls and the boys LOVED them. In my class the boys spent more time playing with them than the girls. I did have parents who wanted me to steer their boys away from the dolls, but I said no because I will not tell children what they can and cannot like.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

O.K, the ONLY totally girly toys I have in this house, are..

1. A set of Polly Pockets (the kind with the rubber clothes) The boys happen to LOVE these toys too. But you must be at least three.... because I don't trust the one year olds not to eat them.

2. TWO pairs of plastic shiny shoes. (which her little brother wears all the time)

3. One pink dress. It's actually a nightgown.

4. A shiny purple backpack. The boys also love this backpack.

5. two princess washcloths.

THEN, I have Baby dolls, a doll crib, a doll high chair, All are played with equally by both boys and girls.

THEN I have a set of pony things, a set of bugs, a set of Zoo animals and a set of ocean animals. We use these during theme weeks.

The rest of the toys are cars, trucks, climbers, "guys" (Fisher Price little people) and all the "guy stuff" (cars, a bus, tractors the farm etc) I did not call them "guys" the kids call them "guys". There is a "guy bucket" with all the assortment of guys.

What I have a problem with, is that so many Moms have such a problem with girl toys. It almost sounds like many of you wish your girls were boys. You want them to only play with boy toys, or generic toys.

I mentioned that she wears mens clothes because she does. She even buys them in the mens dept. I am not yet aware of a shop that sells gender nuetral clothing. She also wears scrubs a lot, because she works in a dentist's office. But, at that moment, she wasn't wearing scrubs. She was wearing men's clothes. Why would that be offensive? She happens to not LIKE women's clothes.

Suggesting that letting a little girl wear pink shoes, is like letting boys play with guns is just stupid.

Saying that NOT telling the other parents to stop sending their kids in Dora shirts and panties, is the same as forcing a parent to pay FOUR freaking dollars a day for a lunch that she isn't going to eat is also stupid.

I will not yank toys from her hand. I will NOT enforce a daycare uniform either. If I had a parent who was THAT difficult, I wouldn't have that child in my home.

I will also NOT have only boy toys in my home. Boys are wonderful, but so are girls. Girls deserve to be treated with the same respect as boys. I want them all to have a mind of their own. My own dd didn't turn out at ALL like I expected, but, I wouldn't dream of telling her she can't take dance classes or play the clarinet, just because it wasn't masculine enough.

Maybe if these parents cared about her thoughts, she woudln't obsess over these things. Even a simple, "I know, you really like that" would be nice. But all she hears is "it doesn't really matter what you like, it only matters what I SAY you will like" <-- Mom doesn't litterally say that of course.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

I think the mother needs to find a new daycare for her child, one that meets her expectations. A Montessori one would be good, there are few girlie things there.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

O.K.

This is TOTALLY changing the subject.

But, this came up for me in May....

I have nine kids. Seven families. Four are full time.

One family I have had for seven years. They are full time.

Another family was awaiting a spot into a special co-op preschool. So they were not only part time, but also temporary.

The full time boy is called "Zach" The part time girl is called "Allie". Allie has two moms. Zach has a mom and a dad... Zach's parents are deeply religious and strongly believe it is a sin to be homosexual.

Allie and Zach are best friends.

One day I asked all of the parents to bring any books related to the alphabet. Several of the kids brought ABC books.

But, Allie brought a book called "Sarah has two Mommies" (not the real title, I can't remember it) Allie brought it on her own. Her Mom said "I swear, I didn't pick this one, I tried to tell her to bring Chicka Chicka boom boom".

So. What should I do? This would NOT be O.K with Zach's parents. It might even upset a few other parents. BUT, it was important to Allie.

What would have been the right thing to do? And why?


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

maybe a mission statement for your daycare would be a good idea. you seem to attract alot of parents who care very much about their kids and what they learn. this to me, is a sign of good loving parenting (we can yak all we want about specific ideas but really isn't that better than not giving a flip about what kids see/hear?) but also a need for clear boundaries. very involved parents tend to care very much about what ideas are implied.

perhaps you can write a statement available to all parents new and old explaining your philosophy on play and how you will address certian issues that come up.
an example of what i might write would be:

toys: i have a selection of toys and encourage children to explore them all. i will not remove a toy from a child unless he/ she is being dangerous or using it to taunt another child.

gender: it is natural to explore gender roles and i support a child's need to do this. my function is to allow children to explore and a parents function is to inform children of what their family views as accptable.

sexuality: i will answer all questions about sex in an age appropriate manner. if a child asks where babies come from i will say that a man and a woman make them then refer them to parents for more info. if they ask about people are in same gender relationships i will simply say some people like this and again, refer them to their parents for info on weather this is ok or not. i will not, however tolerate expressions of hate from children towards others on any basis.

my son's daycare did something like this and i found it useful. you could fill in w/ your own ideas about food, discapline and such so it's all in a "handbook" of sorts.

ETA: Heather Has Two Mommies is a CLASSIC! I like it


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
What I have a problem with, is that so many Moms have such a problem with girl toys. It almost sounds like many of you wish your girls were boys. You want them to only play with boy toys, or generic toys.

What I have a problem with is that so many people classify toys as "girl toys" or "boy toys." And that most of the so-called "girl toys" are all about looking pretty, not about actually doing anything interesting.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
What I have a problem with is that so many people classify toys as "girl toys" or "boy toys." And that most of the so-called "girl toys" are all about looking pretty,...

...or shopping or housework or cooking...


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Wow, holy wow....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
And I am talking about a 3 yo boy covetting, desiring, things I don't want him to have, guns and swords, etc. They are forbidden to him. You can call me controlling, but I don't take that label, just as much as making sure that my son doesn't eat crap is not controlling either.

I won't call you controlling, yet...







BUT, as an educator and mentor, I'll _suggest_ you may be allowing some paradigms to really limit you.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
And I do think the toys in the day care provider's home are bordering on crass commercialism. I would not support my son being subjected to this stuff, say if it were pirates of the caribeean, transformers, or even thomas the train (I abhor that stuff, and it is not in our home even when my son LOVED it). I don't like product tie-ins of any sort.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
<snip>
I would never buy my daughter a barbie doll (nor my son either) and if a day care provider didn't respect that it is simply not a value in our family that we purchase or play with those sorts of toys, then yes I would be offended. I don't support my son wanting, or playing with products that are obviously gender oriented, or crass commerical products. I get upset at my partner when she buys him disney crap, or at grandma when she bought him thomas stuff. I think it limits imagination, and I find it stifling. I much prefer gender neutral toys (and to me legos and blocks are gender neutral) myself for my son. I don't view it as controlling at all.

I hear _you_ referring to what _your_ preferences are, but not much acknowledgement of what your _son's_ preferences are. Again, I totally hear you on war-play, and anything else that models violence, sexuality (exploitation, etc) and consumerism.

Something that has helped me to reconcile my own misgivings re; product placement and brand names: look for the teachability in each thing that crosses into my child's experience. Discard what can't be used effectively and constructively. Pirates. Dd watched it with her dad. I was frustrated beyond belief that she saw this... she will be 3 in Nov. Now she picks up sticks and points them at me saying she'll kill me. Teachable moment? Hell yeah. "Dd, pirates were dangerous bad men that hurt a lot of people. Killing is wrong, and we are gentle and loving... Did you know Mommy worked on boats? Want to see some pictures? I was a fisher-woman, and I followed _whales_. Wanna see?" Princesses. She is innundated by Princesses. Teachability... yep! "Dd, Princesses ought to be gracious, educated, compassionate, and inspiring. They need to learn and grow and be virtuous so that they may grow to be Queens and take care of their land and the people who live there... Would you like to see a book about a Queen in Egypt?" Just wait for years to come when I break out the encyclopedias to show her the truth about things like Pirates and Princesses. Tranformers are part of my childhood; all the boy cousins had 'em and I deeply loved them and wished for them and never had any... I went to the movie; it was a blast. If dd wanted to play with a Transformer, at someone else's home? I'd let her, telling her about how cool _I_ thought they were when I was little... also, teachability!... good hand-eye and dexterity play. But will I buy her the Transformers bed sheets and back pack? No way!

Quote:

As for the son playing with this stuff, well, in our home I support opposite gender identified toys to a higher degree. He is given more toys that are not traditional boy things, and if we were a girl, the same would happen for her.<snip>
So reverse sexism doesn't bother you in the slightest? What about looking at it from this perspective: Is it ok to withold certain toys (dresses or dollies, etc from a boy, for example) to "keep him from 'turning' gay"? Why is it ok to condition a girl to be (what you perceive as) 'gender nuetral'? All the points of view come from a place of deep paradigm... that gender-association from one level or another is something that we all have some control over. Whether it's parents thinking they can prevent homosexuality or parents thinking they can prevent cheuvanism, a child will invariably grow to be an adult with his own value set that may range miles from his parents'.

