Jump to navigation
What To Do About The Children
R. Alex Whitlock
In his book
How I Accidentally Joined The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace), Stein recounts one of his first encounters with the adamance of the left when he was writing a piece questioning the conventional wisdom of the time that qualified day care was every bit or even more competent at raising children than their parents are. Priorities have shifted since then and the notion that a mother knows best is not nearly as controversial as it was. I think that it largely depends on the circumstances, but am more curious than definite in my conclusions on the matter.
The UK's Observer puts up an article on a study that suggests that
children excel when guided by their mothers as compared to those guided by daycare, nannies, or even relatives:
It found babies and toddlers fared worst when they were given group nursery care. Those cared for by friends or grandparents or other relatives did a little better while those looked after by nannies or childminders were rated second only to those cared for by mothers.
According to Penelope Leach, a leading British childcare expert and one of the study's authors, the social and emotional development of children cared for by someone other than their mother 'is definitely less good'.
Such children tend to show higher levels of aggression or are inclined to become more withdrawn, compliant and sad. Tests included the ability to do a series of set tasks and the level of eye-contact maintained with adults.
Leach will outline details of the study's findings tomorrow at a conference organised by the National Childminding Association, of which she is president. 'The study does not mean every child in a large nursery will become a monster,' she said. 'Nevertheless, it shows a small but significant difference in a large group of children.'
There are a handful of reasons why the study may yield these results:
- Mothers do a better job of raising children than do other caretakers.
- The study's measurements are flawed. The article doesn't satisfy my curiosity about how the study was conducted and whether it was sufficient in scope.
- There may be other factors that controls both how well a child turns out and whether or not the parent stays home. Such factors would likely include economic situations or (more likely than that) parental priorities.
I'm going to assume, for now, that #2 is not the case and this study is indicative of
something that
may or may not be that moms should stay at home with the kids.
I have a number of reactions. The most immediate reaction is "what about fathers?" While it's undecided as to whether or not I will stay home with the kids or hold down a job, I will most likely put my career on hold for at least a while either working in a limited capacity or staying home full-time. So it would be helpful to know if fathers are more like mothers in that respect or more like grandparents.
The broader question of whether or not it's best for the children for the mother to stay home or not is irrelevent to many working Americans. While I believe there to be more cases where it is economically feasible than are currently exercised, there are a number of cases where two working parents can barely keep up even without living a robust middle class lifestyle. That makes me wonder somewhat how well that was controlled in the study. Did they take into account that a lower education level or developmental issues on the part of the parents may be part of the reason why kids are falling behind? It doesn't say, though that the au pairs didn't fair that much more successfully says that if it is a factor, it is far from a deciding factor.
A lot of it, I am inclined to believe, comes from priorities. A mother that is interested in staying at home with the kids is likely to be running a household that is more child-oriented than not.
Lee Ann Morawski introduced me to the saying that nannies are for people who enjoy naming kids, but not raising them. While that's not the case universally, there are probably enough cases of disinterested parents having kids in order to carry on the family name or because they feel some childbearing obligation to skew the data somewhat. On the other hand, that could be countered by those mothers that don't stay at home for the kids but rather because they're not the working sort. I couldn't say for sure.
It brings to light some interesting questions, though. If prospective parents (that can afford to) are not interested in taking a leading role in raising their children because they're not temperamentally suited for it or have other priorities, should they decline to have children at all. In other words, does the decision to have children bear with it the responsibility of being an enthusiastic and involved parent. The "yes" argument is that it's unfair to bring life into the world and then neglect it. The "no" argument is a life is a precious gift in itself.
The "no" argument I find interesting because it is one that I don't think I would have bought in to five years ago. But as I get older, more and more of the best and brightest of my peers are choosing not to have children in part because they don't believe that they have the time, energy, and inclination to take an active role in parenting. It's hard to argue with their logic, but there's some truth to the saying that those that should have children don't and those that shouldn't do. Leaving reproduction to those at the middle and bottom of the economic ladder is a recipe for trouble. And, to be blunt, many unenthusiastic parents with the right parenting role models and skills could produce better results than a full-time parent that is inept and possibly even incompetent. Parenting acumen is not a given and while there is certainly a corrolation with enthusiasm, it's not causal.
But enthusiasm really does matter. Many of the parents that are leaving the childraising to au pairs would be miserable at home and I'm not sure that the children lagging behind in nannied households would do much better under those circumstances. As much as I hate to give ground to the notion that parents need to be happy in order for the kids to be happy because this notion has been abused to the point of absurdity, leaving countless wrecked households in its wake, there is at least some truth to it. Resented children won't be oblivious to the resentment indefinitely.
