Mommy Madness
Erica Jong writes in the WSJ:
Today's bible of child-rearing is "The Baby Book" by William and Martha Sears, which trumpets "attachment parenting." You wear your baby, sleep with her and attune yourself totally to her needs. How you do this and also earn the money to keep her is rarely discussed. You are just assumed to be rich enough. At one point, the Searses suggest that you borrow money so that you can bend your life to the baby's needs. If there are other caregivers, they are invisible. Mother and father are presumed to be able to do this alone--without the village it takes to raise any child. Add to this the dictates of "green" parenting--homemade baby food, cloth diapers, a cocoon of clockless, unscheduled time--and you have our new ideal. Anything less is bad for baby. Parents be damned.
As I wrote in my book, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One woman's battle to beat some manners into impolite society:
These days, too, American familial roles are clear. There are kings and queens and there are lowly serfs -- serfs called parents whose single greatest fear is not being liked by their children. As a result, as I wrote in a column, "The parental 'no' has officially joined the ranks of chronically missing items like The Holy Grail, Atlantis, and Britney Spears' underpants."I was responding to an e-mail from a mother wracked with guilt because she longed for a break from accommodating her kids' requests "for food, more food, different food, a checkers partner, a Lego partner, and someone to read 'Hand, Hand, Fingers, Thumb' for the 40th time since breakfast." Like so many parents these days, she had her role all wrong, I told her:
You're supposed to be your kids' mom, not their full-time birthday clown. This means meeting their needs, as opposed to falling prey to their ransom demands; i.e., "Send in the cupcakes or I'll scream my lungs out until spring!"If you're keeling over from reading "Hand, Hand, Fingers, Thumb" 40 times, it's because you didn't say no 39 times. "No" is also the correct response when besieged with requests for a chunky peanut butter sandwich with all the chunkies removed. But, children can be such finicky eaters! Correction: American children can be such finicky eaters, because their parents tend to confuse parenting with working room service at a five-star hotel. In France, on the other hand, the kids' meal is whatever the parents are eating; brains, livers, kidneys and all. And while the kids can pick out bits they don't like, their choice is clear: eat or starve.
Saying no to your kids will not turn them into meth-smoking, liquor store-robbing carjackers. Actually, throwing up a few boundaries might even serve to prevent this -- and less dire but extremely annoying outcomes (just what society needs, another 35-year-old snot who was denied nothing during childhood).
There should always be balance. I read stories a million times to my kids but because I loved to read and wanted to share that with them not because I felt it was my obligation thanks to some parenting book. I have my faults as a parent but found that it got easier once I stopped caring what the new parenting fad was or that someone would think I was a horrible mom because my child was home playing with blocks instead of at a Baby Mozart class. I had pre school teachers preach to me about the importance of arts and crafts constantly and allowing my kids the freedom to roam with play-doh. Not in my house! I'm not crafty and unless the teacher was coming to pick the doh out of my furniture, it wasn't happening. And it felt good saying telling her that!
Kristen at November 6, 2010 7:23 AM
Dr. Sears has been around for 20 years at least, this is nothing 'new', Ms. Jong just didn't notice till now.
I was a La Leche League leader for 13 years. Nowhere is it stated that parents don't get a break, or can't ever be away from the baby. That individual mothers take it to extremes isn't the fault of the author. You get extremes in any movement, and breastfeeding groups are no exception. Attachment parenting also has nothing to do with Baby Mozart and all the early education materials, the League doesn't endorse any of it.
It has nothing to do with 'being rich' either. Most of the mothers I counseled could not be considered rich by any means. What they were is mothers who had already decided to stay home, the book is aimed at them. Dr. Sears assumes that most families are nuclear, not extended and so writes for those young couples raising a child away from grandparents and other family.
I see Jong dragged out 'the village' again. Few young parents have anything resembling a village to help, in most cases 'the village' doesn't care about strangers' kids.
'Attachment parenting' is how p
crella at November 6, 2010 7:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1777806">comment from KristenI'm all for appropriate attention for kids -- my neighbor is a great example of that, being a loving, and attentive -- and firm -- mom. But, in the afternoons, her kids are out there playing together, not with her. Both Judith Rich Harris and Peter Gray point out that children are socialized by other children, and Gray points out the importance of age-mixed play in that. Here are some thoughts from Gray:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/200811/the-value-play-i-the-definition-play-provides-clues-its-purposes?page=3
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2010 7:40 AM
Sorry about the half-sentence above, I forgot to delete it, DH came in and asked me to send a couple of work emails and I posted too quickly.
crella at November 6, 2010 7:41 AM
No offense crella, but hearing that you were a LL leader doesn't exactly recommend you as the voice of moderation.
joan at November 6, 2010 8:00 AM
As the mother of an only child, I can tell you that it is hard to resist all these "should do's" that follow you around and get into your head. My husband and I have made a thoughtful decision not to bend to my child's every whim and to spend too much time dwelling on how other people think we should live. For instance, I don't have her scheduled to death with outside activities. I don't have her in a couple of different sports and dance and cheer and music. She selected one sport, tumbling, and does it once a week. No traveling teams and such. That stuff is crazy and leaves the whole family exhausted. Where I live, this is a big no-no. People around here are amazed that she isn't doing more. Right now she is happy, well adjusted, enjoys playing outside and has plenty of time to rest so that she does well in school...which btw is her primary job. All the rest is just craziness that people impose upon themselves.
