> Bond \'b<a:>nd\ noun: 1: something that binds or restrains; > 2: a binding agreement; > 3: a band or cord used to tie something;
> 4: a material or device for binding; > 5: an obligation made binding by a money > forfeit; > 6: (adj.) bound in slavery [1]
> One often hears about the bond between mother and child. > The phrases "maternal bond" and "the mother-child bond" are > fairly commonplace in today's jargon. Moreover, one hears these > phrases most often in a positive context ... the mother-child > bond being considered a special and somehow magical connection > which transcends mere relationship. It is, somehow, an > inseverable umbilicus, something not to be tampered or interfered > with, something sacred. It is The Mother-Child Bond.
> This bond is one proclaimed not just by women, but by > men, who have come to believe that there exists a bond between > mother and child which fathers can never hope to approximate with > their children. It is also relied upon by the family law system, > and by society in general, in order to perpetuate women's role > as, first and foremost, caretakers of children.
> I. The Dilemma > As suggested by the definition with which this paper > opens, a bond is not just a special sort of magical relationship. > Even where that exists, a parent-child bond is at minimum an > enormous responsibility. Therefore to place upon a mother's > shoulder the mantle of a unique and inevitable mother-child bond > is to also place upon a mother's wrists the shackles of > responsibility for that bond, and that child.
> Where a mother has become so intimately and inextricably > bound, she may have little ability to break free to pursue other > objectives. This is true even where there is a father present > and willing to assume the childcare responsibilities. In > attempting to take on the responsibilities of childcare, the > father may find it nearly impossible to disentangle mother and > child of the binds that tie them together, and his attempts will > be unavailing. In part this may be due to the father's own > perception of how revered the mother-child bond is, and a belief > that as a father he is bereft of parent-child bonding ability. > This in turn is linked to society's perception of the same, which > the father may well have internalized. In other words, fathers > too have come to believe that a child belongs with its mother, as > that is where the parent-child bond is.
> The father, having bought into these perceptions, may be > less willing to assert a claim to time with his children, > believing it to be meddling with the mother-child relationship; > this may be particularly true in the case of custody/visitation > issues. Society then indicts the father for not wanting to be > involved with his children, imputes an inversely proportional > desire on the part of the mother who is caring for the children, > and thus the cycle is complete, with the mother in perpetual > maternal bondage.
> It is also true, however, that there is quite simply an > unwillingness on the part of mothers to allow fathers to take > over the primary caretaking function, for mothers too have > internalized the general societal view of the sacredness of the > mother-child bond. This is particularly true in custody > contests, but is also true within an intact two-parent family > structure, where a mother may allow a father to help with the > children, but will rarely be seen relinquishing the larger share > of childcare to the father. As Erica Jong has observed, "We long > for men to share [parenting] tasks with us equally...but we > probably do not want to relinquish them. We are as attached to > our children as ever. Liberation has not severed the umbilical > cord - nor would we want it to."[2]
> II. The Women > Traditionally, the force which coerces a woman into > choosing between child and career has been identified as the > patriarchal and male-dominated society. As Kathleen Gerson > explains, the theory is that there are ways in which "social > institutions created and controlled by men shape women's options > and thus coerce their behavior. It begins with the assumption > that men as a group dominate women as a group; there may be > isolated individual exceptions to the rule of male dominations, > but these anomalies do not invalidate the general principle. > Given this generally indisputable assumption, the [theory] posits > that women's behavior results from male domination."[3]
> There is a growing body of evidence, however, which > suggests that the above assumption is, in fact, disputable with > respect to current times, and that it is women themselves, both > as mothers making choices, and as feminists advocating policy, > who are holding women within the confines of the maternal bond.
> In a day and age where the feminist movement is strong > and where sexual equality is demanded, the area of primary > childcare and custody appears to have been exempted from the > feminist insistence on equality and parity with men. As Jong > points out, women don't want the umbilical cord to be severed. > Women don't want to allow men the opportunity to achieve parity > with women in terms of child-rearing and custody.[4]
> One reason for this may be that women currently have a > great advantage in the area of custody, as there exists in the > family law system a very strong bias in favor of awarding custody > to mothers over fathers. This gives a power to women the likes > of which they have in very few, if any, other areas of their > lives. In a world where women have been dominated and suppressed > by the male institution at every turn, the ability to wield > absolute power over the man one is divorcing, and to use his own > institution against him by depriving him of free access to his > children, is a great temptation indeed. Even though equality is > arguably the ideal of the feminist movement, it is understandable > that women may not want to lose this very powerful, and rare, > upper hand.