Now most of the above pertains to parents well-off enough for the mother to be able to stay home or afford an au pair. Below them on the economic ladder are those that may be able to afford a stay-at-home parent, but at significant costs in terms of personal and material comfort. It would be interesting to see, for instance, how well a child with a stay-at-home parent in a lower-middle class neighborhood (Houstonians, think LaPorte or northern Pasadena) versus a two-income household in the charge of a better school system (Houstonians, think Clear Lake or Sugarland) with similar household incomes (after accounting for taxes and housing and daycare expenses). In other words, can the extra income garnered from the working mother essentially pay for her relative absense in the household?
Let's take the above group and move a little further down the economic ladder. If mothers are better at raising their children than are paid professionals and relatives, does society have a vested interest in giving women financial incentives to stay home? Is it worth the taxpayer's while to pick up the tab of the lost second income so that our children can be raised with more involved mothers? In the case of marginal middle-class homes (by "marginal" I mean those that could theoretically find a way to have the mother stay at home but could not do so without being adversely affected, financially - in the middle, basically), should we give financial incentives for the mother to stay at home? In the case of the lower classes we would have to pay more; would that be worth it?
It's an interesting discussion that, for the most part, is not really being had. The left is interested in providing more daycare so that mothers don't have to make the arduous decision. The right is not interested in footing the bill. I'm skeptical of the idea myself, to be honest. Paying people not to work is risky business. A whole lot of the parents would take the paycheck and spend most of their time watching television rather than taking an active role. And there may be a loss with less wealth being generated per capita.
So I'm not advocating anything in particular here. I'm reluctant to tell a woman that she ought to stay at home with the kids (even though there's a strong chance that'll be my job), but I also wonder if it isn't a more possible and desirable option than is currently exercised.
[via
Judd]
Note: I use rather broad language when I refer to a mother "raising" her child that could logically be interpreted to suggest that a child is not being raised by their parents if they are in daycare. Regardless of what is done from 9-5, parents are instrumental in the raising of their children for both good and for ill. The debate over daycare should not obscure this fact. I chose the wording that I did for lack of an obvious alternative that was not too wordy.
Observations
It is a hard choice, and the impulse to make it less hard (by "providing more daycare so mothers don't have to make the arduous decision") is forgivable. But just barely. It amounts to rewarding one choice so heavily that the burden of choice is removed.
Here's a proposal: if we are to subsidize childcare, we should equally subsidize childcare provided by the mother (or father) -- i.e., a parent who watches his own children can pay himself childcare costs and be reimbursed by the government. Still expensive, but at least somewhat fair.
Part of it is the consumerist nature society has gotten into. You, and I, and many of our friends have managed to avoid this trap; our possessions don't define who we are, and though we have a few vices we keep up (comic books for example) we try to live relatively within our means.
Unfortunately, living within your means has become less and less fashionable. The instinct of "but do I really need it" has all but vanished from American society, which is (at least I feel) where some of this is coming from.
There's also the factor of age. Times back, parenting came very shortly after marriage for many people. In an age when condoms were frowned upon and birth control pills a nonentity, getting married pretty much meant consigning yourself to have kids, and married couples planned accordingly.
Now, more and more (especially middle class and higher) parents are waiting until they've been married 5-6 years, and both have held jobs that long, meaning that they've gotten used to both being at work. Whether right or wrong, neither parent feels like scaling back on income in order to raise the kids, thus the day care dilemma.
Of course, that's not ALL of them. There are a decent number of families who have the two incomes because, even after paying daycare and other costs associated with not having mom stay at home, and after doing the shopping and everything after hours with child in tow, they still feel it's providing a better life for their child than they would be able to on one income.
Mixed bag. I'd have to agree that I want to see the study methodology before passing judgement.
Mike: the simultaneous growth of wage income and disappearance of personal savings shows that people are, on average, spending like there's no tomorrow. If you are living well within your means, then someone else is living equally far outside his means to keep that average up.
Mike,
You make outstanding points. I've actually gotten into a couple of conversations recently about inflated expectations when it comes to possessions. A lot of our peers have quite a bit of material comfort afforded by our parents. Our parents, of course, worked 20+ years to be able to afford to give us that stuff, but we accept it as the norm and expect it coming straight out of school and if we can't afford it, we credit it. We as in our generation, not as in you or me. Anyway, your point about the DINK (Double-income-no-kids) lifestyle being extended even after kids enter the picture is an excellent extension of that. Well tragic, not excellent, but you get what I mean.