BTW, in reference to "men's clothes"... What if she really was indeed wearing men's clothes? Is it at all possible that your perception and subsequent dislike of this comment stems from your own (possibly) negative experiences?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
<snip>
So yeah, I think that people who don't live our lives haven't a clue about why we do the things we do, but usually we have good reasons for it. I'd probably say that Nextcommercial is a loving, caring person and THAT is what is most important to these parents. But why do you have to take the bad with the good just because someone else is judging you and saying "you're unreasonable and we don't do it like that so tough titties." This school of dd's is the only one of it's kind. So, what are we doing since they told US "tough titties!"... we're paying that $4 a day and still sending a sack lunch. But it would be really nice if someone would stop long enough to say, "Hey, they must have a good reason... let's listen to them before we judge them."

Wow, that is just so not ok. It sounded like you guys were really happy with this school, too, and this one thing is a HUGE thing to have to swallow.

But food is a huge issue. And I think in weighing out the pro's & cons of a place where our children will be educated and cared for, food is a major issue. One I don't think the issue at hand can be fairly compared to...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceili* 
<snip>
This woman is saying I don't want my daughter to play dress up, but it's okay for my son. Wouldn't we be up in arms if she was saying I don't want my daughter to get dirty, but it's okay for my son or I don't want my daughter to play ball, but it's okay for my son. I think the fact that many of us dislike commercialized toys, especially highly exaggerated overly feminine princess toys, is clouding the gender bias here.

Exactly... there is this thing with boys... it's covert, and most folks are totally unaware that they do it... and it's part of our genetic make-up, it's part of our anthropological progression... Did you know that people are (I think the number was)80% more likely to engage a boy child in conversation than a girl child? This enhances the leadership qualities we expect in men: "Hi boy. What are you doing? What are you playing with? Is that fun?" Whereas girl children usually are conditioned to do the engaging, cultivating the emotional maintenance that is expected from women in our society. Did you know that certain behaviors _are_ hardwired into boys and girls? Of a large number of children 12mo-4yo observed in a cross-cultural study that involved them having equal access to the exact same gender neutral toys (like blocks), the clear majority played in a gender specific manner. The girls wrapped the blocks up and mothered them, the boys made the blocks into automobiles and planes, crashing them together, etc.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
The question wasn't about one being allowed, and the other not. The question is "why can't she like polly pocket and other froo froo stuff"

And I will keep repeating, I wouldn't want my daughter playing with that crap either.

<snip>

That is the question... and I'm curious, honestly, what the hubbub is. WHY can't she like what she likes? Liking doesn't mean having, at home, on a regular basis...

Why are some parents so vehemently opposed to "character" items, (I know why _*I*_ dislike Bratz, and why I don't love Barbie stuff...) like the Disney Princesses, and Polly Pocket? What is behind the fear of or dislike of "crass commercialism"?

These items come from merchandising around entertainment. Entertainment. Movies, books, shows, music that talented people create for our entertainment. Is it merchandising you take issue with? Is it because it puts pressure on parents to (gasp) stand firm and 'be the bad guy' when they say no to a kid's all-abiding desire for some of the crap that's mass-produced?

Parents instill in their _own_ children _their_ firm moral core and then have to defend it. The world at large will not do that for us. I'm not advocating for the Princesses, they have a marketing machine for that. I'm saying that fanatic disapproval of this brand or that, this character or that is just as bad as fanatic pursual of these items. You're giving it just as much energy, either way, and that's just excessive. How do we teach tolerance by modelling intolerance?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I think Velochic is probably right that people would be more likely to agree with the mom if she were the OP. Because the mom would undoubtedly do a better job of conveying her point of view and making it sound reasonable. For instance, where the OP said the mom wanted her to discourage her daughter from playing with the girly stuff, the mom might have said that she had noticed the DCP tended to automatically steer the girls toward certain toys, and that she had asked her to try not to do that. (I'm NOT saying I think the OP actually does that.)

It sounds like this mother's attitude is a lot like mine. I don't have an opinion about whether her requests to the DCP are appropriate, but I do feel like she's probably being misrepresented on this thread. For instance, I seriously doubt she wants the DCP to grab girly toys out of her daughter's hand. There are plenty of subtle, gentle ways to try to get a kid more interested in certain toys than in others, and I imagine that's the kind of approach the mom is looking for.

And I totally get why the mom is less bothered by her son wearing girly stuff. I doubt she really cares if either of her kids occasionally puts on a tiara or a tutu. What she probably wants to avoid is having her kids get the message that a) it's important to look pretty, and b) looking pretty means wearing tacky pink sparkly stuff. No matter how much pink sparkly stuff her boy wears as a toddler, the fact is he's just not very likely to get that message growing up in this society. Whereas it may be an uphill battle to keep her daughter from absorbing it. She probably just wants to keep the indoctrination to a minimum.

I think this is so well-put... you really got me thinking and looking at my own position here.

I want to offer something: *nextcommercial*, what do you think would happen if you did up a letter to all the parents that read something like- "Dear parents, In today's world there is a lot of controversy surrounding consumerism and social-conditioning in regards to gender-expectations and stereotypes. In response to recent concerns raised about these very issues, and how they play out here, and as a way to lessen some of the effects of that controversy here in _our_ daycare, I will be removing certain toys and materials from the daycare, and I'd like to suggest that children's attire be limited to character-free clothes. This is out of respect for those who are trying to lessen the impact of these controversial products and characters on their children. This is not a mandatory policy, but more a request for mutual respect and understanding. I hope it will be agreeable to you all. If you have questions or concerns, please call me!"

Since you've already outlined that there is very little of this kind of commercial stuff going on in your daycare, then maybe it wouldn't be too huge a thing to just go get some plain washcloths, and retire Polly early. The kids will only miss these items for a minute before there is a new passion to focus on, client-mom's dd included. Then, after the dust settles, for new-comers, you can clearly define that it's a personal choice but you hope parents are mindful of the 'community' in your daycare... or something.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
I see a big difference between food issues and which dress up clothes and toys the little girl plays with.

Me too... and the _only_ thing I really take issue with as far as this discussion goes, is the hypocracy of the gender-bias thing, and the double-standards that keep popping up on so many levels...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
But the mom didn't actually say (did she?) that her son could play with the girly stuff and the girl was to be forbidden from it. The way I read it, she asked that the girl be given a little extra encouragement to get interested in the non-girly stuff, and some subtle steering away from the girly stuff. She probably figures the boy doesn't need that, because he's undoubtedly already being subtly steered away from girly stuff.

This assumes so much.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
<snip>...it sends the message that being a girl doesn't have to mean wearing sparkly dresses.

And being evolved, intelligent, open-minded, and great doesn't mean a girl has to be devoid of adornment, or dressed in only uni-sex, muted neutrals.

Quote:

To really replace gender with race in this example, imagine a scenario where the DCP has black dolls that look like rappers and gang members, and white dolls that look like doctors and nurses. And that the black kids she takes care of usually play with the black dolls, and wear the rapper dress-up outfits, and the white kids usually play with the white dolls and pick the doctor outfits to dress up in, and the DCP feels fine about that. But the mom of a black kid wishes that the DCP would get rid of those black rapper and gang member dolls, and that she would encourage her kid to play with the doctor and nurse stuff, which leads the DCP to ask, why can't he just have fun dressing up like a rapper?
This is so wrong and covertly racist on so many levels. As a chubby, white Canadian-born U.S. resident in very-white-Oregon with a child of mixed decent and a healthy affection for hip-hop and Urban-American History, I just gotta say, "Guurrrrl... that is SO over the top."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WNB* 
The DC-parent is asking for a little more support from the DC-provider in helping her daughter resist some influences she considers unhealthy. I think it's reasonable for DC-provider to expect toys DC-parent wants removed to be replaced at DC-parent's expense with other toys of similar quality, subject to the approval of both parties. I don't think it's reasonable for DC-parent to ask DC-provider to subject the child to different rules for play than the other children in the program are subject to.

If the OP has marketed her DC service as one which does not rely on the play centered around (commercial) "characters" -- meaning, all the parents who send their kids there knew that when they signed up -- she could gently remind her customers of that aspect of her service with a request/suggestion that kids' clothing and accessories steer clear of prominent use of such commercial characters, since it's not just the toys that serve as marketing tools.

I think there's room for compromise on the part of both parties here, and that neither party is being unreasonable.