> This refusal to allow men sexual equality in terms of > childrearing and custody decisions[5] is reinforced by > proclaiming the sanctity of the mother-child bond. The modern > dogma which supports and perpetuates the myth of an exclusively > maternal parent-child bond is contributed to by the works of such > noted feminist authors as Nancy Chodorow[6], Susan Contratto, > Carol Gilligan, and Lillian Rubin. As Chodorow admits, the > assumption "apparent in recent feminist literature is that mother > and child are an isolated dyad. Mother and child are seen as > both physically and psychologically apart from the world, > existing within a magic (or cursed) circle."[7]
> One might do well to question the motives of the authors > of such writings. It seems just a tad too convenient that the > feminist movement, now making serious inroads in the fight to > convince society that men and women are equals, has suddenly > discovered that this equality does not extend to men in the area > of parenting and custody.
> Faye Crosby does question the writings which further this > philosophy in her book, Juggling. Crosby notes that some > feminist authors, such as Chodorow and Rubin, advance a theory of > sex-based differences which holds that women are selfless and > other-oriented, the guardians of relations, while men are viewed > as very self-oriented, and not terribly good at relationships. > Crosby refers to this as the "new sexism". As she describes it, > "[t]he new sexism seems as potentially crippling as the old > sexism. If we accept the view that men and women differ in their > need to attach themselves to others and in their skill at > relationships, we have only a tiny distance to go before we > decide that mothers make the best parents. ...And, after all, > who do we want raising our children - someone who is detached and > uncaring or someone who is tuned-in, emotionally available, and > sensitive?"[8]
> Interestingly enough, this "new sexism" isn't new at all. > It is the very breed of thinking which put women into maternal > bondage in the first place. And ironically, these are the very > bonds which the fledgling woman's movement first sought to cast > off. What is new about it is the number of women who have jumped > on the bandwagon.
> Back in the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution > caused a shift in the complexion of American family life. Where > before fathers and older children had been home working their > fields or their trade, with mothers tending to myriad domestic > chores, the industrial revolution pushed them out the door and > into production houses. This left mothers at home with their > infants and younger children. At the same time, various > technological advances worked to considerably lighten a mother's > domestic task load. As June Carbone and Margaret Brinig[9] > explain it, women who remained in the home during this age of > industrial enlightenment found their domestic contributions > recast and redefined. Thus motherhood was redefined as the > nurturing which was necessary to the well-being of infants and > young children.
> This redefinition was played out in the courts as well. > Carbone and Brinig explain:
>Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased >to post it here so that we could discuss it in context): >>THE MATERNAL BOND >>1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School >>Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number >>3, Fall, 1995
A quick glance makes me think readers interested in the legal side of this subject might also want to look at Martha Albertson Fineman (Cornell law prof and much published feminist legal scholar,) 'The Illusion of Equality: The Rhetoric and Reality of Divorce Reform', 1991. (Though I haven't read the book, I just read a paper summarizing the same work which was part of the Summer 2001 edition of the McGeorge Law Review.)
In article <3c9b76c3.21197...@news.rcip.com>, Glen Appleby
<dirtde...@rcip.com> wrote: > Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased > to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
> > THE MATERNAL BOND > > 1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
> > Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number
(deleted a large number of pages)
Web pages and long articles don't belong on Usenet.
URLs already exist.
If you think folks will selectively quote from it, they can do so from the Web site and post their comments here.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:14:50 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,Tim "The
Net.Cop" May <tc...@got.net> wrote: >Web pages and long articles don't belong on Usenet.
>URLs already exist.
>If you think folks will selectively quote from it, they can do so from >the Web site and post their comments here.
Thanks for the information. I deeply and strongly care about what you think.
No, really.
I quoted the Whole Damned Thing because, tomorrow morning (unless I develop the energy to respond before then) I intend to reply to most of the post. To try to quote leetle parts of it (just to please you) and respond to those might lose something.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
>Ann wrote, so eloquently, on her web page (but seemed embarased >to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
To begin with (and to cover my ass -- both cheeks), I did want to say that I liked a great deal of this ... even though there were some parts with which, in the larger picture, I disagree.
The disagreement is not in the context of this paper, but when other things are considered.
>> THE MATERNAL BOND >> 1992 (c) Anne P. Mitchell, Stanford Law School
>> Published in: American Journal of Family Law, Volume 9, Number >> 3, Fall, 1995
<snippo>
>> I. The Dilemma >> As suggested by the definition with which this paper >> opens, a bond is not just a special sort of magical relationship. >> Even where that exists, a parent-child bond is at minimum an >> enormous responsibility. Therefore to place upon a mother's >> shoulder the mantle of a unique and inevitable mother-child bond >> is to also place upon a mother's wrists the shackles of >> responsibility for that bond, and that child.