Sheepmommy at November 6, 2010 8:10 AM
Parents also need to understand the benefits to the child of saying "no" and not being a full-time birthday clown.
Children learn how to entertain themselves; how to use their imagination; how to spend time alone; and probably 937 other valuable lessons that serve them well in life.
It never occurred to me, as a child, that my mom's job was to entertain me. She was working her ass off to keep a roof over our head, food on the table, and the electricity on -- a fact she never mentioned, much less complained about, by the way.
So I learned to entertain and occupy myself. Sure, there was the incident with the matches, but happily those people had fire insurance for their home. And I learned another lesson: the folly of admitting guilt.
Okay, kidding in the previous paragraph, but the rest is all true.
Walter Moore at November 6, 2010 8:17 AM
My ex and I practiced a form of parenting that we jokingly called "benign neglect" - meaning we took plenty of guilt-free adult time away from the kids and we didn't cater to their every whim. As a result, my kids are very independent and self-confident, plus they can cook, clean, and do their own laundry.
I don't know how many kids I've had in my home who were insecure and totally dependent on their parents. Some kids could never even make it through a sleepover without crying to go home. One kid only ate bread, cheese, and mac and cheese - for years, not just a stage. The mom told me that was all she would eat. I guess I could've let he starve whenever she came over, but I felt too responsible, so I usually catered to these strange requests with other people's kids, but never my own.
That said, I do agree with attachment parenting for infants. If a parent is able to maintain that closeness for the first few months, or year, I see no harm and probably a lot of benefit. But, after that, it's a parent's job to begin weaning their child away from them. Our job is to work our way out of a job.
lovelysoul at November 6, 2010 9:00 AM
I'm so glad someone on the left pointed out how freaking backward and constricting to women some of the attachment-parenting green-parenting (or "crunchy" as they like to be called for some bizzare reason) ideas are. I talk about this stuff on parenting websites and immediately get hit with criticism for being a conservative who just wants to raise children into little cogs in the worker-capitalist machine with no regard to the speshulness of teh mommy and the chiiiilllldreeeeen. And kill the planet with disposable diapers and the eeeeevvvviiiillll chemicals from plastic baby bottles.
Baby-wearing is great...sometimes. I used to wear one baby in a sling and put the other in a stroller simply because I had twins, no car, and errands and shopping to do that would require at least one of my hands. And I used the sling sometimes with my younger two kids, singletons because it was nice and really did make things easier...sometimes. But nearly every time I would wear the darn thing in a place with other moms-of-babies someone with a kid strapped on her somewhere would strike up a conversation and assume I had the same set of simultaneously liberal and constrictive dogma as she. Usually that...
1. All mommies should stay home with their babies at least two years and breastfeed that whole time...but the only reason that American women don't is because the evil patriarchy has made it so that we don't have two years of paid maternity leave for everyone and universal healthcare and free daycare after those two years (Montesorri or Waldorf only of course)
2.Formula companies should be restricted from advertising on TV the same way that tobacco companies are. Because formula is poison.
3.Feeding your six-month-old mushed peas in a Gerber jar instead of smashing up the (non-canned, non-frozen, even i the dead of winter when "fresh" peas are only trucked in from another freaking hemisphere) peas yourself is EXACTLY the same as giving your kids evil McDonalds food that should totally be banned because it, too, is poison.
4.Diaper companies that make disposable diapers cheaper and easier for parents are the devil. They are super-devils if the cheap, easy diapers also have evil Disney/Nickelodean characters. However, diaper companies that sell organic cotton diapers for $60 a set and then sell "liners" nearly identical to the darn disposables are super.
5.BPA will make your children stupid and fat. And it's everywhere, so you must breastfeed and never touch a plastic object of any kind.
Jenny Had A Chance at November 6, 2010 9:02 AM
Walter Moore:
"So I learned to entertain and occupy myself. Sure, there was the incident with the matches, but happily those people had fire insurance for their home. And I learned another lesson: the folly of admitting guilt."
I like this guy.
Steve Daniels at November 6, 2010 9:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1777869">comment from lovelysoulThe mom told me that was all she would eat.
