A friend of mine, Lyla Wolfenstein, posted a link to this article on her Facebook page tonight: Mother and Child Communion: A Collective Challenge for Our Future
While I’m a fan of biologically appropriate parenting, and have been known to say that I believe in attachment theory the same way I believe in the theory of gravity, I was, shall we say, a bit inspired by much of the piece. (We could, a bit more precisely, say “pissed the **** off at”. But “inspired” sounds so much more refined, don’t you think?)
Some highlights:
The past fifty years of social and human-rights evolution has flung open doors and choices to women; and yet, the past fifteen years of advances in brain and developmental science have given us information that should—if we’re paying attention—make those choices harder: Relationship with a consistent, stable, attuned, loving adult, within a predictable, stable environment, is what builds a healthy brain and develops a successful human, period. [emphasis in original]
…
Those who are equipped to really enjoy being with their children, who find full-time mothering an enriching experience, are still a cultural anomaly! It is no wonder then, in a society where social programs are driven by consumer demand of the economic majority, that we don’t have family leave, career flexibility, and other policies that would support mothers and children being together for the critical first three years. We wish we wanted them, but do we really?
Apart from the extrapolation from “in those early weeks and months, it is mother whom the child knows from their nine months of prenatal communion, it is mother whose very body, voice, smell, heartbeat and essence is perceived as an extension of his very being” to “mothers and children being together for the critical first three years“, I had a few, ah, issues with the article. This is what I wrote in response:
The article presents a false dichotomy: women at home, or mother-infant separation. It’s only in our current (kyriarchal) culture that those are the only two choices. As unnatural and harmful that separation of the maternal-infant dyad is, so is the isolation of that dyad from a greater society. Women in this culture, and in many others, are thus faced with the choice of damaging their infant, or damaging themselves, and through them, their infant (because it is a dyad, and harm to one is harm to both) — when they even have the privilege of having that choice at all.
Some of us do OK parenting in isolation (some of us thrive on it, and some of us can stay at home without isolation, and some very very few of us have the option to work in society with others and take care of our babies in those early months) — just like some babies do OK with separation (some babies thrive in a child-care setting, and some very few babies get carried along with their mother while she engages in other work as well). But it’s not the norm. It’s not the biological default. And it’s really not OK to present “maternal-infant separation and infant damage” and “maternal-infant (isolation)” as the only two options, and say one is inherently superior, when what we need to do is fix society, so everyone has options that can work for all parties — and the freedom to actually pick that which works for that particular family, at that particular time, because not only each woman but each dyad is different.
The article gives a nominal nod to the idea of societal changes, but mentions mostly those which continue to leave the dyad isolated: family leave (at least not maternity-only leave!), and “career flexibility” — only those that allow for “full-time mothering”. How about options to bring the baby in to work? Connecting primary caregivers together (work shared is work lessened)? Bringing the dyad into community, and not just by offering “Mummy and Me” music hours, but with support, and responsibilities, and real relationships? And yes, non-institutional child care options, and all-parent leave, and support for grandparents and other allomothers to build those stable, loving bonds through daily care?
Until we address the societal institutions and policies and oppressions and beliefs that force us into false dichotomies, into harming one OR another (if we are lucky enough to have any choice at all), and as long as it is seen as a “woman’s choice”, not society’s responsibility, I maintain that calls for “mother-child communion” will be functionally, if not intentionally, misogynistic, and little more than another volley in the “mommy wars” this piece purports to reject.
Lyla further replied with this, which I think is an eloquent call for talking about both “brain and developmental science” and the constricting, restrictive realities currently faced by the vast majority of women:
i think it’s so important to really understand our babies’ and children’s biological imperatives, the biological norms they are programmed to expect, and the impacts of ignoring those, or circumventing them. and i appreciated that this article called out those truths, violating the “cultural code of silence” – but i also totally agree that the “solutions” presented, and the false dichotomy, are not helpful in truly transforming the experience of mothers and children in our culture.
it would have been beautiful to build on those biological truths to reach for deep, meaningful, and far reaching solutions, rather than rely on the same dichotomy by which the “cultural code of silence” is inspired in the first place.