Later, you mention that the bond could just as well be father-child.
While this may be true (the quality of the difference is difficult to measure, so let's ignore that for the moment), mothers typically have some advantages:
1) Carrying the baby for 9 months and "getting to know him" (however real that is) during that time is something that the SO (of either gender) can, at best, only approximate and by proxy.
2) Usually (in a normal birth and at the better birthing centers -- or even historically) the mother holds the baby first and most often has the most contact with the baby.
3) Breastfeeding (aside from expressed bottle feeding) is done by the mother.
While there may be exceptions or ways to m9itigate the above, in the normal healthy birth, these (and, perhaps others) are the default advantages that the mothers have over the fathers.
>> Where a mother has become so intimately and inextricably >> bound, she may have little ability to break free to pursue other >> objectives.
Much is the same for the father. Once the baby is born, he pretty much must continue his career and bring in money (this, of course, under the same conditions that you had assumed, above).
>> It is also true, however, that there is quite simply an >> unwillingness on the part of mothers to allow fathers to take >> over the primary caretaking function, for mothers too have >> internalized the general societal view of the sacredness of the >> mother-child bond.
Sometimes, yes -- but this goes to the point of issues that one goes into a relationship with as much as anything else.
>> II. The Women >> Traditionally, the force which coerces a woman into >> choosing between child and career has been identified as the >> patriarchal and male-dominated society. <snip> >> There is a growing body of evidence, however, which >> suggests that the above assumption is, in fact, disputable with >> respect to current times, and that it is women themselves, both >> as mothers making choices, and as feminists advocating policy, >> who are holding women within the confines of the maternal bond.
Often with good reason, though -- especially in the younger years.
A youngster needs some basic needs to be met, in order to grow up healthy. One of those includes something involving both trust and security.
Remember that the mother is the first person that the child knows. The child must be able to feel secure for long enough to develop their own sense of security so that they will want to venture out and explore on their own.
This typically happens to varying degrees at various ages -- from toddlerhood through maybe 8 or 10 years old.
If this bond is broken before the youngster is ready for it to be broken, the initial trust and security must be rebuilt before the person can feel *comfortable* going out and exploring on their own.
>> One reason for this may be that women currently have a >> great advantage in the area of custody, as there exists in the >> family law system a very strong bias in favor of awarding custody >> to mothers over fathers. This gives a power to women the likes >> of which they have in very few, if any, other areas of their >> lives. In a world where women have been dominated and suppressed >> by the male institution at every turn, the ability to wield >> absolute power over the man one is divorcing, and to use his own >> institution against him by depriving him of free access to his >> children, is a great temptation indeed.
I agree that this is commonly the case, but don't you agree that it is the case, today, because of (again) issues that exist because of one's upbringing or life experiences? I don't see it as simply something that results from hormones or sexual accessories.
>> This refusal to allow men sexual equality in terms of >> childrearing and custody decisions[5] is reinforced by >> proclaiming the sanctity of the mother-child bond.
I see it as more rationalization than anything else. Rationalization to attempt to prevent the other one from winning what *should* be a win-win situation.
>> It seems just a tad too convenient that the >> feminist movement, now making serious inroads in the fight to >> convince society that men and women are equals, has suddenly >> discovered that this equality does not extend to men in the area >> of parenting and custody.
Unless, though, the male has had lots of time with the kids prior to the divorce, suddenly "winning" custody would put their world into an ugly tailspin -- which would benefit neither the father nor the children.
>> Faye Crosby does question the writings which further this >> philosophy in her book, Juggling. Crosby notes that some >> feminist authors, such as Chodorow and Rubin, advance a theory of >> sex-based differences which holds that women are selfless and >> other-oriented, the guardians of relations, while men are viewed >> as very self-oriented, and not terribly good at relationships.
But isn't this *typically* true?
>> Crosby refers to this as the "new sexism". As she describes it, >> "[t]he new sexism seems as potentially crippling as the old >> sexism. If we accept the view that men and women differ in their >> need to attach themselves to others
How males bond is quite different (in fact, much the opposite) of how wimen bond.
Take the act of sex, for example:
We produce the bonding hormone, oxytocin.
Wimen produce it before they have sex (in *order to have sex and bond) while men produce oxytocin after sex, as a result of sex.
There simply *are* differences that are biological in nature.
>> and in their skill at >> relationships,
This is tends to be true, but it is a learned skill.
>> we have only a tiny distance to go before we >> decide that mothers make the best parents. ...And, after all, >> who do we want raising our children - someone who is detached and >> uncaring or someone who is tuned-in, emotionally available, and >> sensitive?"[8]
Can I see what is behind door number 3?