I cannot even IMAGINE how I would have engineered that in my house. My parents were twin Mussolinis and I was the Italian peasant.
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2010 9:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1777872">comment from Steve DanielsWalter Moore: "So I learned to entertain and occupy myself. Sure, there was the incident with the matches, but happily those people had fire insurance for their home. And I learned another lesson: the folly of admitting guilt." I like this guy.
So do I. I voted for him for mayor. He would have been great. Unfortunately, too many idiots voted for the incumbent -- tireless junketer Tony Teeth.
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2010 10:11 AM
My parents were not twin Mussolinis, my mother was more Jean Kirkpatrick, and my father a cross between Jimmy Stewart, and Harry Truman, but I was definitely the peasant, about on par with the cat except the cat got away with more. :-) Isabel
Isabel1130 at November 6, 2010 10:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1777898">comment from Isabel1130Love the image, Isabel!
Amy Alkon at November 6, 2010 11:19 AM
*****I see Jong dragged out 'the village' again. Few young parents have anything resembling a village to help, in most cases 'the village' doesn't care about strangers' kids.*****
And why should we? Any time we try to help or have an opinion, we're "stifling Brattina's creativity".
All most parents want from The Village is for us to pay up and shut up.
And yeah, the job of parents is to raise their kids so that they're no longer needed, not hover over them until they're fifty.
Ann at November 6, 2010 11:20 AM
Why bother cutting the cord? Just leave it there until the kid's eighteen.
Patrick at November 6, 2010 12:04 PM
For a long time, my line of thought has been that no matter how you raise your kids, at some point you're going to be told you did it WRONG! Really, it's a miracle any of us are alive and functioning at all.
Pricklypear at November 6, 2010 12:13 PM
I don't have kids, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but a few of my friend's wives go for this sort of 'crunchy' parenting thing. What's always struck me about the worldview that motivates their beliefs is how pessimistic and negative it is. We're all supposedly a bunch of damaged, poisoned, stunted versions of what we could have been with more breastmilk and less exposure to Phthalates. It's kind of insulting, the way that they characterize children who aren't raised in the way that they approve. They also don't seem to consider that the fact that 'normal' children are actually pretty healthy, which undermines their claims regarding the catastrophic consequences of unenlightened parenting.
Nick at November 6, 2010 12:35 PM
I don't have kids, but taking care of my mom (in my home) for 20 months certainly put me in contact with a lot of people who tried to make me feel guilty. It sucks big time.
My mom was seriously disabled (she only had one arm that worked), but that didn't stop some homecare workers from criticizing the food I bought, how I cared for my mom, and how I managed my house generally. If I hadn't needed their help so badly (on weekends), I would have told some of them to get the f--- out of my sight on a regular basis.
Now one of my mom's regular caregivers in the nursing home is doing the same thing--mentioning that she "hasn't seen me very often," "should not leave my mother food that's not appropriate" or whatever. I swear, every comment she makes as some built-in guilt trip.
I know these women were just annoying and I had the mental distance to measure where the criticism was coming from, but it gave me a whole new respect for how difficult parenting must be, especially if a family lives in a covertly competitive neighbourhood.
I think that as long as mom and dad aren't passed out on the floor on a regular basis and spend a few hours a week with each kid, that's enough. Really. Oh yeah, and if they train them to behave in public. But that's IT.
ie at November 6, 2010 12:47 PM
If i'm in a bad mood at the time such parents start spewing this crap I nod my head and say "You're right, I mean you were raised that way and look at what misrable failures you turned out to be"
Most of them refuse to talk to me for quite a while(BONUS) but the smarter ones acctually think about where that argument leads
lujlp at November 6, 2010 12:51 PM
I think attachment parenting is fine for the first couple of years, as it allows the parents and child to bond and develop a solid, secure routine, and give ample opportunity Goethe child to learn by example and develop under a watchful eye. It's certainly better than plopping the kid down in front of the TV and letting that do the parenting.
However. HOWEVER. It's very important that the parent keep in mind that a child must be allowed to develop a sense of independence. Kids look to their parents for cues--they will sense anxiety, fear, and trepidation, and they will mimic the parent's reaction to a situation. If the parent is clingy and melodramatic, the kid will imitate. It's up to the mother (or father, as the case may be) to encourage the kid to ake charge of himself, little by little, and to take pride in accomplishing stuff on his own. If there is already a strong bond in place, the child will trust in his mother's confidence and be more likely to rise to it's expectation.
mse at November 6, 2010 1:00 PM
"Why bother cutting the cord? Just leave it there until the kid's eighteen."
Twenty-six. And I'll be around to see that it happens...