Sam,
In addition to the cost, there could be some incentive problems with subsidizing stay-at-home mothers. I think a lot of wily-eyed teenagers might view kids they can't pay for as a value-neutral substitute for working. Or worse yet, the pre-reform welfare financial incentive to have kids to collect a paycheck from the government.
Isn't England the Divorce capital of the world? I find this info to be quite odd. I wonder how many of the woman using daycare in this study are double income families and not simply single mothers?
Good point, Kavey. Some of it may be attributable to marital status as much who's taking the kids during the day. While wealth is sort of controlled (by comparing expensive and inexpensive forms of day care), marital status doesn't appear to be. Even a single mother with an au pair may be at a disadvantage when compared to a middle-class family with a stay-at-home parent.
As the child of a stay-at-home mother, I have always assumed that I had it better off than my peers who were forced into daycare -- if only based on the evidence of what I saw around me. I am therefore a huge believer in active, fulltime parenting. That said, I don't believe government has any business getting involved in the question of whether to pay for child care or not. But then, most of what the government does it should not be involved in.
More interesting to me is the question of whether white-collar parents have some duty to have children. I have been married for about a year and a half, and my wife is beginning to agitate a bit on the baby front. I really wanted to have kids, in theory, about 5 years ago. Unfortunately, the older I get, the more that feeling fades. I certainly don't feel the need to have children or even a strong desire. That is not to say that I wouldn't be an active parent if my wife got pregnant, just that I'm not sure my quality of life would improve in that situation. I like my independence, sleeping in, going out drinking, and these things are what will disappear with a baby, to be replaced with complete dependence, crying all night, and beets spit all over my Willie Nelson t-shirt.
Centinel,
it's not so much a "responsibility" to have kids. It's a disparity in behaviors. It seems the lower you go down on the income bracket, the more kids there are in a "family", and ironically the more single-parent families there are as well.
Those who should be having kids - e.g. those who are planning to, and structure their lives around them - tend to have 2-3 kids and be done with it, and raise those kids well.
On the other hand, the largest percentage of single parents with what I would consider to be way too many kids in tow, undoubtedly come from lower income levels. And these kids by the same token are all getting less attention, much poorer schooling, and much less of the support they'll need to succeed later. Whether they're in day care or not.
As for the government paying for daycare... are you kidding? There are several reasons school semesters are getting extended and school districts all over are thinking of starting trimesters (or at least putting out feelers), and while the "standards" push is a factor, there is a sizable group of parents who are agitating for them because they don't see school as primarily a learning location but rather as free daycare.
Come to think of it, that may be why some of those schools are so messed up to start with.
England is not the divorce capital of the world. To divorce, you first need to marry, which the English no longer do. The countrywide illegitimacy rate (not restricted to the young, poor, or any ethnic group) has passed 40%, and "partner" is now the default word for a long-term companion (since no one wants to bet against the odds that that woman is actually your wife).
Centinel: This will sound kind of medieval, for which I apologize in advance.
It is not really accurate to say that your "quality of life" -- which you define in terms of freedom and lack of persistent obligations to others -- will not improve if you have a child. In fact, it will utterly disappear.
In its place you will be offered another kind of quality of life, with different features. Some people find the latter to their liking (a change of mindset which used to be referred to as "growing up" into a stage of "adulthood"), but it cannot be guaranteed. Some walk out on their wives and children in order to recapture the freedom of their extended childhood.
I am sorry to address you so personally. You share with a great number of others the idea that your current enjoyments are the important ones of life. You may dismiss my words as the rant of one too old to enjoy them.
"There is little of free will for a protector." -- Larry Niven
Mike, you're on a roll, man!
Sam, in Idaho I'm in a bit of a different world. When I first got up here and people asked me why I left Houston for rural Idaho, I mentioned Camille as my "significant other" by which everyone assumed that we were married (partially because I moved for her, but also because I was 26, which is old to be unmarried in Mormon Idaho). Few in Houston would have made that mistake.
Cen, to play a bit of a contrarian, I think that there really is a case to be made that white-collar, educated, and well-off couples do have a sort of obligation to society to have children. It's a problem for society, I think, if successfully raised children become indicative of the termination of the geneological line. It leaves the pool of the next generation considerably weighted towards the less intelligent, less responsible sorts. Mike makes a good point about quantity of children and quality of parental involvement, but the question for me is whether or not unenthusiastic-but-skilled parents would be a net gain or net loss in the next generation pool. I'm inclined to say a net gain, actually, so long as the enthusiastic-but-clueless keep reproducing in large numbers. Not saying that a gun should be pointed at your head, mind you. Not really saying anything definitively, just thinking aloud.