>> Interestingly enough, this "new sexism" isn't new at all. >> It is the very breed of thinking which put women into maternal >> bondage in the first place. And ironically, these are the very >> bonds which the fledgling woman's movement first sought to cast >> off. What is new about it is the number of women who have jumped >> on the bandwagon.
Look, you know that I am as much for wimen's rights as the next guy -- maybe more. But to suggest that wimen's lib is not new is an error -- very similar to the one that Penny Patterson tries to perpetuate at the Gorilla Foundation.
When Michael was alive, she would always arrange things so that Koko had control over when Michael could ... "visit" her.
This didn't work well, for a number of reasons.
First, it is not how gorillas (or most other mamals) behave.
Second, on the few occasions when Michael was actually allowed to be in contact with Koko, there would be a flury of physical confrontation that *appeared* to serve to prove dominence (as in the wild).
3) By this method, there was never any sexual intercourse.
and
D) In the end, (I'll assert) this new method ended up killing Michael.
Wimen's lib *is* new and it attempts to change a great deal of what has existed for one heck of a long time.
Remember, I don't oppose that, but also keep in mind that it *is* a social experiment.
>> Carbone and Brinig's work demonstrates that the new >> feminism, along with contemporary divorce law trends such as the >> institution of "no-fault divorce", have conspired to set women >> back to an age where they are only free to be whatever they want >> so long as they can do it within the confines of maternal >> bondage.
And men are free to do whatever they want, within the confines of supporting their (ex?) wives and children.
Both sexes are bound.
>> According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist ideals >> operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the >> labor force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."
Doing both is something that rarely works well.
<mo snippage>
>> If women knew going into marriage >> that they would need to be self-sufficient in the event of >> divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated >> position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary >> caretaker.
Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!
Now, if the feminists would like to be truely equal and accomodating of the real differences between the sexes, it might make sense to redefine marriage to allow more openness.
>> A much more likely account for the discrepancy between >> what fathers truly want in terms of custody, and what they ask >> for, is that men too have come to believe in the tradition of the >> sacred mother-child
Glen Appleby wrote: >(but seemed embarased >>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
Argh. Actually I'm embarrassed that someone else posted it - flattered, but embarrassed. Really, a pointer to the url - but seeing the whole thing posted here kind of makes me wince.
Anne (besides, I'm worried that now Doris Kearns Goodwin might try to claim it as her own)
>>How males bond is quite different (in fact, much the opposite) of >>how wimen bond.
>>Take the act of sex, for example:
Please.
OK, you don't have to ask *me* twice.
>>We produce the bonding hormone, oxytocin.
>>Wimen produce it before they have sex (in *order to have sex and >>bond) while men produce oxytocin after sex, as a result of sex.
>Not quite. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in =both= sexes.
Yes, that as well. That is the overlap. That does not contradict what I said, though.
It is a "bonding agent". Wimen bond before sex and men bond afterwards (but many still don't like to talk, afterwards, because they are too busy sleeping).
>>But more than that, there is the very real issue of the >>physiological bond.
>>Remember oxytocin? Wimen spew it after birth, as well.
>Well, technically it's released during birthing contractions.
Again, true as well. However, the important part is that it is spewed so that the mother and child can bond. It is still in the system long after the contractions.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
On 24 Mar 2002 05:38:18 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote: >Glen Appleby wrote:
>>(but seemed embarased >>>to post it here so that we could discuss it in context):
>Argh. Actually I'm embarrassed that someone else posted it - flattered, >but embarrassed.
Why? It really was well done. I understand the context and agree with it. I am glad to see the perspective (I have long been a perspective junkie).
I just felt that it missed some fairly important things in the non-legal picture.
>Really, a pointer to the url - but seeing the whole thing >posted here kind of makes me wince.
And I didn't even have to go to the bother of playing "titty-whistle" with you.
>Anne (besides, I'm worried that now Doris Kearns Goodwin might try to claim >it as her own)
Aw, you already copyrighted it (note that I left that in?).
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
> >> According to Carbone and Brinig the new feminist ideals > >> operate to "encourage women to choose both to stay within the > >> labor force and to value childrearing above career pursuits."
> Doing both is something that rarely works well.
True, which is where you'll find your Door #3...at the Parrish house, where both parents have careers but there's always a parent at home as well, having planned well enough to be able to work out of the home in order to be there for the kids as well as having the big house and the messy SUV. :) The kids also see Mom and Dad both working in their respective fields and have good examples to follow there. Points duly awarded.