Nancy Pelosi at November 6, 2010 1:27 PM
Kids look to their parents for cues--they will sense anxiety, fear, and trepidation, and they will mimic the parent's reaction to a situation. If the parent is clingy and melodramatic, the kid will imitate.
This is something that we'd had to gently bring up with my brother. His wife is a good person, but she's very neurotic and has no filter when it comes to what she'll expose their kids to. It's like a nonstop therapy session when she's around, and this has rubbed off on the kids. They expect everyone to deal with them in the same way, but no one besides their mother has the patience, so people avoid them.
Kathy K. at November 6, 2010 3:43 PM
I met a woman at an open house today with a five month old. I was particularly interested in her experiences, since in a year, all proceeding well, I'll have a five month old.
My friend asked the woman if she had gotten some kind of bouncy indoor infant swing for the kid (that I had never heard of but sounded kind of fun) and the mom looked a little shocked. "Oh, we almost never put him down. Who would put a baby down long enough for a swing?"
I guess I'm going to be evil parent of the year next year, 'cause I think my kid's gonna have a swing. And both of us parents have jobs.
Jessica F. at November 6, 2010 5:24 PM
When I was a kid, if I hung out with Mom long enough, she'd put me to work. Playing with the Legos beat that all to hell.
I remember once they bought a new washing machine, and let me take the old one apart. My friend had an old car in his driveway, and his parents let us take *that* apart. We knew how to have fun.
Steve Daniels at November 6, 2010 5:56 PM
When I was a kid, if I hung out with Mom long enough, she'd put me to work. Playing with the Legos beat that all to hell.
I remember once they bought a new washing machine, and let me take the old one apart. My friend had an old car in his driveway, and his parents let us take *that* apart. We knew how to have fun.
Steve Daniels at November 6, 2010 5:56 PM
I grew up in the '70's & '80's. I had a friend as a kid -- 8-11 timeframe (3 kids total boys 11, 9, girl 4). They were hippie/new agey back then. -- I slept over, once. The dad was in construction but "down" for six months because of "back problems". Mom was a SAHM.
The beds in the house were thin pads (less than 2 inches thick) on a hard surface. The hot water heater was dialed down to about a hundred degrees to prevent the four year old from burning herself. The food was bland and overcooked -- i.e. healthy.
Dad smoked occasionally -- like two or three a night but there was nothing wrong with that.
I ran across the oldest when I was 22 in a bar on leave from the USAF. He was a chain smoker and drank like a fish. His younger brother was doing short time for a burglary. The girl was a teen mom. Mom was working as a clerk in the local grocery store.
That just shows how things can turn out.
Jim P. at November 6, 2010 6:50 PM
"No offense crella, but hearing that you were a LL leader doesn't exactly recommend you as the voice of moderation. "
Did you read what I wrote? LLL, as an organization, does not endorse nor insist on loads of stuff that members and non-members alike insist is 'essential' to be a good parent. How do you stop individual mothers from taking it to extremes on their blogs etc? I quit in '97, before all the social networking really took off. There wasn't this much pressure to conform to the most extreme interpretation of attachment parenting. As a leader and later as administration I was always asking the more strident leaders to tone it down, and present in meetings only that which LLL deemed necessary as meeting content. But as with all fanatics, they've found something wonderful and feel as if they HAVE to share it with all and sundry. Rather difficult to stop people from promoting what they think is right...
"And why should we? Any time we try to help or have an opinion, we're "stifling Brattina's creativity".
Well that was my point...I think the whole 'it takes a village' idea is stupid.People don't want to take care of other people's kids...anyone who thinks they do (Hillary, and evidently Jong) is smoking something. It's old too, Jong sounds seriously outdated and out of touch. And, most young couples don't live near extended family, what are they talking about when they evoke the 'village'?
crella at November 6, 2010 7:59 PM
And, most young couples don't live near extended family, what are they talking about when they evoke the 'village'?
That's the question I'm always curious about.
Like, who are these aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins that are going to magically appear to help you raise your child? How many hours are they spending with your child? What else do they have going on in their lives? Are you helping them take care of their child in return? If they don't have children of their own, how are they benefiting from raising yours?
It really irks me when I read permutations of this "it takes a village" sentiment. I want to examine that idea very, very carefully and realistically. "It takes a village" is almost always used as a salve to insidiously eat away at the fundamental belief that the two people who are most responsible for the health and well-being of a child are its mother and father.
Jen Wading at November 6, 2010 9:12 PM
On the one hand, I think Jong has some valid points about modern-day parenting trends and how mothers in particular get judged for just about everything they do.
On the other hand, well....I found the article by Jong's daughter that was also in the WSJ (same section) to be rather amusing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594213125914630.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Some quotes:
Famous people, who are often intensely driven workaholics, are typically not focused on their children. We saw each other, but my mother was filled with the fear of slipping into domestic life and sabotaging her own career.....