:


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
O.K.
What would have been the right thing to do? And why?

I would have sent the list of books home with the kids and asked the parents if they had any objections to the books. If so, I'd ask the child of that family to go play while reading that book.

Same thing if someone brought a "Christmas" book or a book that was blatantly patriotic. There are non-Christians and there are people who don't feel that that we need to toot American horn any more than it's already being tooted. I'm sure there are many other subjects that should be closely considered.

Eventually, when they are older and are able to understand these things better, they will get exposed to them.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
...Allie brought a book called "Sarah has two Mommies" (not the real title, I can't remember it) Allie brought it on her own. Her Mom said "I swear, I didn't pick this one, I tried to tell her to bring Chicka Chicka boom boom".

So. What should I do? This would NOT be O.K with Zach's parents. It might even upset a few other parents. BUT, it was important to Allie.

What would have been the right thing to do? And why?

In my opinion, there is no "right" answer to your question, though I'm inclined to very closely consider Allie's wishes--more closely than the various parents.







: To put it another way, if Allie and Zach are best friends, then sooner or later it's going to come up anyway, and Zach's parents will have to deal with it, "it" being the way to communicate their own prejudices to a very young child.

I'm more curious about what you *did* do about it, since this was back in May....


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Me too, how did you react to that scenario?


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Me too, how did you react to that scenario?

Well, since Allie's Mom would never push her veiws on anybody, and is one of my best friends, AND, I adore this kid. She has a special wisdom about her. KWIM? So, I couldn't NOT read her book. She's too smart for that.

SO, I emailed the parents, and all of them EXCEPT Zach's parents were totally fine with it. Zach's mom was uncomfortable, but she also ADORES Allie. So, she said, read it, but just once please.

It was an O.K book, but a little old for my kids, so I lost a few of them before the second page. Last year, most of my kids were more of the ten words on a page or less kind of group. They love a repetitive book. Like Silly Sally, or The big hungry Bear.

I was glad I read it.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

Only read the first couple pages but....I'm currently in the process of looking for childcare for when I go back to work. Most daycares around here have waiting lists of 2+ years and day home spaces are mighty scarce and you usually can't book a spot or choose a nanny until 2 months before you go back to work. I'm jealous of the posters who had the luxury of rejecting a daycare because of polly pockets and plastic toys. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of commercialized toys. But it's a way bigger deal for me to find a gentle, positive care provider for my daughter in a location that's close enough to my home or work that I'm not spending extra time away from my kid commuting. Big picture, people.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
Only read the first couple pages but....I'm currently in the process of looking for childcare for when I go back to work. Most daycares around here have waiting lists of 2+ years and day home spaces are mighty scarce and you usually can't book a spot or choose a nanny until 2 months before you go back to work. I'm jealous of the posters who had the luxury of rejecting a daycare because of polly pockets and plastic toys. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of commercialized toys. But it's a way bigger deal for me to find a gentle, positive care provider for my daughter in a location that's close enough to my home or work that I'm not spending extra time away from my kid commuting. Big picture, people.


That's what I'm thinking too. My daycare friends think I'm insane to carry a baby all day on my back or tied to me in any way. They think I am crazy for liking cloth diapers. They don't think a daycare with no timeout can run smoothly. But, it does. I keep telling them, "hey, this works".

I'm not all that good about the foods though. We eat what the kids like within reason, and I rarely buy organic foods. Most Moms here would croak if they saw what we eat. It's healthy by most standards, though, but I could definatly improve.

But, all this talk about Waldorf schools? That doesn't exist here. If it did, it would be out of most parent's price range. I have all teacher's kids, I have to be reasonably priced.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and makes unrealistic demands of it's duck-care-provider, I'm gonna call it a controlling duck.. no judgements, just observation.

best quote of the day...


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
I'm jealous of the posters who had the luxury of rejecting a daycare because of polly pockets and plastic toys. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of commercialized toys. But it's a way bigger deal for me to find a gentle, positive care provider for my daughter in a location that's close enough to my home or work that I'm not spending extra time away from my kid commuting. Big picture, people.

Well, that's the thing. We were very lucky in finding a home-based daycare close to our home and both our workplaces, with a very loving provider. Dd loves the other kids there. They do craft projects, dance, sing, play dress up (with frou-frou princess stuff), play outside for hours....I can deal with Dora the Explorer somehow entering our lives in the process.

I think dd's more into the monkey, in any case.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Quote:

But, all this talk about Waldorf schools? That doesn't exist here. If it did, it would be out of most parent's price range. I have all teacher's kids, I have to be reasonably priced.
DH and I earn teacher-level salaries and DD's daycare (no character toys, mostly open-ended and natural materials) is very affordable for us. (DD's daycare does not actually advertise itself as a Montessori or Waldorf school.) Although I think there is an association between Montessori and Waldorf and price, it definitely doesn't have to be that way....there's no real reason the philosophy has to cost more. I suppose the materials are slightly more expensive, but only if you buy a lot of premade stuff.

Quote:

Now she picks up sticks and points them at me saying she'll kill me. Teachable moment? Hell yeah. "Dd, pirates were dangerous bad men that hurt a lot of people. Killing is wrong, and we are gentle and loving... Did you know Mommy worked on boats? Want to see some pictures? I was a fisher-woman, and I followed whales. Wanna see?" Princesses. She is innundated by Princesses. Teachability... yep! "Dd, Princesses ought to be gracious, educated, compassionate, and inspiring. They need to learn and grow and be virtuous so that they may grow to be Queens and take care of their land and the people who live there... Would you like to see a book about a Queen in Egypt?"
And yet, I'd certainly rather protect my child from violent movies and princess-obsession a bit longer till she can absorb the subtleties of my explanations a bit better. I mean, from this POV, anything, including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, could be a "teachable moment," right? ("DD, cutting people up with chainsaws is a very bad thing to do.")

Quote:

Why are some parents so vehemently opposed to "character" items, (I know why I dislike Bratz, and why I don't love Barbie stuff...) like the Disney Princesses, and Polly Pocket? What is behind the fear of or dislike of "crass commercialism"?
I'm opposed to thehighly gendered, commercial character play for a number of reasons. 1, It's all intended to make children buy and watch, and I find the marketing machine repulsive and insidious; 2, I think it's very limiting of children's imaginations, and imagination is very, very precious to me; 3, I think all the highly-gendered play and separate expectations are extremely rigid and harms kids who are not "gender-typical" (my own DD would never have cuddlked the blocks in a million years); and 4, I believe it sets boys and girls up as people who won't ever be expected to enjoy each other, understand each other or speak the same language.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nina_yyc* 
Only read the first couple pages but....I'm currently in the process of looking for childcare for when I go back to work. Most daycares around here have waiting lists of 2+ years and day home spaces are mighty scarce and you usually can't book a spot or choose a nanny until 2 months before you go back to work. I'm jealous of the posters who had the luxury of rejecting a daycare because of polly pockets and plastic toys. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of commercialized toys. But it's a way bigger deal for me to find a gentle, positive care provider for my daughter in a location that's close enough to my home or work that I'm not spending extra time away from my kid commuting. Big picture, people.


As a Mom who uses daycare, I agree with this sentiment. Good quality affordable daycare is scarce in my area so when we chose our DCP we didn't sweat the small stuff. In our case its crappy snacks, thankfully we provide meals but the center's snacks are not my first choice but its a good place so you overlook the small stuff (food would probably not be small if dd had allergies or issues but she doesn't so its small for us).

I know in my area what waldorf or montessori centers/schools that exist are out of my price range and in many cases do not offer hours conducive to working parents. (9-3 with no before or aftercare)

Shay


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
DH and I earn teacher-level salaries and DD's daycare (no character toys, mostly open-ended and natural materials) is very affordable for us. (DD's daycare does not actually advertise itself as a Montessori or Waldorf school.) Although I think there is an association between Montessori and Waldorf and price, it definitely doesn't have to be that way....there's no real reason the philosophy has to cost more. I suppose the materials are slightly more expensive, but only if you buy a lot of premade stuff.

I think the op was commenting on the inavailability of programs that adhere to these philosophies in her area... and the ones that are available in the city, which I understood to be a trek, are more costly.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
And yet, I'd certainly rather protect my child from violent movies and princess-obsession a bit longer till she can absorb the subtleties of my explanations a bit better. I mean, from this POV, anything, including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, could be a "teachable moment," right? ("DD, cutting people up with chainsaws is a very bad thing to do.")

I hope it's clear that I'm in no way angling to justify exposing children to violence in order to attain teachable moments, and I'm disturbed that one could twist what I said and come up with a statement that, from my POV, Texas Chainsaw Massacre could be used to teach... I'm not sure what one could, sincerely, teach a child using that movie.

