Full-Time Mothers And Other Novelty Items
Interesting piece in the London Times by Carole Sarler, noting that only now is it possible to be anything other than a working mom. She calls it "the mother of all myths" -- the notion that children need full-time "mums," and notes that "such a creature has rarely existed."
Actually, I'd say, from reading the work of John Bowlby, what children need is "secure attachment" -- parents who love them, provide a secure base for them, and respond (reasonably) to their needs. This doesn't necessarily mean they're all over the kids 24/seven.
Here are a few excerpts from Sarler's piece:
CUE PURSED lips and disapproval: while feckless mothers sneak off to enjoy themselves in the workplace, “record numbers” of children under 5 are going to day nurseries. Almost 12,000 of these institutions now tend to 704,200 children, representing a rise of 31 per cent in five years and providing ample fodder for a rash of social studies showing that children thus cared for become more disobedient and disruptive than those looked after by their mothers at home.In fact, most of the small print also adds that such irritating behaviour is only marginally increased and it has also been shown that the nursery alumni go on to do better both at school and later in life. Next week a new book called What Children Need by Jane Waldfogel, an American professor of childcare, goes further: it suggests that at least part-time work is actually positive for mother and child. But no matter. The guilt-inducing damage to parents is already done by the implicit perpetuation of the most tenacious of contemporary myths: that young children historically, traditionally and therefore properly have grown up under the constant, vigilant, hands-on care of their mothers.
The truth is that this has never been the case. Further: it is not the part-time mother who has been fashioned by and for modern woman; it is the full-time mother who is recent — a construct, actually, of only the past three or four decades. Before that, women had neither the time, the luxury nor, in many cases, the inclination to devote their waking hours to the raising of their children.
Rich women, certainly, were never so inclined. Maternity and wet nurses leapt in at the cessation of labour, to be replaced by nannies and later by governesses; centuries of aristocracy were littered with mothers who would not have expected ever to see their own children naked. They would no more involve themselves with the messy demands of either ends of the infant body than they would consider a child’s competence with his letters or her embroidery to be any of their business.
Nor was this simply the entitlement of the uppermost elite. Even the relatively solvent middle classes sought to avail themselves of similar service; Mrs Winifred Banks might not have had a board meeting to chair, but nevertheless thought it quite her due that Mary Poppins should dance attendance upon her offspring. Indeed, when the Norland Institute was established in 1892, its famous nannies were trained to expect that all aspects of the care and upbringing of children would be wholly delegated to them. In recent years, to be fair, this assumption has softened to allow the possibility that interested parents might care to have a say; still, one meets grown men who will shed a heavier tear at the death of their old nanny than of their old Mater.
Poor women, traditionally, did not sit around all day minding their toddlers. Chance would have been a fine thing. Poor women worked in fields and factories, often with babies strapped to them until they had given birth to enough of them that the older cared for the younger in a haphazard daisy chain of comfort — and when mother and children saw each other at the beginning or end of the day, it was a brief encounter across the additional labours of feeding and cleansing essentials.
And so to the middle classes, those most beset today by weighing guilt against gain and most susceptible to the accusation that the daily excursions by women to places of earning are robbing their children of the dedicated childraising selflessly exemplified by their mothers and grandmothers before them. To them one can only say this: beware, for propaganda has sapped accuracy from your memory.
Certainly these women leant to the selfless. But they were not, ever, full-time mothers; they were, as their husbands and their status required, full-time housewives. A different matter altogether.
To learn to speak the language of babies (if you must, say, because you've given birth to one), check out BBHonline.org -- great program, across the US and Canada, via John Gottman and his former grad student, Alyson Shapiro.
Take it from me -- that's mostly bullshit. Middle-class english Mums in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s could ABSOLUTELY NOT afford nursemaid power. It just wasn't done. They did the full mothering job until the brats were either sent off to boarding school or grew up enough to look after themselves. As for that "eldest raises the rest" idea, that's a feature of Irish life, not English. Judging by the eloquence and ingenuity of the Irish, it works pretty well.
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at June 30, 2006 7:07 AM
But, the middle classes had much more housework and work in general (no microwaveable dinners), so they weren't just driving their kids around to activities all day.
Amy Alkon at June 30, 2006 7:34 AM
A great book that explodes the myths of the "Leave It To Beaver" image of family life is The Way We Never Were by Stephanie Coontz. A lot of conservo's suffer from nostalgia for a world that (for most people) never was.
deja pseu at June 30, 2006 7:51 AM
I know Stephanie through the Council On Contemporary Familiies...she's a terrific researcher and thinker...it's a terrific book. Her book, Marriage, A History, is great, too.
Amy Alkon at June 30, 2006 8:25 AM
Cool! She manages to take all of that research and distill it down for a very engaging read.
deja pseu at June 30, 2006 9:54 AM
"A lot of conservo's..."
A lot of libero's do too.
Oligonicella at June 30, 2006 9:55 AM
I've never met a liberal who pines for the TV sitcom version of the 50's.
Their fuzzy hashish memories of the 60's, maybe....:-p
deja pseu at June 30, 2006 10:34 AM
It's nice to think that part-time work is better for mother and child, but not all jobs are created equal. Face it--lots of jobs suck. I seem to have had my fair share of them, and I think it's better to be the boss at home than an underling in a cubical farm or on my aching feet in retail. Not everyone is a senior partner with minions at her beck and call.
I've been home with my kids and it was fun. I've been at work, and it was fun too. And I've been at home with the miserable little beasts and worked for beastly bosses.
KateCoe at June 30, 2006 3:08 PM
deja pseu; Sure they do. Not for exact matches maybe, but everything readily available and easily gotten, no worries about illness, racial problems, etc. Different shades, same desires. I've known plenty.
Oligonicella at July 1, 2006 8:03 AM
Leave a comment