To my mother and grandmother, children were the death of a dream; they were the death of one's ambition.
Now, to be fair, Jong-Fast (Jong's daughter) makes it clear that she adores her mother. Key quote: "My mother was as good a mother as she could possibly be. I am slightly in awe of how much my mother did." But....I find it interesting that the great Erica Jong's daughter is essentially a stay-at-home mom to three kids who says, "I could never have raised kids and made money." I suspect that Jong's essay on modern parenthood is motivated by at least a little guilt -- because, if those attachment parents are onto anything at all, Jong might have to feel bad about the way she raised her kid.
Full disclosure: My parenting role models are my parents, who made a point of putting their kids into cribs from birth rather than co-sleeping because they thought it was better for said kids, and who beam the brightest with pride when they talk about how independent we were at certain times. I intend to parent with much the same philosophy. So I'm not approaching this from a "all bow down to Dr. Sears!" approach. But I do think Jong's essay was a tad self-serving. (I noticed she couldn't stop herself from throwing in a slam on Sarah Palin...)
marion at November 6, 2010 10:13 PM
I think Jong has some valid points about modern-day parenting trends and how mothers in particular get judged for just about everything they do.
Posted by: marion
Women judged unfairly by mebers of their own sex? Next you'll be spreading lies about how the earth isnt the center of the universe.
Truthfully though, I'm amazed that no women have yet figured out how to blame men for the way women judge eachother over parenting methods
lujlp at November 7, 2010 1:04 AM
"It takes a village" is almost always used as a salve to insidiously eat away at the fundamental belief that the two people who are most responsible for the health and well-being of a child are its mother and father."
I'm not sure that's the meaning of "it takes a village". It's not that parents expect others to raise their children, but, fact is, "the village" exerts profound influence. After preschool, that influence begins to compete with whatever the parents may be teaching or modeling at home. Teachers, coaches, peers, and the peer's parents are all making an impact on that child.
I think new parents have no idea, ultimately, how little control they'll have over how their child's psyche may be shaped. Bullying, for instance, is a way in which children - who may, as toddlers, have had the perfect organic baby food, cotton diapers, and all the parental attachment in the world - can still be severely damaged emotionally. Parents who've tried to do everything right are often helpless to protect their child from outside forces.
So, I think "it takes a village" simply advocates that any of us who are involved in a child's life, whether as a neighbor, friend's parent, or certainly a teacher, should act responsibly and not just turn away when things like that happen. Parents simply can't be around 24 hrs a day.
lovelysoul at November 7, 2010 5:34 AM
Regarding how it "takes a village", I never knew exactly what to make of that phrase. When Hillary Clinton used it, she did seem to be, imo, trying to place responsibility for children on the "community" (translation: the government, via subsidized daycare, intrusion into medical decisions, universal mandatory pre-k) as much as on the parents.
I liked Michael Gurian's take on the concept of first, second, and third families much better. The first family is of course the parents and siblings of a child and most important, the second is the close friends of the family and extended family. While the parents don't exactly choose the extended family, they do choose how much time and influence the second family has on a child. The third family is the babysitter, the daycare provider, the coaches and teachers, and the child's own friends and their families, people that still do to some extent have a hand in the upbringing of a child. The second and third families aren't responsible for the child, per se, except in not actually harming him or her, but they are important; a child isn't brought up solely by two people, even in infancy. Reminding parents that these "families" are here, that they play an important part in a child's development and that relying on them to an appropriate degree isn't shirking or allowing other people to raise your kids is very important.
Jenny Had A Chance at November 7, 2010 6:28 AM
Marion — Thanks for that comment.
_______________________
> So, I think "it takes a village" simply
> advocates that any of us who are involved
> in a child's life, whether as a neighbor,
> friend's parent, or certainly a teacher,
> should act responsibly
Can anyone opt out? Are each of us indebted with personal responsibilities evermore just because someone decided to make a baby>
Jen gets it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 7, 2010 6:48 AM
I said "involved". You can certainly opt out of being involved. You don't have to be a teacher, or coach little league, and you can certainly be the kind of crochety neighbor (as I suspect you are) who chases kids off your lawn.
However, those of us with kids cannot help but, to some degree, be involved with other people's children. We have them in and out of our houses, carpooling them to and from school, or helping with their activities, etc.
I've taken a child to the emergency room after a playground accident (calling her parents on the way). I've notified parents that little Jenny, who was supposed to be staying the night with Courtney, was actually at a party. Things like that.
I'm not raising their kids, but I'm not turning my back on them either, as I hope they wouldn't with mine. Especially with teens, parents are looking out for each other. Once you have teens, you really grasp the concept of "it takes a village".