Can we do that? Can we have a conversation in which biological sciences are not used to browbeat women into submission to patriarchal, heterocentric norms? in which women’s struggle for autonomy is not at the cost of belittling or dismissing the needs of another marginalized group? in which we acknowledge the vast variety of configurations families come in? in which we acknowledge that there is not one universal solution, because we are all different? in which we do not place societal influence and personal autonomy in opposition to each other, because both are equally real? in which we do not allow any dichotomies, because they are all inherently false? in which we have a sincere, nuanced, respectful exchange of ideas instead of a mud-slinging and name-flinging shouting match?
And then, perhaps, could we go out and actually do something to help women and parents (of any gender) and children?
Because that would be nice.
I heartily agree!
I’m a conscientious objector in the ‘Mommy Wars’ (like most wars it benefits no one but the kyriarchy…) I need to find more useful ways to be a peacemaker there, though.
Normally I absolutely adore your blog. I’ve been lurking for a few months now and reading all the old posts I could find.
right now I can’t quite figure out what you are saying… I personally work outside the home and constantly feel guilty about the benefits I haven’t offered my child because of it. I don’t think it’s a false dichotomy at all – I think the dichotomy is real in our society RIGHT NOW.
Do you seriously think a viable solution is to bring our babies to work with us!? I can’t imagine a more ridiculous suggestion. Not only would I not enough work done, I would also not pay requisite attention to my baby. I tried to work from home yesterday while watching my 17 month old daughter in a snow storm… I did a terrible job at both mothering and working. I can not imagine a more frustrating daily experience.
You’re right, it is real in the here and now, for the vast majority of us (if we even have the choice between the two at all). But both the article and I are talking about how to improve the way things are — the article, by telling all women-who-birth to stay home, me, by saying let’s create a whole host of alternative solutions that people have real ability to choose between.
And yes, for some people, some of the time, bringing babies in to work is a viable solution, though usually only in the first few months to a year. I personally know a handful of people who have done it, and an office or two where it is the norm. Right now, this is something that only a very very small minority have the option to do, and even for those who theoretically could, it is unappealing, if not impossible, because the office culture doesn’t support it. But I think it could, in some circumstances, some of the time (more than is viable now). If one parent were not the only one doing it, alone, with the expectation to “keep the kid quiet, or else”, still faced with both an over-full work load and full responsibility for the child — if many people did it, helped each other, had options for reduced work loads with still-livable pay, then yes, I think bringing babies in to work can be one potential solution for some people.
But, just because it would work, does work, for some people doesn’t mean it should be the only option we endorse or pursue. Some people, no matter how much support their office offered, still wouldn’t want to. Many people are working in jobs where it’s not really an option (such as a fast-food restaurant), and are far more concerned about simply earning enough to stay afloat (or don’t even have that). Some people would much rather just stay home with their kids. Some people would rather work part time, and be able to focus all their energy on work or kid in turn, rather than full time both with split attention. Some people would rather work out of the home full time, knowing their kid is still nurtured in a secure, attached environment.
The point is that if we’re still arguing over whether mother-at-home-full-time or kid-in-daycare-full-time is better, we’re still asking the wrong damn questions. There are so many more potential solutions, so many of which would be far better than either of those for a majority of families, while still meeting a baby’s need for attachment. If we’re still pretending that there’s a one-size-fits-all answer, and it’s one of the only two currently widely considered available, then we’re never going to get to real family-friendly, women-friendly, kid-friendly solutions.
And yes, for some people, some of the time, bringing babies in to work is a viable solution, though usually only in the first few months to a year. I personally know a handful of people who have done it, and an office or two where it is the norm.
Yes, I work at such an office. For the past 8 years, a woman has brought in her children to work with her. I don’t find my work at all affected by it. They stay out of our offices, and I enjoy hearing the laughter from the littlest one bouncing in his chair. I hear stories from co-workers of how they would even change a dirty diaper or two when she needed a hand. And yet I find this infuriating.
Why? Because I have a child too! This woman makes way more than I do, she has a second income through her husband. I, the single mother, have to pay 1/3 of my paycheck out a month for daycare simply so that I can work. But I’m not the daughter of the owner, she is.
So to have to watch someone else with such an opportunity every day, and to not have it offered to myself, it’s quite a bitter pill to swallow.
PS. Your comment box is evil. It ate my first comment, into which I had poured a lot of emotion.