> >> If women knew going into marriage > >> that they would need to be self-sufficient in the event of > >> divorce, they would be more likely to resist the subordinated > >> position of being an unemployed or underemployed primary > >> caretaker.
> Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning > for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!
Whoa, that's not what she said. You missed the "in the event" part. All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning on," that's "planning for."
This also includes the supposedly college-educated widows from 9/11 who are milking their tragedy for all it's worth. Did none of their husbands have life insurance provided by those Fortune 500 companies? Are they completely unable to find employment despite their degrees? (Although a couple of them seem to have budding careers in fundraising.) What about the custodians' widows who are already out working two jobs to make ends meet...do they not count because they don't photograph well or have a Web page? (Oops, I'm in alt.peeves territory again here.)
> >> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure > >> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the > >> maternal/child bond
> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it. Having a kid does not a good parent make, as you well know. I like the comment by <?> that it's a shame that we have to take a test to get a driver's license but they'll let any idiot be a parent.
> >> But so long as the maternal subsidy exists, women will > >> continue to allow themselves to be pushed into the subordinated > >> role of caregiver, giving up their own careers,
> Which one is the most important, to the improvement of mankind?
Possibly curing cancer--or potentially raising another Jeffrey Dahmer? Hmmm....
> >> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains > >> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice > >> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get > >> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual, > >> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments > >> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a > >> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB, > >> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what > >> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be > >> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But > >> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she? > >> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you > >> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]
Barf. Any time you hear this, someone's selling something and it ain't always coffee.
> >> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society > >> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is > >> the most important thing you can do.
> *Parenting* certinally is!
I guess we'll just forget about that fuel cell breakthrough and keep on wading through piles of toys and fast food wrappers in the SUV, then. Thank goodness we're properly raising Our Fyooture to solve the problem...20 years later than it could have been solved. Maybe.
Parenting is *not* "the most important thing you can do." Just like lots of other things, it can be done well or badly, and people who are likely to do it badly should find Other Important Things to do well.
Granted, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE KIDS, then parenting becomes much more important.
> >> This message can be so pervasive as to completely > >> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial > >> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce > >> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead > >> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time > >> parenting.
> In a Perfect World, wouldn't the choice have been made before the > birth of children?
Yes! <clap clap clap, and that's applause, not a disease, Glen!>
Here we are at Door #3 again. Financial resources allowing, a good mother can also have a career, and one does not have to negate the other. Working part-time is one choice, as is finding a good daycare that teaches skills the mother does not have or know how to teach (arts & crafts, cooking, learning games, etc.). They are out there; they're just harder to find because they don't have to advertise (word of mouth keeps the waiting list full). In addition, the child does not get spoiled by being the Be All and End All of mommie's existence.
> Much of this overlooks some important factors:
> 1) Most people have not been *raised* to make good choices.
True, and may I add that many have not been raised to understand that parenthood itself is a choice, not an obligation.
> 3) Most people were not raised with a good "sense of self" or > tend to lose it along the way. Without that, they are screwed in > so many ways -- the ability to parent effectively often being > foremost.
Along with, often, the ability to make any reasoned decisions at all.
> In case I might be seen as a massagonist (one who manipulates the > musclature of wimen)
*snort*
> I just want to say that I am, in reality, > squarely on both sides on this issue, as you stated in in your > paper.
hpjeannie wrote: >> >> O'Connell then goes on to a lengthy discourse to assure >> >> mothers that putting a child in daycare will not disrupt the >> >> maternal/child bond
>> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
>Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home >with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it.
Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in *any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear (which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).
For an excellent read on this very subject, check out Dr. Isabelle Fox "Being there" (not about Chaunce the Gardner).
On 25 Mar 2002 21:10:08 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote: >Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the >quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes >that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence >points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a >parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in >*any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover >in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear >(which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left >them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).
This is a step away from the trauma inflicted by CPS when they remove children from the home, presumibly to save the child.
Sometimes a child will be traumatized in the home, but removing them *usually* further traumatizes the child. (This is one time that I *don't* appreciate irony)
A better (if it is done correctly, and it really is not difficult to do it correctly -- even for the often-heartless CPS folks) method that I have seen hints of is the reunification plan that involves a person or couple staying in the house to help the parents be better parents.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
On 25 Mar 2002 21:10:08 GMT, shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq.) wrote:
>Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the >quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes >that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence >points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a >parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in >*any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover >in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear >(which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left >them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).
uh, not *ALL* daycare/preschools fit that picture. the preschool we took both our tikes to (3 yrs old to K) still has the same 3 main people as it had when my boy was there 6 years ago. now, we didn't put either of them into any sort of daycare environment til they were 3, we didn't and still don't feel putting young children in a external environment is appropriate. But a preschool for 3-5/6 year olds is quite reasonable IMHO..