Unfortunately, dd saw some of the Pirate movie... Mom at school, dad not always as 'with it' in terms of what is 2-3yo appropriate.

Unfortunately, dd's older friends are all princess-obsessed and now, she is a bit too.

I choose to take these unfortunate happenings and use them in a positive light.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I'm opposed to thehighly gendered, commercial character play for a number of reasons. 1, It's all intended to make children buy and watch, and I find the marketing machine repulsive and insidious; 2, I think it's very limiting of children's imaginations, and imagination is very, very precious to me; 3, I think all the highly-gendered play and separate expectations are extremely rigid and harms kids who are not "gender-typical" (my own DD would never have cuddlked the blocks in a million years); and 4, I believe it sets boys and girls up as people who won't ever be expected to enjoy each other, understand each other or speak the same language.

Thanks for answering my question. I can totally see where you're coming from, and have many of the same concerns myself. I see many parents with these concerns. Some of them live in a state of enmity with the Media Monster. Some of them try to be a big huge filter for it. Some try to just model their own values consistently, in an effort to balance it out.

There're a lot of ways to handle commercialism, sexism, racism, and all the other bad-tidings of society. I merely offered up an approach that I use.

I feel if I help dd to process what she sees, ask her questions, make myself available to her as a resource, that'll set the stage for later, when she is more sophisticated and can process ethics and society at large on a deeper level. I think she is a great communicator, already, and tell her so. Nothing in this world (Disney Princesses and Transformers combined) has more power than we give it. If these influences pop into her world and I do nothing to supplement her experience with information, then I'm not doing my job, and she will indeed, like you said, be set up "as (a person)who won't ever be expected to enjoy each other, (boys and girls, right?) understand each other or speak the same language."

It's all about us... we're the last word, the frontline, and the best filter.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loraxc* 
I'm opposed to thehighly gendered, commercial character play for a number of reasons. 1, It's all intended to make children buy and watch, and I find the marketing machine repulsive and insidious; 2, I think it's very limiting of children's imaginations, and imagination is very, very precious to me; 3, I think all the highly-gendered play and separate expectations are extremely rigid and harms kids who are not "gender-typical" (my own DD would never have cuddlked the blocks in a million years); and 4, I believe it sets boys and girls up as people who won't ever be expected to enjoy each other, understand each other or speak the same language.

I understand why you're opposed-no one would want those things, or at least I wouldn't but I think there are more variables involved. I think it's more than exposure to media that causes those results. My son and his best friend (a girl) have both been exposed to lots of media BUT they are very creative (my son is one of the most creative children I know) and they don't play gender-steroptyped games. Their favorite thing in the world is to make "mud cuisine" (it goes way beyond pies







) Sometimes they play other games but in their own way.

I could see though if people were constantly pushing certain characters along with gender stereotypes that one could get that result.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
Not offended at all. I actually have no problem with my dd playing with girly 'stuff'. (Although to be honest she ignores her dolls in favor of her brother's trucks, while her brother goes and plays with her dolls. Go figure







)

What I do object to is...commercialized 'girly' stuff. Disney princesses, for example *winces*. Let's just say, as much as I LOVE WDW, the Disney Princess phenomenon is not something I want my child to embrace as healthy.

I don't like commericalized boy-ey stuff either....you know...emblazoned superheros on powerwheels, that kind of thing.

Haven't read the whole thread yet but had to comment that this is almost exactly my take on this. We love pink, purple, and cute, just not the weird disneyfied versions.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
Haven't read the whole thread yet but had to comment that this is almost exactly my take on this. We love pink, purple, and cute, just not the weird disneyfied versions.

Totally. Waspy-waisted giant-eye-balled Happily-Ever-Afterers whose lives stop when they marry the prince... No thanks. She loves 'em. I just keep trying to show her alternative forms of princessly-awesome-ness... She has a thing for an orange jersey knit dress this week, with circles... it's her current princess dress. She just figured out how to get it on her body herself... awesome.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

In our house it probably helps that dad is the one with the over the top kawai obsession. he's got a pink kitty wallet and a giant pink bear on his desk, lol.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Let's see I really dislike childrens clothes with characters on them but my kids like the so I let them have them because to me they are harmless.

I dont care for the whole poor girl needs to be rescued Disney Princess them...But my DD loves them and I loved them when I was little and I am pretty sure that I came out ok.

I draw the line at what "I" feel are Hoochie dolls such as Bratz and I do not by "trashy" barbie clothes. But Savara has many barbies (and would have more if my dog would stop eating them)

Savara has about 20 tiaras, 10 wands, and 20 or so pairs of princess shoes, 10 princess dresses, tutus, wings, wigs, wedding dress, beads and earbobs(I found an AWESOME dressup kit at a yard sale for 17.00) she adores them and I remember loving things like this as a child as well. My boys dress up with her all the time.

I think if a little girl is drawn to "girly" things she should be allowed to enjoy them. I would rather her do it at 5 then at 21 and look like a glittery dolly parton! I just dont see the harm.

And if she grows up and her signature colors are Blush and Bashfull then so what I could think of worse then her growning up to be a girly girl. I just think we have bigger fish to fry in this world than what toys kids should play with...re: gender neutrality.

If I did not like a daycares choice of toys then I would look elsewhere or ask if my daughter could bring her own. I would not expect them to cater to me alone. Kinda selfish in my opinion. I mean I would not take my child to a daycare that was big on christmas if it was something that I did not believe. I would never presume that my dollar would give me the right to be that demanding.

So on that note... I dont think I will open up a daycare... Goodness who knew it coult be such a heated can of worms!

ETA: I also do not let my boys watch rated "R" movies but I dont expect their friends moms to do the same. I simply dont let my boys go to houses where they are allowed to watch them. We invite them to our house.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Also my DD LOVES pink. It has never really been my "color" But I indulge her because if she likes it that much, who am I to say,no. I dont care if my boys like either..


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I rest my case, crass commercialism is winning obviously. Except in my home, it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

OH, and I definitely want any girl children of mine to never get the idea that what being a girl is all about is putting clothes on and taking them off, acquiring things, about appearances and being "dressed up", and being "rescued". I don't care if she does think they are cool, it's my job to fight this epidemic of limiting girls (and boys for that matter) into such straight jackets of gender identity and expression. Society will do it's damnedest in fighting against me, but I will continue the good fight. Not to mention that I want my chlidren to learn to be productive members of society that DO things, not puppets in a market economy that only seeks to teach them to BUY. Adults should be smart enough to be able to like pink and shoes, but also understand they are being marketed to, and what is behind these ideas, children have no clue, so it's my job to keep their lives as neutral as possible until they can better understand what is going on in our society.

I thought this would be a place where folks might undertstand some of this stuff, and there are those out there, thanks folks, but damn do I feel alone.


----------



## lasciate (May 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I rest my case, crass commercialism is winning obviously. Except in my home, it isn't going to happen.

Way to completely miss the point, there.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Oh no, the point is there. If you like it, it's okay to buy it, and buy it, and buy it and buy it, and then buy some more. Doesn't matter if it teaches something to your children you don't want them learning, especially if you aren't even aware that it's doing it. Kids are most definitely NOT being marketed to, and as parents we are not being egged into submission by forces outside our brains and homes (as if, of course this is happening). Children are being boxed further and further into narrow straight jackets of what is acceptable play for their sex (have you BEEN in toys R us lately?), but it's okay IF they LIKE it, because well, that's what they like! There is no influence from society playing a part in it, right? I mean, they are born that way, right? yeah, right.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Oh no, the point is there. If you like it, it's okay to buy it, and buy it, and buy it and buy it, and then buy some more. Doesn't matter if it teaches something to your children you don't want them learning, especially if you aren't even aware that it's doing it. Kids are most definitely NOT being marketed to, and as parents we are not being egged into submission by forces outside our brains and homes (as if, of course this is happening). Children are being boxed further and further into narrow straight jackets of what is acceptable play for their sex (have you BEEN in toys R us lately?), but it's okay IF they LIKE it, because well, that's what they like! There is no influence from society playing a part in it, right? I mean, they are born that way, right? yeah, right.


I understand your passion, but really missing your points.

Why does a girl having a dress-up bin necessarily tie into crass commercialism? My Mom made my dress-up clothes







.

All the catalogs I've seen of independent ittle places selling more natural kinds of toys have dressup stuff. So let's not just target Toys R Us. (And no, I've not seen it lately, only in one once). So, is it okay from Magic Cabin, but not ok from ToysRUs?