First the PS: I am Very Annoyed with my comment box right now (and very, very sorry it ate your first comment). I upgraded a couple things that needed upgrading, and I disabled OpenID. I’m annoyed at the loss of functionality, but I’d much rather comments actually get through, especially when people are so thoughtful in them. I don’t know if it’ll help, but here’s hoping…
Please, anyone who tries to comment and fails: email me at arwyn at raisingmyboychick.com so I know about it, if you would be so kind. Also, copy your comments before you hit submit so they’re not completely lost — but I’ll keep working on fixing it so you don’t have to.
Onwards…
So to have to watch someone else with such an opportunity every day, and to not have it offered to myself, it’s quite a bitter pill to swallow.
Oh absolutely. I also get all ranty when people say “just take your baby to work with you!”, because that option simply isn’t there for most of us, even those of us who work in an environment where it could work (like you, I imagine) — and who gets that option here and now is so completely tied in with privilege, especially class privilege. It’s simply unforgivable and unacceptable to offer it only to the already highest-paid, most-privileged of us, and to have your face rubbed in it? I’d be livid too.
I do think that to create change will require individuals to work for more, for better (while acknowledging that the ability to do so is usually based in privilege of resources and connections that those who need it most often don’t have access to), but I talk about it here because we also have to change the conversation. As long as everyone from mommy bloggers to “attachment experts” to federal and policy wonks are talking only about how to pay for institutional daycare OR supporting maternity leave (as though the two were both the only available options and were mutually exclusive), when they’re talking “solutions” at all, we’re never going to be able to envision and create real, viable, vibrant options.
You’re preaching to the choir with me. I really think that what families need is options. We are all different, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. But if we have choices, then we can craft our own best solutions, and change them with our changing needs.
It’s so bizarre that there are women who’ve never held a baby who suddenly are at home alone all day long with one. I think it’s an outrage that what passes for ‘family friendly’ policy fights against flexibility and a reasonable combination of work and family. If we really want to support parents and children, limiting their choices or sticking them in a box of our making is not the way to do it. Being there with them, fostering community, allowing choice and accepting children out in the world are all important first steps.
I completely agree with you. I think there is a complete lack of community for working moms. There are mommy groups and activities for babies and kids during the day, but if moms work during those hours, we miss everything. I have a very hard time meeting other parents, and yet my own friends have vanished from my life now that I am not able to go out for a drink at night or do the things we used to do spontaneously.
And yes, every family is different. Every family deserves to have options that work for them. But what about PAY? Some of us need our whole salary, and our whole attention to do our job.
I also think the ‘attachment parent’ types should give us some slack. I’m sick of reading that my baby is going to grow up with attachment disorders just because I have to work. I do everything I can to make sure she is happy and healthy… can that ever be enough?
Part of the point of this post was that you’re right, especially in the system as it is: it’s ridiculous to tell women their babies are being damaged because they have to, or choose to (usually out of a limited set of options), work away from their children, to browbeat us in to believing there is only one “right way” to raise our children. So much of attachment propaganda is based in valid science — children’s need for secure attachment with caregivers, young infants’ biological enmeshment with those who gestated and birthed them — but then is used as a weapon against women, to guilt trip, to shame, to attempt to control, to limit our choices. This is misogynist; this is unacceptable. Yet so too is throwing out what we know about infants’ and children’s health, as some would have us do.
This is why I want to talk about choices, about more options, about possibilities not currently possible. Including, if someone wants or needs to work full-time away from their young children, how else can we meet their children’s needs? There are so many ways, from close-by nurseries to stable, loving child care to grandparents to alloparents to things that haven’t even occurred to me. And it’s not just women’s responsibility to find those options or be labeled a “bad mother”; it’s also society’s responsibility to make those choices available, or truly earn the label “bad society”.
It is only the limitations and oppressions of kyriarchy that tell us we can have one OR the other, women’s autonomy OR babies’ attachment. Which is why we have to imagine options outside the status quo; which is why I wrote the next post.
That part about mommy groups really strikes a chord with me. I work full time and my husband stays home with our daughter. I’ve wanted to take her out to the Early Years Centre to play together, but it’s only open during my work hours. They even close on holidays when I’m available! Meanwhile, they have special evenings and Saturdays specifically for dads to bring their kids in and I’ve been told that I can’t come because I’m a mom. I see the point of having dads only times since some dads don’t feel comfortable with all the moms, but even once a week for ALL working parents would be nice.