> >Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home > >with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it.
> Actually, I disagree with this, and quite strongly, in part because the > quoted text says it will disrupt the maternal/child bond, so it assumes > that such a bond already exists. But also because nearly *all* evidence > points to it being orders of magnitude better for a child to be home with a > parent (or, if you like, be PC and insert here "primary caregiver") than in > *any* daycare environment. This is in large part due to the high turnover > in daycares - children bond with someone, only to have them disappear > (which reinforces the original trauma when their entire world suddenly left > them in the care of strangers, or at least non-primary caretakers).
I guess it's a matter of context. I was thinking of the difference between being at home with one parent (possible a single parent) living a hand-to-mouth existence and rarely seeing its own kind except perhaps for siblings (which are a Bad Idea for hand-to-mouthers anyway), and staying in an excellent daycare center or home daycare, learning social skills, while Parent earns money for a better life, meanwhile providing an example of (instead of subsisting off the dole) how to work toward being better off than you are.
Great, now "or would you rather be a fish" is ringing in my ears.
Actually i got this picture of a new james bond flick where some of the many kids he has "fathered" have come back for child support. He's traded in his beemer for a volvo. James has to change diapers while applying rogaine. His love life has been shot to hell of course. And the new vilin is Dr. Nanny Evil.
>> Doing both is something that rarely works well.
>True, which is where you'll find your Door #3...at the Parrish house, >where both parents have careers but there's always a parent at home as >well, having planned well enough to be able to work out of the home in >order to be there for the kids as well as having the big house and the >messy SUV. :) The kids also see Mom and Dad both working in their >respective fields and have good examples to follow there. Points duly >awarded.
I said "rarely". I *sure* am not one to reccommend additional incomes to make mo' money just to establish the *appearance* that both are occuring.
I'm not saying that this is what is happening in Mike's case. I don't know and I am not sure that he and I need to get to know eachother well enough for me to make a properly informed decision.
<Wimen should be financially (and otherwise) prepaired for divorce)>
>> Whoa! Nobody in their right mind goes into a marriage, planning >> for a divorce. That would be amazingly defeatist!
>Whoa, that's not what she said. You missed the "in the event" part.
No, I actually didn't miss that part.
>All women should be prepared to be able to provide for themselves and >any children IN CASE OF divorce or widowhood. That's not "planning >on," that's "planning for."
One could easily carry that too far, taking it well into the defeatist place.
>This also includes the supposedly college-educated widows from 9/11 >who are milking their tragedy for all it's worth. Did none of their >husbands have life insurance provided by those Fortune 500 companies?
I thought that you were on the side of wimen taking care of themselves.
>Are they completely unable to find employment despite their degrees?
(from the other newsgroup and other threads) Aw, they are just bums. Wimen can be bums, too.
<Daycare disrupting the maternal bond>
>> Gender issues asside, O'Connell is wrong.
>Maybe not, if daycare is a better place for the child to be than home >with a parent(s) who does not seem to care for it. Having a kid does >not a good parent make, as you well know. I like the comment by <?> >that it's a shame that we have to take a test to get a driver's >license but they'll let any idiot be a parent.
I find that (by whoever) comment a bit offensive and/or ignorant.
Virtually anybody can be a good parent. That is the natural default; but it has been obscured in recent history by other issues.
<Maternal subsidy vs working>
>> Which one is the most important, to the improvement of mankind?
>Possibly curing cancer--or potentially raising another Jeffrey Dahmer? > Hmmm....
I have to wonder what type of parent you have been hanging with if this is the choice that you see.
The type of parent that would raise a Dahmer is the type of parent that needs help with parenting, not a career.
>> >> The radio commercial starts off with the lilting strains >> >> of a fife, and then the announcer's smooth masculine voice >> >> begins: "It's morning, and another day. There are kids to get >> >> dressed, breakfast to be made. The bus is coming. As usual, >> >> just a few minutes sooner than it should. But for a few moments >> >> between the sound of your alarm clock and the first shout of a >> >> waking child, you have a little time to sit with a cup of MJB, >> >> and think of what this is all about. What it's about is what >> >> it's always been about. Big people helping little people to be >> >> big themselves one day. It's not easy. It never has been. But >> >> then your mother managed to live through it, didn't she? >> >> Besides, when you really think about it, what else could you >> >> possibly do that could ever be so important?"[22]
>Barf. Any time you hear this, someone's selling something and it >ain't always coffee.
>> >> This commercial exemplifies the message that our society >> >> sends both tacitly, and not so tacitly, to women. Mothering is >> >> the most important thing you can do.