Yes we are being marketed to all the time. Have you seen all the ads in Mothering magazine lately? High quality stuff to be sure, but still marketing all the same.

I think a child can participate in dress up and still not be a victim of crass commercialism.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

You know, I totally get not wanting the Disney crap and all that. That stuff sucks.
But I can't see what' wrong with liking something bright and shiny. I like bright and glittery things, and I'm not terribly girly. As a matter of fact, I am one of the least girly people I know. I have adult friends who have a closet full of dress up clothes (they bring quite a wardrobe to Burning Man). So I guess the problems with dress-up or the color pink don't register with me.

As a matter of fact, my bedroom is purple. Two different shades.


----------



## BelgianSheepDog (Mar 31, 2006)

I think the problem with things like dress up isn't dress up itself, it's if there's only that kind of option. And because it's so prevelant you really have to push the other stuff to get equal time.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

all dress up is not bad, focusing a great deal on dress up, especially dress up limited to sparkly shoes, tutus, princess dresses and the like, tiaras (did you SEE the point about 20 tiaras????), forty shades of pink, feather boas, etc, ets IS bad. A variety is important here I would think, doctors, vets, police, aprons, high heels AND construction and hiking boots, hats, hats and more hats, mens clothes, womens clothes, sparkly stuff, plain stuff, etc, etc. You get the idea. All children are attracted to sparkles, doesn't mean that's the only thing they should be dressing up in, even if it takes encouragement from US to try on different roles, different ways of looking. I make my son dress up clothes, I give him all sorts of stuff, including girlie stuff. I said earlier I would want my son given more traditionally female identified toys, and a girl more traditionally male identified toys. Why? Because in order to skew the balance to be more equal against the WAVE of society that seeks to influence me and my son, I HAVE to. I can't ignore the HUGELY limiting ideas of what is acceptable toys for boys in society today, I have to counteract it. So I do, and you know what? My boy plays with match box cars one day, his tutu and doll the next. I find he has good balance and has more of an opportunity to use his imagination, then have someone use it for him, kwim? That's why I don't like much of the toys out there (magic cabin excluded, there are good choices there) in mainstream society, mostly plastic crap with no real purpose, that limits imagination, especially when it comes to gender.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

I think the problem with things like dress up isn't dress up itself, it's if there's only that kind of option. And because it's so prevelant you really have to push the other stuff to get equal time.
BSD, I LOVE you! So succinct.


----------



## RomanGoddess (Mar 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelgianSheepDog* 
I think the problem with things like dress up isn't dress up itself, it's if there's only that kind of option. And because it's so prevelant you really have to push the other stuff to get equal time.

We don't have any princess or girlie type stuff in the house for that very reason. It is just soooo prevelant that I know that DD will get enough of it elsewhere. Same goes for Disney and other character stuff.

To the person who asked what is inherently wrong with commercial character stuff, I do believe that it limits the imagination AND (at the same time) stifles a child's awareness of the _real world_ around her. There was some recent study in the UK that showed that this huge percentage of kindergarteners had never seen a real mouse and only recognized Mickey MOuse. I think that's just the tip of the iceberg. Some kids become sooo immersed in fantasy characters that in the end they know nothing and care to know nothiing about the real world at all.

When my DD was a baby and I started to show her books, I didn't bother showing her Winnie the Pooh, which I figured would be meaningless to her. I decided that I would wait until she was 7 or 8 years old and she could read The House at Pooh Corner herself. In the mean time, I have shown her lots about real bears, both in books and at the zoo.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
all dress up is not bad, focusing a great deal on dress up, especially dress up limited to sparkly shoes, tutus, princess dresses and the like, tiaras (did you SEE the point about 20 tiaras????), forty shades of pink, feather boas, etc, ets IS bad. A variety is important here I would think, doctors, vets, police, aprons, high heels AND construction and hiking boots, hats, hats and more hats, mens clothes, womens clothes, sparkly stuff, plain stuff, etc, etc. You get the idea. All children are attracted to sparkles, doesn't mean that's the only thing they should be dressing up in, even if it takes encouragement from US to try on different roles, different ways of looking. I make my son dress up clothes, I give him all sorts of stuff, including girlie stuff. I said earlier I would want my son given more traditionally female identified toys, and a girl more traditionally male identified toys. Why? Because in order to skew the balance to be more equal against the WAVE of society that seeks to influence me and my son, I HAVE to. I can't ignore the HUGELY limiting ideas of what is acceptable toys for boys in society today, I have to counteract it. So I do, and you know what? My boy plays with match box cars one day, his tutu and doll the next. I find he has good balance and has more of an opportunity to use his imagination, then have someone use it for him, kwim? That's why I don't like much of the toys out there (magic cabin excluded, there are good choices there) in mainstream society, mostly plastic crap with no real purpose, that limits imagination, especially when it comes to gender.


Gotcha. Balance, yes we all stive for that.

I can appreciate the child's mother having her ideals, but I still don't think it's the dcp who needs to police the toys. It doesn't sound like there is an overwhelming amount commercialized stuff there. I don't see a problem with acknowledging what the child likes to play with and telling her that she can enjoy them at daycare, but they won't be showing up at home.

I think that sending your child to daycare and exposing them to other children involves giving up a certain amount of control (and no, please don't compare this to spanking, CIO, dietary issues, etc, because in my mind a couple plastic dolls does not even compare). Also, if this woman is not going to homeschool in the future and cannot afford Waldorf or Montessourri, the exposure is going to happen eventually. Why not take this opportunity to teach the child now what the values of the home are?

I think if the mom cannot comfortably let it go, she should look into having someone come into her home.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
all dress up is not bad, focusing a great deal on dress up, especially dress up limited to sparkly shoes, tutus, princess dresses and the like, tiaras (did you SEE the point about 20 tiaras????), forty shades of pink, feather boas, etc, ets IS bad. A variety is important here I would think, doctors, vets, police, aprons, high heels AND construction and hiking boots, hats, hats and more hats, mens clothes, womens clothes, sparkly stuff, plain stuff, etc, etc. You get the idea. All children are attracted to sparkles, doesn't mean that's the only thing they should be dressing up in, even if it takes encouragement from US to try on different roles, different ways of looking. I make my son dress up clothes, I give him all sorts of stuff, including girlie stuff.

Well, you've posted a good description of our dress-up box


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Kids are most definitely NOT being marketed to, and as parents we are not being egged into submission by forces outside our brains and homes (as if, of course this is happening). Children are being boxed further and further into narrow straight jackets of what is acceptable play for their sex (have you BEEN in toys R us lately?), but it's okay IF they LIKE it, because well, that's what they like! There is no influence from society playing a part in it, right? I mean, they are born that way, right? yeah, right.

We're ALL being marketed to. I think the whole issue is more complex myself. I don't think it's always cut and dried.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Hm, here are my thoughts...

1. I want JBwebbal's dress up box...








2. 20 tiaras sounds a bit too much...







:
3. I don't think that watching Disney will turn a girl into a person without imagination, unwilling to experience the world, powerless, who has to be rescued... as long as those are not the values that the parents embrace...








4. I want my child in a daycare with mostly natural wooden toys.







:
5. Pink and sparkly is fine by me.








6. Too much of ANYTHING (too much of "natural" or too much of "commercial" is not my cup of tea).








7. As a parent you get to pick daycare, you can't demand from a daycare to get a new box of toys just because nothing else there suits your child.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Well just call me the "Queen of Crass Commercialism"....lol.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

not trying to be snarky marcee, after my tirade last night, BUT you DO have the tiaras for the job







:


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

And yes for the record we also have a Doctors uniform, police uniform, firefighter stuff, construction stuff (my mom was the first female steward in washington no less, worked construction her whole life, and was a foreman, and she LOVES pink!)we also have aprons as well as many, many, many other career dress up items. Can I help it if I found a great dress up kit at a yardsale for 17.00. Should I have said "only one tiara please"


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 







not trying to be snarky marcee, after my tirade last night, BUT you DO have the tiaras for the job







:

Oh I am not offended at all! (I used to think I really was a princess growing up, so NOW I AM THE QUEEN!!!LOL) I wear my tiara proudly!









And actually I was a girly girl growing up and um now... not so much! My lil sister was a tomboy her whole life and is now at 24 oh so girl and even matches her bra and panties to her outfits!


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

So, what if the OPs dress-up collection included: fancy, astronauts, police officers, fire-fighters, doctors, etc., and the little girl still wanted to dress fancy? OP didn't mention any other dress-up outfits, but that doesn't mean that they aren't available.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
We're ALL being marketed to. I think the whole issue is more complex myself. I don't think it's always cut and dried.