But that may not be the way Hillary intended the phrase. I don't know.
lovelysoul at November 7, 2010 7:33 AM
No, Hillary intended it more in the way of Stalin and Hitler, that the State should raise your children because you don't know how to make them good citizens.
brian at November 7, 2010 8:14 AM
Brian.
The State is already raising most children.
It's called the Public School System!
AJP at November 7, 2010 10:06 AM
For anyone who's interested, here's what Dr. Rosemond (he's apparently anti-Attachment Parenting where kids over the age of two are concerned) said in 1996:
http://www.meandmymouse.com/web_site_networker/archive/Rosemond/Rosemond010597.html
Excerpts:
Q: Do you believe, as many people are saying these days, that it takes a village to raise a child?
A: Yes, and absolutely not.........
.........If, for example, I misbehaved at the neighborhood grocery, the grocer would reprimand me, then he would call my mother and let her know what I'd done and how he had handled it. She would accept his word without question, apologize for my behavior, thank him for his actions, and follow through on them when I arrived home. For reasons such as this, the children of my generation knew the eyes of the "Village" were upon them, and this knowledge kept us in check.
Unfortunately, all too many of today's parents have a "fortress" attitude toward the rearing of kids. Their children are THEIR CHILDREN and accursed be anyone who "interferes," no matter their motive. Today, if the neighborhood shopkeeper disciplines a child, he's not thanked for his trouble, he's sued. The "village" contributed immeasurably to children's respect for adults. The "fortress" accomplishes exactly the opposite............
...........The slippery meaning of "it takes a village" refers to the idea that government should take a more active role in "helping" parents rear children. Accordingly, government should provide "assistance" to families in the form of programs and services, thus absorbing much of the responsibility of child rearing and making parents' jobs that much easier. The programs and services in question include subsidized day care, parent education programs, professional in-home support, and so on.
Sound good? It's supposed to. I fear, however, that this ideahowever well-motivated its proponentswill lead to government interference in child-rearing matters, the undermining of parental authority over children and discretion when it comes to their upbringing, and the eventual destruction of family autonomy.......
(end)
Just for the record, I don't always agree with Rosemond. For example, while he was quite willing to contradict Dr. Laura's philosophy that housewives or other mothers should revolve around her children (that is, he said in 2000 that a four-year-old boy is quite old enough to be in an after-school program so Mommy can work outside the home, even if he complains - DL went beserk) he HAS said that day care is unacceptable for kids under three, unless the parent has no choice. I mean, if it isn't terribly harmful to those babies whose parents have no choice, how is it harmful to those whose parents DO have a choice?
Not to mention he never talks about how to teach kids to stand up to adults who may not be criminals, but who are at least emotionally hurtful to be around.
lenona at November 7, 2010 1:14 PM
Eh, that's a bit extreme. Even Sears has admitted he's troubled by the absolutes a lot of parents have taken attachment parenting to. The facts are an infant who's AP'd is probably going to do better than one who isn't. They need mommy and daddy's body to help them tune and regulate theirs. A 2 year old? Not so much. My littlest two go to the daycare room at the gym. The younger one cried almost hte whole hour the first time. Less so each additional time, until about the 5th time he just walked on in. It hasn't harmed him any to be away from me, or to have been upset a bit.
I'm a little with Dr laura in that I don't see WHY a person has kids if they're just going to pay others to raise them-and yes, 45+ hours a week in daycare IS being raised by someone else. That, of course, assumes a 40 hour workweek, and most people work longer ones. Does that mean you're stuck at home forever? No. But come on, you made the kid, give them some time!!
I think the difference in daycare if you HAVE to, but not otherwise is the same as single parenting being okay if you HAVE to, but it being crappy to do by choice. If something's known not to be ideal, why intentionally subject the human YOU made to it?
No one says a mom should kill her kids if her spouse dies simply so she won't be a single mother. ANd no one's saying let the kid starve simply so they wno't be in daycare. But if it's daycare, or a smaller and cheaper standard of living? yeah-you dno't need the Expedition. A used taurus is fine.
momof4 at November 7, 2010 3:11 PM
Man do I hate the people who try to make working mothers feel like crap for wanting to be able to eat when they are seniors. I resent that I have to work and I also resent people telling me I should be at home with my child.
I know how great daycare is for my child, I see how the kids of SAHMs have no social skills and tend to lag behind in their development of other skills. I know that as much as I love my child I have no intention of living in poverty for the whole of my life. Raising my child in an apartment with no money to travel or go to the museum will do nothing to broaden her horizons and will possibly make her resent me. My child is only five but I see how resentful and angry the five year olds from poor families are about their poverty.