>> *Parenting* certinally is!
>I guess we'll just forget about that fuel cell breakthrough and keep >on wading through piles of toys and fast food wrappers in the SUV, >then.
Good thing, too! That mass of fast food wrappers in the back of the SUV is becoming a health hazard. Would you mind awfully, cleaning it up?
"Fuel cell breakthrough" indeed! You have been reading the headlines recently, huh? And that will be accomplished by a woman, you say? Or are you saying that the guy who figures out how to make effective fuel cells is gonna need a secretary?
<SLAP!!!>
OW!
>Thank goodness we're properly raising Our Fyooture to solve the >problem...20 years later than it could have been solved. Maybe.
Ah, here we go!
So it is more important to you to have working *things* as soon as possible, instead of having happy people who know themselves and know where they are going?
Let me guess: (apologies -- I hate when others give my answers in their posts) "That's not what I was saying. We should be doing both."
Well, we have been trying that (to varying degrees) for a few generations, now. Have things between people been getting better? Are there fewer skool shootings, now? Less violence in the Middle East? More honesty in politics?
>Parenting is *not* "the most important thing you can do." Just like >lots of other things, it can be done well or badly, and people who are >likely to do it badly should find Other Important Things to do well.
Parenting *is* the most important thing that one can do because parenting is making the blueprint for the future (for each and every generation). Unless one is interested in things and in immediate gratification, then I can't imagine a whole lot that might be more important to the future of mankind.
>> >> This message can be so pervasive as to completely >> >> undermine a woman's desire to pursue a career and financial >> >> independence. It is a subtle form of subterfuge which can coerce >> >> a woman into "voluntarily" abandoning her career path, instead >> >> "choosing" to devote her personal resources to full time >> >> parenting.
>> In a Perfect World, wouldn't the choice have been made before the >> birth of children?
>Yes! <clap clap clap, and that's applause, not a disease, Glen!>
>Here we are at Door #3 again. Financial resources allowing, a good >mother can also have a career, and one does not have to negate the >other.
But, for most people (in any financial situation), attempting to do both even reasonably well is a bear. It is draining, but not because of financial concerns. More because of time and focus.
>Working part-time is one choice, as is finding a good daycare
Good! Find one.
Then tell everybody else where that is, so that they can take advantage of it as well.
See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be expected to find it, except by "random chance"?
>that teaches skills the mother does not have or know how to teach >(arts & crafts, cooking, learning games, etc.).
If the mother (or any primary caretaker, PC) doesn't have these skills, it would behoove them to learn them. If they are important enough to learn, then the PC should know them and use them enough so that the children will learn by seeing them done. If they are not important enough, then why force some kid to learn them?
>They are out there;
Yer arm-waving. Name 2 within an area that you might use, presently.
>they're just harder to find because they don't have to advertise (word >of mouth keeps the waiting list full). In addition, the child does >not get spoiled by being the Be All and End All of mommie's existence.
One can *not* spoil a child by giving it constant love and attention for as long as the child wants it. That will only make the child more secure.
>> Much of this overlooks some important factors:
>> 1) Most people have not been *raised* to make good choices.
>True, and may I add that many have not been raised to understand that >parenthood itself is a choice, not an obligation.
Were that true, then right now (no practicing, now!), make yourself feel happy. Done? OK, now feel so depressed that you are suicidal. While you are deep in that, make yourself feel extreemly horney (and call me immediately, please).
If you could do all of that, then perhaps for you, parenthood is simply a rational choice.
For most real live people, behavior is driven by feelings. Most folks find ways of rationalizing the behaviors. The stronger the feelings, the more driven the behavior -- and that does not exclude lots of time generating rational thought that supports the behaviors and feelings.
>> 3) Most people were not raised with a good "sense of self" or >> tend to lose it along the way. Without that, they are screwed in >> so many ways -- the ability to parent effectively often being >> foremost.
>Along with, often, the ability to make any reasoned decisions at all.
See above.
>> In case I might be seen as a massagonist (one who manipulates the >> musclature of wimen)
>*snort*
>> I just want to say that I am, in reality, >> squarely on both sides on this issue, as you stated in in your >> paper.
>Me too! Comments on the above?
No, I just don't have tyme. I used it all in a dinner recipe, this weekend.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:47:21 -0800, in ba.mountain-folk,John R
Pierce <s...@is.invalid> wrote: >uh, not *ALL* daycare/preschools fit that picture. the preschool we took >both our tikes to (3 yrs old to K) still has the same 3 main people as it >had when my boy was there 6 years ago. now, we didn't put either of them >into any sort of daycare environment til they were 3, we didn't and still >don't feel putting young children in a external environment is >appropriate. But a preschool for 3-5/6 year olds is quite reasonable >IMHO..