We *are* all being marketed to. Even as adults there are few who actually recognize that and think rationally about it. Why do you think people drive Hummers, and spend thousands on clothes, a house they can't afford, and image, image, image... and then they are asking "what happened" because they are up to their eyeballs in debt?

Here is a mother who is actually saying, "Hey, I don't agree with this aspect of society and so I'd like you, DCP, to help me instill this particular value in my dd." Instead, people say it's okay to ignore it as "it's not important to them". For some people, the toys their kids play with are as, if not more, important than breastfeeding or cloth-diapering or vaccinating or circumcising. Who are we to judge that this is something this woman should not worry about?

There need be no other discussion of it. If you are being paid to care for a child, you do what you can to care for them as their parents will.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
We *are* all being marketed to. Even as adults there are few who actually recognize that and think rationally about it. Why do you think people drive Hummers, and spend thousands on clothes, a house they can't afford, and image, image, image... and then they are asking "what happened" because they are up to their eyeballs in debt?

Here is a mother who is actually saying, "Hey, I don't agree with this aspect of society and so I'd like you, DCP, to help me instill this particular value in my dd." Instead, people say it's okay to ignore it as "it's not important to them". For some people, the toys their kids play with are as, if not more, important than breastfeeding or cloth-diapering or vaccinating or circumcising. Who are we to judge that this is something this woman should not worry about?

There need be no other discussion of it. If you are being paid to care for a child, you do what you can to care for them as their parents will.

I think that it is the woman absolute right to worry of anything she finds important for her child. But I dont think that she has the right to expect the DCP to bend to her views. If she does not like the selection of toys and it matters that much to her she should go elsewhere. If it is something that she is a little flexible on she should stay. It really is her choice. If she is extremely passionate about she needs to make the choice, not expect the DCP to change.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
If you are being paid to care for a child, you do what you can to care for them as their parents will.

Request of a parent should make sense in the context of the situation. It must be a reasonable request. This parent can demand certain things from a babysitter, or from a daycare that advertised itself as Waldorf-inspired. If a given daycare provider didn't mislead the parent in its appeal, then the parent is making a choice to abide by the rules adopted by a given daycare.

I don't get how it is possible in daycare setting to rearrange the toys so that ALL but one kid have access to certain toys...

I am not debating values here, I'm debating business - for - money expectation.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
Mom says "That isn't who we are" She would like me to discourage her from playing with the girly things, and encourage her to play with the dr kit, and the building toys. Why is it so bad for her to love this stuff???

This is the original post (which I keep going back to). The mother is just asking the OP to discourage her dd from playing with girly things. In the course of a day, how hard can that be?

Then she asks, "why is it so bad for her to love this stuff?"... and the answer is because the family doesn't approve of it and she has no right to decide what is right and wrong for the family. It. is. not. up to her to decide what is "so bad" or not so bad for this family. Her obligation is to say, "Yes I can try to do that." or to say, "I won't and I'm telling you up-front so you can find another DCP if you feel you need to."

As I've said before... we all "control" things about our child's upbringing. It is not our right to say that one mother is more controlling because she is controlling something we don't care about/have an opinion about.

For example, if a DCP were praying a Christian prayer around my dd, I wouldn't give a flip. But I can guarantee that my in-laws in Turkey would care. If a DCP is praying in front of the kids, and you ask that they don't... is this controlling... or is it just something that matters to you?

ETA: again, for the record... my dd has never been in day care and I've never been a DCP.


----------



## Marcee (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
This is the original post (which I keep going back to). The mother is just asking the OP to discourage her dd from playing with girly things. In the course of a day, how hard can that be?

Then she asks, "why is it so bad for her to love this stuff?"... and the answer is because the family doesn't approve of it and she has no right to decide what is right and wrong for the family. It. is. not. up to her to decide what is "so bad" or not so bad for this family. Her obligation is to say, "Yes I can try to do that." or to say, "I won't and I'm telling you up-front so you can find another DCP if you feel you need to."

As I've said before... we all "control" things about our child's upbringing. It is not our right to say that one mother is more controlling because she is controlling something we don't care about/have an opinion about.

*For example, if a DCP were praying a Christian prayer around my dd, I wouldn't give a flip. But I can guarantee that my in-laws in Turkey would care. If a DCP is praying in front of the kids, and you ask that they don't... is this controlling... or is it just something that matters to you?*

ETA: again, for the record... my dd has never been in day care and I've never been a DCP.


This is why I would choose a provider that had smililar values to me. I would not take my family to my neighbors Wiccan daycare because she very openly practices her religion in front of the children (who are mostly from Wiccan families) It would be silly of me to assume that I could tell her "that is just not who we are... please encourage her to pray a christian prayer" Not beause she couldn't/wouldn't but because it is not what I want my daughter (or sons) exposed too (not because it is "Bad" but because it is not who we are). A DCP should be allowed to run the day care to suit their needs and beliefs (barring illegal activity of course) and as a consumer I should be able to shop around a find a daycare that meets my needs and the needs of my child.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marcee* 
A DCP should be allowed to run the day care to suit their needs and beliefs (barring illegal activity of course) and as a consumer I should be able to shop around a find a daycare that meets my needs and the needs of my child.

Absolutely. But if you already have a great relationship with a DCP, and this is one point of contention... why is it "wrong" for the mother to say, "hey can you help me out with this...?" (whatever that "this" is)

I don't want to take this off-topic, but in my example, don't you think that you have a right as a parent to ask that if the DCP wanted to pray, that they do so in private (not in front of the kids?).

Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.

Perhaps a better analogy is giving a child a certain food. I would be livid to find out that my kid was getting cheap, processed foods. We don't eat it... ever... in our house. My choice as a mother is to ask that a DCP not give her that food and provide and alternative.

The mother in this case is doing the exact same thing... only difference is that it is a class of toys she is concerned about.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
I don't want to take this off-topic, but in my example, don't you think that you have a right as a parent to ask that if the DCP wanted to pray, that they do so in private (not in front of the kids?).

Well, if the parent put the child in care knowing the praying was going on, she could ask, but shouldn't except her wishes to be followed.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.
.

How exactly do you expect the dcp to continuously discourage this child when all the other children can play with the toys, without feelings being hurt and problems ensuing? 3 yr olds aren't exactly known for being reasonable.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic* 
Discouraging one child from playing with certain toys doesn't affect all of the children. This is not like prayer at a meal. It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do. She simply doesn't think she should have to because it's not something that is on her "how to raise a child" radar.

No, she doesn't think she should have to do it because she is uncomfortable acting as the mother's proxy in her campaign to coercively manipulate her child's developing gender identity.

Looking back at the original post, the mother's concern really seems to be about gender roles, not "commercialism" as such. Especially once you throw in the additional information about the mother being *just fine with her son playing with girly items*. I can't believe this has repeatedly gotten passed over in favor of a tangential debate about marketing.

As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

Now of course the mother has a right to have things as she wishes in her own home. If she wants to set her kid up for years of therapy by emotionally penalizing her every time she explores gender expressions that don't perfectly match the mother's own, hey, it's a free country, right? The OP isn't trying to buy the girl princess pink underwear and Dora shirts and send her home dressed like that in place of the clothes provided by the parents.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, *while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?*

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - *to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl*. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

Quote:

It is an individual situation that the DCP can easily do.
I think the issue is that that policing what toys a child plays with (of available toys) IS NOT easy to do. It is one thing for a parent to ask a DCP to do certain things consistent with their belief systems. It is completely different if those things cause SIGNIFICANTLY more work for DCP. Policing toys and taking toys away and perhaps dealing with the ensuing tantrum or discussion from the child would be A LOT more work (unless the child is unusually placid).

A similar example would be if a parent wanted a child to wear certain outfits for certain activites, and every day they sent their child with 5 different outfits and wanted them to wear one outfit for eating, another for indoor play, another for outdoor play, another for nap, another for art/crafts. I think it would be pretty unreasonable to expect a DCP to change a child's clothes 5 times a day.

Similiarly, I would think it would be unreasonable to expect a DCP to keep a child away from certain toys, or to spend lots of money and time replacing certain toys.


----------



## lolalola (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, *while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?*

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - *to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl*. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.

Well said, GalateaDunkel.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
No, she doesn't think she should have to do it because she is uncomfortable acting as the mother's proxy in her campaign to coercively manipulate her child's developing gender identity.

Looking back at the original post, the mother's concern really seems to be about gender roles, not "commercialism" as such. Especially once you throw in the additional information about the mother being *just fine with her son playing with girly items*. I can't believe this has repeatedly gotten passed over in favor of a tangential debate about marketing.

