Analysis of the Kids Are All Right by Susan Faludi

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