More than anything, what is most important is how you spend the time you have with your child. Since I do not subscribe to having others tell me how to raise my child I am not really familiar with Dr. Sears and attachment parenting. I did co-sleep, that was not our intention it just worked out to be much easier and far more satisfying. I did wear my child everywhere, not because I was told to but because I loved having her close and because it is so damn easy to get things done when the child is strapped to you (public transit is hell with a stroller).
Every family is unique, what we thought we would do and what we did were two different things. I never thought I would breastfeed for 2.5 years; before I became a mother I thought it was gross to breastfeed for so long. Once I became a mother I discovered how joyful breastfeeding is and my child loved it so much it was hard to stop.
I used wonderfully convenient disposable diapers, which my city collects and composts. I fed my child from a jar too - organic food mind you. People need to stop listening to crap others spew about how to run their lives. It is as though people have forgotten the most basic aspects of being human-animals.
Ingrid at November 8, 2010 9:41 AM
I think the difference in daycare if you HAVE to, but not otherwise is the same as single parenting being okay if you HAVE to, but it being crappy to do by choice. If something's known not to be ideal, why intentionally subject the human YOU made to it?
________________________
Well, I can think of two compelling reasons to use day care even if you don't "have to":
1. Keeping up job skills - some jobs just can't wait 3 years. As a letter to Ms. said: "If you lose your husband you can't go down to the employment agency and apply for a new one!"
2. Building up a college fund - or even a trade school-type fund.
lenona at November 8, 2010 11:16 AM
Sears seems pretty rational about Attachment Parenting in "The Baby Book." He advises people to do what they can and adjust it to mesh with their lifestyles -- even working mothers.
Some people turn everything into a competitive sport.
As for working mothers vs. SAHMs, it's difficult to make judgments on this based solely on working status. How many SAHMs let Dora and Elmo raise their kids?
MonicaP at November 8, 2010 12:12 PM
A little off topic but I'm wondering....
There's been a lot of talk in here about programs and assistance...subsidizes daycare and whatever else. Who gets these services? Do a lot of people think that ALL parents get these? We sure DON'T. At least not anyone who's raising a family on more then $40,000 a year. The closest I get to subsidizes anything is that grandma takes him 1-2 times a month for a day!
CM at November 8, 2010 1:36 PM
No one said it had to be the mom staying home. Dads are fine. Past that, if you're cool with the choice to pay some GED-owner minimum wage to raise your kids (do you even pay your MECHANIC minimum wage?) then go for it.
momof4 at November 8, 2010 2:46 PM
No one said it had to be the mom staying home. Dads are fine.
______________________
OK, so the abandoned housewife who wrote to Ms. magazine in 1987 COULD have phrased it as: "If you lose your spouse you can't go down to the employment agency and apply for a new one."
But clearly, it comes down to the same thing. Besides, even highly professional careers often demand constant practice if you want to stay in them - such as surgery.
In the same vein, BTW, Amy Dacyczyn ("The Complete Tightwad Gazette") once wrote, in effect, that too many Americans act as though it's their God-given right to waste every minute of their leisure time once the bills have been paid. It only makes sense, she said, to spend your time on pastimes and useful hobbies that save time and money instead of wasting them. That way, if you lose your job in a field that isn't promising right now, chances are you can switch to another one. Example: If two men apply for a hardware store job and one does landscaping for a hobby and the other watches lady mud-wrestling on TV, who is more likely to get the job?
lenona at November 8, 2010 3:26 PM
lenona,
Amy Dacyczn washes out sandwich baggies for reuse. I don't consider that a good use of my time. Her book and newsletter are filled with such petty, mindnumbing busywork!!! And what job would washing out baggies get her in the real world, I ask you? Oh, that's right, she's completely dependent on her husband.
Since I am *not* dependent on a man and do not have to pinch his pennies to keep him from resenting the crap out of me and my six kids, I will spend my leisure time as I see fit.
Can you tell that I'm not a fan? I've thrown out very few books in my lifetime (mostly give them away) but hers was one of them.
MissFancy at November 8, 2010 6:45 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1779042">comment from MissFancylenona, Amy Dacyczn washes out sandwich baggies for reuse.
That is completely stupid.
I used to use reusable bags at the grocery store, now I get bags from the store -- paper to leave bottles out for the homeless (so they won't have to root through the cans) and plastic to use to store lettuce and parsley and things in in the refrigerator. Your time is worth something. Life is short -- maybe shorter than you can imagine if you're one of the unlucky ones. Saving is good. Saving to the point where you're spending your time rinsing out baggies is nuts, and then some.
Amy Alkon at November 8, 2010 6:54 PM
Has anyone seen My son is gay...
The "village" essentially chastised the mom for letting her son where a "Scooby-Doo" Daphne costume. She was right -- they were wrong.