As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

Now of course the mother has a right to have things as she wishes in her own home. If she wants to set her kid up for years of therapy by emotionally penalizing her every time she explores gender expressions that don't perfectly match the mother's own, hey, it's a free country, right? The OP isn't trying to buy the girl princess pink underwear and Dora shirts and send her home dressed like that in place of the clothes provided by the parents.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, *while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?*

I sure want to know, myself.

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - *to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl*. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense. And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.


Yes, all that, absoloutely.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes?

Well, first of all, let's not get carried away with imagining the mother as some kind of cruel, controlling zealot, when there's really no evidence for that. All this stuff about policing the little girl all day long and grabbing girly toys out of her hands while she cries is just silly - the OP never said that was what the mother wanted. I imagine what she had in mind was that if the girl was looking for a new activity, the DCP shouldn't suggest dressing up in the girly clothes, and that, ideally, the DCP would try to get the girl interested in something like the doctor kit so she would forget about the dress-up clothes.

So, why shouldn't the girl just be allowed to like what she likes? The thing is, there are so many things that could be influencing what she likes, and they're not necessarily all good influences. Kids may decide they like certain things because they've seen them advertised on TV, because they see other kids playing with them, or because adults expect them to like those things . . . And even if a kid just naturally likes something with no outside influence, that doesn't automatically make it good, and it doesn't mean the parent should never try to steer the kid away from that thing. What if a kid likes Froot Loops, or Bratz dolls, or playing war, or shooting songbirds with a BB gun, or hanging out with a clique of popular kids who are mean to the unpopular kids, or looking at internet porn? (Just to list a few things that some of you are likely to be opposed to.)

If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.

I really don't see these as equal but I'm going to quit now. I agree with what Galetea wrote.

I see a difference between refusing to buy something and refusing to let a child play with it or even eat it at someone else's house. I understand it's more problematic when the child spends a lot of time at the other place (a day care provider FE versus a once a year visit to relatives) but I still think what the OP describes is fine (it's what my family does) and I guess the parents should think about looking for a more like-minded day care provider.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
If your kid loves Froot Loops and you refuse to buy them, you're not coercively manipulating your kid's identity. I really don't think expressing scorn for an obsession with dressing up and looking pretty is any worse than expressing scorn for Froot Loops.

But if you *do* buy Froot Loops and then let one of your kids eat them but not the other, that's ... just weird.


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

I just don't think it's that weird that the mother doesn't care if her son wears girly stuff. No matter how much he likes it now, she can be pretty sure all the influences around him will make him lose interest in that stuff before he's much older. She knows it's a passing phase for him, so she doesn't care. I think if I were her, I'd be more likely to assume the same was true for the girl, and not care so much about her liking pretty princess things as a 3 year old. But there's a lot of pressure for girls in our society to care about dressing up and looking pretty, so I can see why the mother might worry about it and want to minimize it as much as possible.

It's not as if the mother has actually said that her boy can dress up as much as he wants, but the girl is not allowed to. She just asked the DCP if she could try to encourage the girl to get interested in other things, without making the same request about the boy. It's like if you had one kid who seemed to want to eat sugary cereal all the time, and one who didn't care about it so much, and you asked your DCP to make a special effort to help the first kid learn to like different food, but didn't feel it was necessary for the second kid.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
I just don't think it's that weird that the mother doesn't care if her son wears girly stuff. No matter how much he likes it now, she can be pretty sure all the influences around him will make him lose interest in that stuff before he's much older. She knows it's a passing phase for him, so she doesn't care. I think if I were her, I'd be more likely to assume the same was true for the girl, and not care so much about her liking pretty princess things as a 3 year old. But there's a lot of pressure for girls in our society to care about dressing up and looking pretty, so I can see why the mother might worry about it and want to minimize it as much as possible.

It's not as if the mother has actually said that her boy can dress up as much as he wants, but the girl is not allowed to. She just asked the DCP if she could try to encourage the girl to get interested in other things, without making the same request about the boy. It's like if you had one kid who seemed to want to eat sugary cereal all the time, and one who didn't care about it so much, and you asked your DCP to make a special effort to help the first kid learn to like different food, but didn't feel it was necessary for the second kid.

Once again, this isn't parallel. We might expect that both children be gently pushed away from their stereotypical gender roles, so that the girl was kept away from dress-up clothes and the boy was kept away from trucks. If the mother also said she didn't want the boy to play with trucks and trains, then your point would make sense. But the mother specifically suggested buying a train table. It sounds like the boy is allowed to try out whatever toys are available and choose what he likes, while the girl is not allowed the same choices. And, what's more, it sounds like "girly" is being labeled as "bad" and "boyish" is being labeled as "OK".


----------



## Nicole77 (Oct 20, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
As a woman it really shocks me how many women on this forum are so dogmatically devoted to repressing certain gender expressions that the little girl's feelings aren't even a factor in the discussion so far!

If it were a fundamentalist Christian mother telling the DCP to not let her kid play with "boy" toys, instead to redirect her to the kitchen playset, etc., because it's against her religion to cross traditional gender roles, the responses on this thread would be radically different.

When I see little girls wanting to adorn themselves being compared to guns and violence, it makes me sick.

All the DCP is asking to do is not to have to make this little girl unnecessarily miserable. The original question was, why isn't she (THE LITTLE GIRL) allowed to like froo froo stuff??? The DCP isn't pushing gender roles. She gives no disapproval to the little girl's brother for playing with the girlie stuff. It's a very valid question - why isn't the girl allowed to like what she likes? The OP isn't really asking what she should do as far as the policy of her business. She seems to know her own mind pretty well about day care policy and has apparently handled other sensitive situations in the past. What she wants to know is why she is being asked to enforce restrictive gender norms. She wants to know, why the discriminatory policing of a young child's imaginative play?????????

*I think on some level, looking at this family, the differential treatment of daughter and son, she would probably also like to know: what is so awful about being female that gender-typical female interests must be quashed, while the boy is free to define himself as he chooses?

I sure want to know, myself.*

It's none of her business, you may say. But she has to take care of this child, she obviously has benevolent concern for this child, and as a child care provider she is in this family's business whether they like it or not. She has been afforded a glimpse into something very ugly, masked as a liberal ideal. It's not just that she's being asked to do something she doesn't want to do.

If I were the DCP I would find it violating to be asked to do this - to tell a little girl she can't play with certain things because she is a girl. To be asked to monitor, limit, and control a child's play experiences based on gender. *As a woman, I wouldn't be able to do it. As a woman, I would find it degrading. The mother is asking the DCP to become the kind of person who puts limits on what girls can do, be, think and feel. That's not something that can be turned on and off. It's a matter of deep philosophical perspective, perhaps even spiritual in a sense.* And it's just not covered by the day care fees. The OP is right to be perplexed and bothered by this situation.

*But I am glad this little girl is being exposed to a woman who can model being relaxed and comfortable about female identity. Because she's sure not getting it at home.*

(bolding mine) You took the words right out of my mouth. The whole situation is rotten, rotten, rotten and completely antithetical to every feminist value the mother is probably thinking she is instilling. It is exactly this kind of crap that leads to grown women declaring that they are not feminists because they chose to get married and have children or even leave the paid work force to be home with their kids. And they are convinced that these choice is something that all feminists frown upon.







:


----------



## Daffodil (Aug 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Once again, this isn't parallel. We might expect that both children be gently pushed away from their stereotypical gender roles, so that the girl was kept away from dress-up clothes and the boy was kept away from trucks. If the mother also said she didn't want the boy to play with trucks and trains, then your point would make sense. But the mother specifically suggested buying a train table. It sounds like the boy is allowed to try out whatever toys are available and choose what he likes, while the girl is not allowed the same choices. And, what's more, it sounds like "girly" is being labeled as "bad" and "boyish" is being labeled as "OK".

Well, no, it's not parallel. I don't know exactly what the mother is thinking, but I guess I'm assuming her ideas are similar to mine, but a bit more extreme. So I don't imagine she's trying to push both kids away from stereotypical gender roles; I imagine she's trying to push both kids away from any idea she finds silly or harmful, without regard to whether it's traditionally considered a "boy thing" or a "girl thing."

She probably thinks an obsession with looking pretty and having lots of pretty clothes is foolish and unhealthy. Not because it's a "girly" thing but just because it really IS foolish and unhealthy. We don't know whether she thinks everything "boyish" is okay. It may well be that there are "boy" things she doesn't like - violent games, for instance. Maybe she'll want to gently push her boy away from those things if he starts to get interested in them, in the same way she wants to guide her daughter away from girly dress-up stuff.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
A variety is important here I would think, doctors, vets, police, aprons, high heels AND construction and hiking boots, hats, hats and more hats, mens clothes, womens clothes, sparkly stuff, plain stuff, etc, etc. You get the idea. .

