I don't know why the BBC chose to put quotes around the word best.
"Young children looked after by their mothers develop better than those cared for in nurseries, or by relatives or childminders, research suggests."
Well, that's a no-brainer, isn't it?
The way the article is written though, it's hard to figure out Penelope Leach's angle on this. She is the UK baby guru and the author of this study, and with the amount of quotes about how this is not about making moms stay home but instead about "developmentally appropriate high-quality childcare", I almost wonder if these are not the results she expected.
Many countries are wading knee-deep into the national childcare issue. My somewhat jaded opinion of all this is that these efforts are not due to any respect for women's choices, but are purely economic. I believe some economists ran the numbers and decided that if you get a woman back to work after the birth of her baby, you get a positive economic effect. She's working, spending & being a good capitalist. She's feeling guilty about it so she buys lots of unnecessary crap for the child. Someone else is working & looking after her kid & spending money and generating movement in the economy. Golly gee good.
Whereas if she's home, playing with the baby with a cardboard box and wooden spoons, she's not contributing. Worse, she might infect other mothers with this concept that working stupid hours so that you can buy a leather couch to impress your friends is a dumb thing to do. She might even give up on sending her child to the fancy preschools and schools! She might homeschool! She might not let her children watch commercial TV! Her kids won't realize that they should spend every moment of every day yearning for some obscure piece of plastic marketed at them. The whole economy will collapse, I tell ya!
Oh - and yes, I do know some mothers have to go return to paid work. I just haven't actually met any. Every mother I have ever met who has said she needed to return to work, could have stayed home for years if she was put on a budget and stopped being a git about keeping up with Ms.Prada next door.
Actually, the new thing now is not to say that you have to go back because of the money. No, no. You say you have to go back because you need the intellectual stimulation. And then smile brilliantly at the sahm who say this to. You might even laugh that you're losing money since you put baby in that horrifically expensive private nursery - but darling, it's run by such wonderful people, and it's such an educational environment! And baby is learning 3 languages already! Then pointedly stare at the stay at home mom's baby (the one playing on the floor with a cardboard box and wooden spoon).
7 comments:
If my partner and I were to have a child, I would have to return to paid work after completing my mat leave. It would not be to buy Prada or leather couches, but to pay the mortgage, utilities, and grocery bills. We don't live in an extravagant part of town, drive fancy cars, or compete with our neighbours. Quite the contrary actually. We are both professionals in the public sector and are simply not paid enough to support a family on one salary. I find it a bit surprising that the only mothers you have met who say they needed to return to work were only concerned with such extravagances -- there are many, many of us who are not. Being a working mother also doesn't mean that the children will be watching commercial television or be showered with obscure pieces of plastic....
Here's an anti-daycare website that agrees that national childcare is a bad idea...
I mostly agree. Very few women actually need to work. They need to in order to maintain a certain level of lifestyle, yes. But if housing prices are high, they could move. They could take in a border. Etc. There are always choices, and I just wish people would own up and take responsibility for making them.
Don't tell me you have to work. Tell me that to be middle class you choose to work. That's more honest, and, frankly, it's empowering. After all, owning your choices is a huge part of empowerment.
Also, I love that I'm not the only blogger who enjoys the word 'git'. Great word.
Poppins
Actually, what seems a “no-brainer” is totally unsupported by the data. There is a growing body of opinion that parenting has no long-term effects on children’s personality whatsoever.
There are many studies like leach’s. Some show children doing *better* in daycare, some show no effect, others such as this one show children doing (slightly) worse, but only in the first three years.
In fact all such studies are BS because they fail to control for heredity. Studies that DO control for heredity (such as those involving adoptees and twins) consistently show no long term effects due to parenting.
See Judith Rich Harris’s “The Nurture Assumption” or Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” for a thorough demolition of such studies and their methods.
As Steven Pinker says, “It’s not all in the genes, but the part that is not in the genes is not from the parents either”.
Hey anonymous -
Sorry but I don't buy it. I have looked at Harris & Pinker and a bunch of other materials as well. Let's say I remain unconvinced. In my work as an IBCLC I have done a lot of reading on attachment & fundamentally that is the problem with daycare situations - constant disruptions of attachment.
I will go so far as to agree that it isn't parents per se that matter - it's the presence of involved, caring, adults who are there for the long haul. It may be aunties, godparents, hell it may be a nanny - if it's one of those who sticks around for an entire childhood. But it's not going to be a daycare worker where rates of turnover are very high & children need to rebond constantly. Eventually they stop bonding with adults and turn to peers or electronics.
A mainstream popular work on this subject is Gordon Neufeld's Hold on to Your Kids.
Attachment is the thing.
Thanks for the book pointer.
Although I'm not saying you're wrong, I still think you are engaged in positing a mechanism to explain a phenomenon which has yet to be observed.
In other words, if attachment is the thing, then why are there no controlled 'double-blind' studies clearly showing its effects? Admittedly this may simply be that the right studies have not been done, but why not?
Let's see the clear cut data showing something happens first. Then let's work out how it happens.
Right now we seem to be stuck on trying to demonstrate the first, and assuming the latter.
(sorry for the anon post before - unintentional!)
You said: "Every mother I have ever met who has said she needed to return to work, could have stayed home for years if she was put on a budget and stopped being a git about keeping up with Ms.Prada next door."
Now, I am a mother who is currently working because I feel I need to. And you have met me. (I'm the one who bought the miquon books from you all those months ago.) So I'm just wondering if either A) You didn't know I was working; B) You think that this statement does, indeed, apply to me; or C) You weren't counting single moms when you said that.
I'm assuming it is either A or C. If it *is* B, please do tell me how I can manage to stay home, because I've been thinking about it for a while now, and haven't yet come up with a reasonable plan.
Oh, and I would also just like to point out, in regards to megan's statement, that it really is possible to support a family on one salary. I do it. Of course, I'm probably considered quite poor. I have trouble seeing it that way though, since I'm currently driving a new car, and I spend a lot of money on things I consider to be "extras".
On the other hand, there are a lot of things that most people would consider essential that I don't have. I really just think it's a matter of priorities. I feel I need a reliable car, as I can't get to work without it. But I live in a one bedroom apartment with both of my kids. (I do eventually plan to upgrade, but at this point it was a decision between new car or bigger apartment, and I felt the car was more important.)
Post a Comment
Go on! Say something!