Jim P. at November 8, 2010 8:26 PM
I'm doing halfway so far. (As far as I can say I've developed a routine after 2.5 weeks). I do the cloth diapers (they end up being cheaper than disposables, the start up costs are very high though), but since I have a washer and dryer and laundry room where I can hang things, it isn't a big deal. I'm feeding on demand. But I am NOT wearing her around the clock, its too awkward when I need to bend down and unload the dishwasher or things like that. She gets held plenty, and I'm at home with her, so I do not feel guilty one bit.
We don't co-sleep, we do the bassinette thing, but if she's especially fussy she sometimes sleeps on my chest. The bassinette is practical, if she's only slightly fussy I can reach out and rub her belly and sometimes just that calms her down, or I can pick her up without having to go to the other room. Also, we can mess around when she's in the bassinette, which we can't when she's on my chest. In a couple months or so we will put her in her own room at night. We have a crib in the living room, too, where she naps during the day.
Anyhow, doing this depends on being ABLE to do this. And I have plenty of working friends who have great kids. Heck, my parents worked and I think I turned out ok.
My philosophy is... it almost doesn't matter what you do (assuming basic needs are met), s/he'll be a brat when s/he's 13 and will turn out ok by the time s/he's 25.
NicoleK at November 9, 2010 12:15 AM
(As far as I can say I've developed a routine after 2.5 weeks)
Congrats, NicoleK! I hope everything went smoothly.
MonicaP at November 9, 2010 6:59 AM
Saving is good. Saving to the point where you're spending your time rinsing out baggies is nuts, and then some.
It the sort of thing that appeals to a specific personality type.
Before I got married, I used to play the game of "how little can I spend on groceries in one week while still eating well?" I wasn't broke: I could have splurged more. One week I got down to $25, which is pretty impressive in New York City.
I learned all sorts of tricks for pinching pennies during my first marriage, and those skills can come in handy during hard times, even if it's only the mindset that carries over: Things cost money, so I should take care of what I have.
I know people who get a serious thrill out of pinching every last penny out of their budget. They do it because they enjoy it, not because they're dead broke.
MonicaP at November 9, 2010 7:37 AM
Amy Dacyczn washes out sandwich baggies for reuse. I don't consider that a good use of my time. Her book and newsletter are filled with such petty, mindnumbing busywork!!! And what job would washing out baggies get her in the real world, I ask you? Oh, that's right, she's completely dependent on her husband.
Miss Fancy
__________________
You clearly missed the part where she said she DOESN'T do all the things suggested by readers, sometimes because they don't fit into her rural lifestyle anyway. She even had time for some TV-watching in ADDITION to her constructive hobbies, since she was so well organized. At any rate, I was talking about hobbies such as carpentry, not things like washing bags. (Even she didn't call washing bags a hobby.)
And, once she got the newsletter off the ground and was making money from it and the subsequent books, she clearly wasn't completely dependent on her husband; she also became a deacon at her church just a few years ago and, IIRC, began running the thrift store there. (Her youngest kids are now 18.)
lenona at November 9, 2010 5:45 PM
"I see how the kids of SAHMs have no social skills and tend to lag behind in their development of other skills."
That seems extreme...if that's the case I wonder how people managed to be instilled with social skills before day care existed.
crella at November 10, 2010 12:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/11/06/mommy_madness.html#comment-1779666">comment from crella"I see how the kids of SAHMs have no social skills and tend to lag behind in their development of other skills." That seems extreme...if that's the case I wonder how people managed to be instilled with social skills before day care existed.
Until relatively recent human history, people lived in groups and children were cared for in groups and socialized together by other children. FYI, while I am opposed to a generalization about SAHMs and their children (my neighbor sees to it her children go on weekend camping trips with her and other parents and children), my mother did not socialize me around other children, because she and my father weren't very social, and I suffered socially for it.
Amy Alkon at November 10, 2010 2:01 AM
Raising children in a one-income household may require more sacrifice than simply driving a cheaper car. Specifically it shifts the burden of providing for the family entirely to the father, which opens the family up to a huge amount of risk if he loses his job, gets injured, dies, or divorces the mother. Even if the best case scenario it may require him to hold a more stressful job, work longer hours, and spend less time with his family than he otherwise would if the mother was working as well. Parents might also make the trade-off of working and putting their kids in daycare in order to afford a safer neighborhood, better schools, saving for college funds etc.
Shannon at November 10, 2010 7:29 PM
"Since I am *not* dependent on a man and do not have to pinch his pennies to keep him from resenting the crap out of me and my six kids, I will spend my leisure time as I see fit."
That is such patronizing BS. Presumably the decision for one parent to stay at home is made jointly by the husband and wife because they believe it is important for their children to be raised by their parent instead of a nanny or daycare. A man who values this is not going to resent his wife or treat her like hired help.
Shannon at November 10, 2010 7:34 PM
Leave a comment