So you *do* homeschool!
Kool!
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
ba.mountain-folk,hpjean...@yahoo.com (hpjeannie) wrote: >I guess it's a matter of context. I was thinking of the difference >between being at home with one parent (possible a single parent)
Wait. A single parent (of either gender) has a whole new set of problems.
>living a hand-to-mouth existence and rarely seeing its own kind except >perhaps for siblings (which are a Bad Idea for hand-to-mouthers >anyway),
What is this concern for kids not seeing other kids? I hear that as a stated concern for homeschooling. Have you ever found a parent who is capable of keeping kids away from the other kids in the neighborhood? Kids *will* find other kids.
>and staying in an excellent daycare center or home daycare, >learning social skills, while Parent earns money for a better life,
Um, "learning social skills" is most effectively done by kidlet watching parents.
>meanwhile providing an example of (instead of subsisting off the dole) >how to work toward being better off than you are.
Sure, tomorrow or later. (well, I saw you use the "immediate gratification" excuse, before, so I thought that I'd just try it out for myself)
Why force either sex to struggle to have enough to "be better off"? Why not just learn to live within one's means and focus on those things that are most important?
Aside: I fear that I might be coming off as someone who opposes wimenhood or the specific wimen in this group. I just want to say that I am not aware of any (affected British accent:) "bint" (did that sound any different with the British accent, than it would have without it?) in this group.
I am actually quite pleased to be able to have discussions (in agreement or not) with such a bright group of wimen (past and presently involved, here). I don't remember any of the blatent "Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.
OK, do I get laid, now?
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Glen Appleby wrote: >See, "good daycare" is as rare as sweet smelling farts. Beyong >that, I have not seen too many people who could even define "good >daycare". If it isn't defined completely, then how can people be >expected to find it, except by "random chance"?
Sometimes daycare is, unfortunately, necessary. Then you are stuck with going with the least bad option. However, daycare is *never* better *for the child* than being _with a parent*_ (and don't anybody give me any of that happy equinewaste about how "the parents need to be happy for the child to be happy, and working makes the parent feel happy and fulfilled" rationalist BS). [*For values of "parent" which do not include abusers, etc., which is a red herring because in that case - if it is *that* bad, the child arguably should not be with that parent anyways, and should be with either the other parent, or another close family member or other primary caretaker, and the thesis still applies - in fact, is arguably *more* imperative, as a child coming out of that sort of tragic situation needs security and stability, not to be warehoused, even more than ever.]
And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used* daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]
Recently, the sentient creature shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.) presented us with:
>And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in >daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so >self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in >favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used* >daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and >guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula >feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]
...Bond. Anne Bond.
;-)
~Dulcinea, Who Stayed Home and Still Spends A Lot of Time Here (obviously...)
On 26 Mar 2002 17:30:54 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote: >Glen Appleby wrote:
>> I don't remember any of the blatent >>"Me, too :-) :-)"ers, here.
>Me too!
See? Like I said. Not blatent.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
On 26 Mar 2002 17:29:32 GMT, in ba.mountain-folk,shede...@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell,
Esq.) wrote: >Sometimes daycare is, unfortunately, necessary. Then you are stuck with >going with the least bad option.
Sure. Occasionally parents might need a babysitter or even longer periods of other types of care. I thought that we were speaking in gross generalities, here.
>However, daycare is *never* better *for >the child* than being _with a parent*_ (and don't anybody give me any of >that happy equinewaste about how "the parents need to be happy for the >child to be happy, and working makes the parent feel happy and fulfilled" >rationalist BS). [*For values of "parent" which do not include abusers, >etc., which is a red herring because in that case - if it is *that* bad, >the child arguably should not be with that parent anyways, and should be >with either the other parent, or another close family member or other >primary caretaker, and the thesis still applies - in fact, is arguably >*more* imperative, as a child coming out of that sort of tragic situation >needs security and stability, not to be warehoused, even more than ever.]
Might I suggest that you may have been hanging out with lawyers for just a bit too long?
>And _before_ anyone gets huffy and says "but I put my children in >daycare..", so it doesn't get personal - let me say _now_, before anyone so >self-identifies, that in my experience those who argue the most strongly in >favour of "daycare being good for children" are those who have *used* >daycare and are trying to assuage their own feelings of ambivalence and >guilt. [The same seems to hold true for those who argue that formula >feeding really isn't any worse than breastfeeding.]
Let me correct my last hypothesis.
You have been hanging out with way too many lawyers far too much.
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on who we love." -- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom ______________________________________________________________ Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