Pingback: The solutions are… here « Raising My Boychick
First of all, the workplace would have to be willing to allow babies. Once you get over that hurdle, the mom has to be willing, and the baby has to be willing too! As a newborn, my daughter cried whenever I put her in a sling so I spent my entire maternity leave just holding her, with my arms. I would not have been able to work one bit! I barely even checked my email during that time. Now that she is a toddler, she wants me to be engaging with her 100% of the time unless I set her in front of the TV, which obviously is not beneficial to anyone – she would be better off engaging with her babysitter (in my opinion) than watching TV while I work. It seems to me like a very few lucky moms who would be able to enjoy the ability to work with their babies.
ok, so here is some of my epic comment (i have posted the last bit on your follow-up post, because it seemed more fitting there):
once again, you (and lyla) hit the nail on the head.
with regard to this issue, i often wonder about the marginalization of “secondary” caregivers as well–more often than not, the parent who didn’t give birth to the child (if it is a biological child). this can often mean fathers, but i’ve recently seen examples in my own life of two-mother families where the mother who bore the child and is nursing is somehow seen as the “real” mother or more of a parent.
i understand and respect the importance of the mother-baby relationship as it pertains to biologically appropriate parenting (e.g., in general, it is the biological mother who breastfeeds the child), but i often wonder whether this relationship is sometimes used/aggrandized in order to perpetuate a more abstract, patriarchal interpretation of the role of “mother” (as you outlined so well above). i also wonder where this interpretation leaves other parents (or more importantly, children’s relationships with them). (see: attachment parenting does not equal attachment mothering).
as for the work/stay home thing…well, we’ve all got to make an honest living somehow. but i think this issue goes far beyond mothers and children, and we must dig a lot deeper for the answers to much broader questions–for example, why is it now the norm in our society that in order to make a living, a working person must be alienated from his/her home life to one extent or another? this is true not only for parents, but for any working adults in any kind of living situation. for most people, time spent at work also means time not spent at home–in one’s home community, applying one’s self to valuable domestic pursuits (growing or cooking food, household maintenance, nurturing relationships with one’s housemates or neighbors, caring for children if there are any). some would say we can trace this convention back to the industrial revolution, when former farm workers left their homesteads to work in the factories all day. i think that this, in part, has led to our current set of cultural assumptions:
1. someone in the household must do paid work in order to make a living
2. in order to work, we must leave home and go to a workplace
3. ideally, infants should not be separated from their mothers for extended periods of time
4. infants/children do not belong in the workplace
5. “staying home” as a caregiver means making an infant/child the center of one’s undivided attention
6. therefore, mothers must stay home and not to go work OR they must be separated from their infants in order to work (which apparently, according to some folks, will make the child a “huddled heap of despair.”)
7. therefore, non-mother parents are the only ones who can go to work, so they must go to work and not stay home.
if i look at those assumptions for a while, i feel like really there are only two that hold water on a very basic level: (1) and (3). the others, to varying degrees, are products of the society we live in. each of us has a different amount of privilege and resources and circumstance that allows us to go against societal norms if we are so inclined: some families are able to get by on one parent’s full-time income, or two or more parents’ part-time income. some people are able to telecommute or operate a home-based business. some (very few, indeed) have an out-of-the-home workplace that supports the presence of infants and children, and so on.
but the reality is, the majority of us have none of these options available (which is why, among other reasons, i don’t think it’s very realistic or progressive to expect women to all want to quit their jobs and wholeheartedly embrace “mother-child communion”).
I think if I continue putting off replying to this comment until I can do it justice, I’ll never reply at all. Like I wrote elsewhere, I was tempted to delete my posts and replace them with this (and your other) comment. Needless to say: yes. I agree.
This all strikes a real chord with me. I had/have lots of mothers-and-babies groups to go to, and yet the nuclear structure of the family continues to make me feel incredibly isolated in those long hours when something isn’t scheduled. I try to create pseudo-collective groups and am sometimes disappointed by the lack of response from people. The concept of something other than what seems “normal” to them is difficult to develop for many to grasp. And the whole weight of our culture is undermining any such efforts.
Well this is eerie. Just the other day I was thinking about the research that shows a baby’s crying is different with its mother vs another caregiver. I have mentioned it on several lists, thinking it would be an interesting topic, but it is like some huge can of worms and nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole! I was JUST thinking, I wonder if Arwyn has taken that one on, or if not, I should suggest it. I am psychic!
Oh, and great as always. :)
Do not know about babies crying differently for mothers than for others.
But I have seen (and been) a child who did that.