The thing is I HAVE all that other stuff. I have the fireman, construction dress ups, I have LOADS of animal costumes, I have JUST TWO pairs of girly dress up things, and TWO pairs of beads. ALL she cares about are those purple shoes, and those purple beads.

The kid has been here for over a year now. This obsession is less than two months old, and Mom is frantic over it.

SHe only wants to wear sundresses now. MOm isn't at ALL happy about that. But, every single day, she comes over in a sun dress. If it was such a big deal to mom, why are there dresses in her closet? Why is it MY responsibilty to steer her away from these things, when MOm can't?

Besides that... It's HOT here. Those sundresses are a whole lot more comfortable than her other clothes. I think sundresses are a great idea!

Anyway.. I am pretty sure that if Mom would just stop worrying so much, that by September, this child will have a new obsession... it may still be pink, sparkly, and pretty.. but, I bet it wont be those shoes.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daffodil* 
Well, first of all, let's not get carried away with imagining the mother as some kind of cruel, controlling zealot,.


She is not cruel or controlling at all. SHe is very nice, and as a daycare parent, (business) She is great! Picks up on time, pays on time, remembers supplies...

She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise. I have her work on her name every day, AND she gets to participate in the craft. The little girl likes art, but doesn't love it. She likes to write, but doesn't love it.

This mom doesn't believe in celebrating birthdays. But, we always celebrate birthdays at our house. Except for their birthdays. (they don't know when it's their birthday)

It isn't a religious thing. They just have their own ideas.

The very first issue to come up was food. I REALLY had to work hard on that one. Because as I have already said, I am NOT a super healthy cook. I really had to learn.


----------



## nina_yyc (Nov 5, 2006)

To me, this is not about commercialism or gender roles at all. It's about asking for special treatment for your kid. This mom's sense of entitlement bugs me more than anything else. It also seems to me like she's trying to impose her values in a pretty heavy-handed way. Maybe she's not controlling, but she's definitely micro-managing.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

I think this kids mother is WRONG, very wrong. There is nothing wrong with her pushing the non-gender specific toys on her child but there has to be an equal amount of things or else her child will ofcourse want what she doesn't want her to have.







I have boys that played with not only boy toys but baby dolls when they were little and a little girl that plays with matchbox cars, dinosaurs and train sets almost as much as she loves her dolls. It all equals out. That's a part of being a kid.

It sounds like this little girl is making up for lost time. She doesn't have access to this stuff in the home so she is going crazy at daycare, lol! I see nothing wrong with it. She sounds normal to me and it sounds like she is doing what comes normal to a lot of females, which is playing with girlie stuff. If it's something she is doing naturally by her own choice then why would ANY parent want to discourage that? She has many years to be exposed to varoius different things. Her mother sounds very closed minded and mean. If she isn't careful her child will turn in to her worst enemy one day, how sad.


----------



## mommy68 (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
She is not cruel or controlling at all. SHe is very nice, and as a daycare parent, (business) She is great! Picks up on time, pays on time, remembers supplies...

She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise. I have her work on her name every day, AND she gets to participate in the craft. The little girl likes art, but doesn't love it. She likes to write, but doesn't love it.

This mom doesn't believe in celebrating birthdays. But, we always celebrate birthdays at our house. Except for their birthdays. (they don't know when it's their birthday)

It isn't a religious thing. They just have their own ideas.

The very first issue to come up was food. I REALLY had to work hard on that one. Because as I have already said, I am NOT a super healthy cook. I really had to learn.

You are great for going along with this mother and trying to work with her. Not many daycare providers would do that. What I don't understand is how she can be so rigid and weird about what her child is doing but yet she feels no guilt in working all day and dropping her off at a daycare to be cared for?







: This woman is a real case, I tell ya. And i'm not downing daycares, I used them for all 3 of my kids at some point when they were younger.







But this woman you are dealing with seems to be contradicting herself. If she wants her child to be protected from life and from the world around her then IMHO she needs to be a SAHM. That's the only way she can come close to keeping her child out of the real world.

I wonder if she is going to quit work when it's time for her child to start school so she can stay so close minded??? I hope she realizes it will get MUCH worse once the child starts school.







No school teacher is going to do what you do. The child will constantly be failing school because in elementary it's not all about learning, but lots of arts, playing and being a kid!


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
She and I just think a little differently. For instance, I love to let the kids do art. She wants her daughter to be writing her name. Art is a waste of time to her. SO we compromise.

Okay, now that I REALLY have a problem with. Art is NOT a waste of time. It's important in so many ways. Now if the kid has no interest, fine. I have a kid who's not really into arts and crafts but we always have done SOME.

Also I think making a 3 yo practice writing her name is a bit much. UNLESS the 3yo has displayed an interest. None of my kids were interested at 3 but maybe some are?


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *marybethorama* 
Okay, now that I REALLY have a problem with. Art is NOT a waste of time. It's important in so many ways. Now if the kid has no interest, fine. I have a kid who's not really into arts and crafts but we always have done SOME.

Also I think making a 3 yo practice writing her name is a bit much. UNLESS the 3yo has displayed an interest. None of my kids were interested at 3 but maybe some are?

That isn't al that unusual. Many parents would rather thier kids be doing academics than art. They would be happier with a worksheet than a painting. I have had parents ask me if I would be willing to teach a second language and have more computers available to the kids.

"Sure, if you donate the computers"

But, wanting a academic structured pre-school setting isn't that strange. I have at least two or three a year that ask me at the interview about this. We usually decide that my program isn't a good fit.

Thats why I prefer to work with teachers and their kids. We all seem to be on the same page, and it flows so nicely. Plus the parents all know each other, so it's like family.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy68* 
What I don't understand is how she can be so rigid and weird about what her child is doing but yet she feels no guilt in working all day and dropping her off at a daycare to be cared for? [snip] If she wants her child to be protected from life and from the world around her then IMHO she needs to be a SAHM. That's the only way she can come close to keeping her child out of the real world.


I don't want to start the whole WOHM/SAHM debate - but who is to day that she feels no guilt about this? Who is to say that their financial situation doesn't require two working parents? As well, perhaps it is important to her to show her daughter that women have choices other than staying at home and caring for children. I am not saying that I agree with this mother's philosophy, but can we please stop the privileged "If you don't like daycare, stay at home" argument?


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial* 
That isn't al that unusual. Many parents would rather thier kids be doing academics than art. They would be happier with a worksheet than a painting.

Ai yi yi.

I think doing art is right up there with reading to them as the best thing one can do with kids. I do know some parents don't want to do art projects at home so they send their kids to preschool and find other opportunities but I just can't imagine discouraging it altogether.

Like I said before, I'm not talking about forcing a child to do art projects, but making materials available and following their interests. One of my kids used to make me draw pictures of trees and envelopes-hundreds of them. So that's what we did. He's not really crafty but he is creative in other ways.

I find it a bit ironic that the mother in the OP is against her child doing art but she's so worried about commercial characters. That does sound controlling to me. I've known other parents like who are against commercial things AND against art. I'm not saying this woman is like them-I don't know here obviously but I must say I do wonder.

If you want a creative child, I sincerely believe the best way is to give them the opportunity to be creative.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I don't want to start the whole WOHM/SAHM debate - but who is to day that she feels no guilt about this? Who is to say that their financial situation doesn't require two working parents? As well, perhaps it is important to her to show her daughter that women have choices other than staying at home and caring for children. I am not saying that I agree with this mother's philosophy, but can we please stop the privileged "If you don't like daycare, stay at home" argument?

ITA w/this. You summed it up well, so I will leave it at that.

Shay


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I don't want to start the whole WOHM/SAHM debate - but who is to day that she feels no guilt about this? Who is to say that their financial situation doesn't require two working parents? As well, perhaps it is important to her to show her daughter that women have choices other than staying at home and caring for children. I am not saying that I agree with this mother's philosophy, but can we please stop the privileged "If you don't like daycare, stay at home" argument?

SHe HAS to work. She is also in school, so the income is very important.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I don't want to start the whole WOHM/SAHM debate - but who is to day that she feels no guilt about this? Who is to say that their financial situation doesn't require two working parents? As well, perhaps it is important to her to show her daughter that women have choices other than staying at home and caring for children. I am not saying that I agree with this mother's philosophy, but can we please stop the privileged "If you don't like daycare, stay at home" argument?

I agree with that and I also think that nextcommercial's daycare is a great place for kids


----------

