Analysis of The Kids Are All Right by Susan
Faludi
Kids are crawling around in the dirt, screaming, and have not yet had their
diapers changed because the day care provider seems to be in a trance watching
the latest episode of the Montel Williams show. One of the workers strikes a
child because she won’t stop crying about how hungry she is. The other worker
just sits in her chair drinking Jack Daniels with a little Coke mixed in. Not
all is well at the Wee World Child Center. But is this the impression that the
public perceives of our daycare system in America?
Well, most people would say that this is how only a few daycares are run. But
many people would still state that kids who have not been in daycare have a
better chance at a more enjoyable life than those who have. Susan Faludi, who
frequently writes about women’s issues and is the author of Backlash: The
Undeclared War Against American Women, promotes daycare as an enhancement in a
child’s life. In her essay, The Kids Are All Right, she claims that kids who
attend daycare are more social, experimental, self-assured, cooperative and
creative. Faludi’s argument is convincing because she provides solid
authoritative sources, gives personal experiences of other girls who have been
in day care, and refutes other researchers claims.
Susan Faludi dives right into her argument and hits us with an informative
source. Faludi cites Alison Clarke-Stewart, a professor of social ecology at
the University California at Irvine, who found that social and intellectual
development of children in day care was six to nine months ahead of children
who stayed at home. This source is reliable because the author of the statement
is an expert in the field of social ecology. Therefore this is an opinionative
informative source because the researcher could be biased toward one side of
the argument or the other. This matters to Faludi because audience could
question the reliability of the source.
Susan Faludi also cites personal experience in the form of interviews done by
Delores Gold and David Andres in paragraph number two. The interviews of the
girls provide not only data on childcare accountability, but also serve to put
a personal and more intimate effect on the argument. The interviews have a
great effect on the reader because they are grounded in reality and have been
conducted by experienced researchers. Readers find this type of persuasive
tactic convincing because audiences respond better to real people rather than
statistics.
The final part of Susan Faludi’s essay refutes and disproves other researchers
claims that childcare has negative effects on children. Her critics state that
in day care newborns will suffer permanent damage. The studies concluded that
infants who were taken from their mothers had tendencies later toward juvenile
delinquency and mental illness. Faludi then goes on to state that these studies
do not apply because the test subjects had not been taken from childcare
centers, but rather from orphanages and hospital institutions. Faludi clearly
uses the argumentative tool of rebuttal. First, she gives a different
perspective on the issue that has not agreed with the rest of her paper. Then
she explains to the audience why the source is unreliable.
The other source she finds to be unreliable is that of Jay Belsky, once a
leading supporter of childcare. Jay Belsky, a psychologist from Pennsylvania
State University, stated that “there were few if any significant differences
between children raised at home and those in childcare centers.” Then he
announced that he had changed his mind: Children whose mothers work more than
twenty hours a week in their first year develop an insecure attachment towards
their mothers. Faludi refutes the previous statement by saying that in one of
the tests the study’s panel of judges found the infants to be insecure and in
the other the panel found just the opposite. The difference in the results was
traced to the judges’ own bias against childcare. In the one study the judges
were not told ahead of time which babies were in day care and which were not,
but in the other study they were.
Both of the previous paragraphs serve to refute a claim made by a critic of
childcare. This way of argument is most convincing because she provides two
good sources on the subject of the argument then disproves them and finds holes
in their reasoning. Faludi does this to establish rebuttal in her essay. The
purpose this serves is to give the audience another valid viewpoint on
childcare, then give reasons why that viewpoint may not be so valid.
In her essay, Susan Faludi successfully shows that childcare is beneficial to
children of all ages. The essay changed my view of daycare also. I was a
daycare child for most of my youth. Until I read this essay, I never considered
that my days in childcare could have been the reason for my independent and
socially advanced nature. Certainly the daycare I attended was nothing like the
one I described in the opening paragraph. The target audience, which is working
parents, childcare providers, and people who have doubts about childcare, would
be affected in a positive way by this essay.