The lower you go in income bracket the more single parent families? I don't think I could agree with that one bit. Now granted my view is limited to what I've experienced and I haven't conducted any real studies, but in my experience, I see it the other way around.
Growing up, I was on the "poor" side of the district. I went to school with a lot of the poor kids from kindergarten to 8th grade. Most kids were in a 2 parent household (however dysfunctional it was). My Freshman year of highschool, my mother moved had me going to a different highschool (she worked for the district by then). This highschool had kids from families that are among some of the richest in the country. Going from the "low" to the "high" I saw a drastic change in the number of divorced parents. The "rich" kids seemed to live in divorced homes. Usually living with one parent, and seldom seeing a step parent... at least not with the parent that usually has the kids full time.
The again, there was nothing normal about it when I think back on it. Going to jr. high, I saw plenty of guns and drugs, yet at the highschool is the only place that had a stabbing on campus, and kids beat to with in an inch of their lives. Go figure.
Kavey,
Sorry to say, if you look at the children-out-of-wedlock statistics, there is sort of a U-curve to it.
In the "low" income ranges, you wind up with lots of kids, who may or may not know who their dad is.
In the "middle" income ranges, families (for a better part) tend to consist of two parents + the kids.
In the higher income ranges, for various reasons, divorce happens more often. Kids don't necessarily follow from flings, but there are plenty of kids who are raised by nannies (of course, they'd be raised by nannies whether the parents were home or not).
Then again, this is nothing new. If you go back to 1916 and Shaw's play Pygmalion (redone later as "My Fair Lady" the musical) Elizabeth Doolittle's father has an entire long rant on "Middle Class Morality" - in essence, the rich don't take marriage seriously because they're so rich they can ignore it, the poor don't marry because they can't afford to, and that leaves the middle class to be the only ones following what is considered the "moral" lifestyle - and it's quite a wonder to read it, since it was penned in 1916 and still seems startlingly relevant today.
I'm sorry, but I have neither a duty nor a responsibility to have children just because I have the means to raise them correctly. First, I don't "owe" the future anything. Second, if only idiots are having children, why would I want to subject my children to that?
Nor do I buy the fact that the biological imperative of propagation is some sort of "maturity" thing. All decisions are made based on self interest, be they to protect independence or to pass on your genes to a new generation. The idea that there is some "higher" value to having children rather than, say, working 12 hrs a day is outmoded. If I wish to live my life in pursuit of simple pleasures, that is my choice. Besides, aren't we discussing the fact that intelligent people are not having kids? Aren't they more "mature" than the unintelligent who are breeding away? Why do you think those people are begging off propagating? Because they can't figure out how to work their equipment?
Saying that "maturity" = having kids makes as much sense as those who say that it's "just so irresponsible to bring a child into the world in the state it's in"
And Mike, I never said that the government was screwing up schools or that schools weren't turning into daycares. What I said is that the government has no business getting involved in subsidizing daycare. I believe that some of the biggest problems in this country arise from individuals who believe that just because government is performing some function that said function is an appropriate use of government power under the Constitution.
You're all complain about the poor having too many children and the rich not enough, and yet you somehow suggest that taking money away from the rich (taxes) and subsidizing the poor (daycare spending) is the way to solve it? Where I come from, we actually reward good behavior and discourage bad, not the reverse.
Nothing gets the blood moving quite as much as critiquing lifestyles, or more accurately having your lifestyle critiqued. :)
Whether or not there is a responsibility to have a next generation is a matter of philosophy, I suppose. How responsible are we, generally speaking, to problems that we share no blame for? The libertarian in me says "Not at all," but then there's the idium about being part of the problem if you're not part of the solution and that holds some resonance with me as well. I fall much more on the libertarian side than the communitarian, but not so much that I don't believe the other side without merit (and find the ethical implications to be interesting, regarding childhood and beyond).
Having children and not having children can each be a mature and an immature decision. I know people that should never, under any circumstances, have children. I think that it's tragic that other people I know can't or choose not to have kids. Depends on the circumstances.
Above all, having children is a personal decision (not a communal one). While there are some who believe that I am being immature for not having children because I enjoy my independence, it doesn't stop the fact that I feel sorry for those who are tied down to children. Yes, I agree that children bring their own reward, but at least I acknowledge that they bring their own costs, as well.
Sammler's proposal seems to be in effect in Sweden (I believe) -- where there's taxpayer-funded free childcare, but a tax refund if you don't put your children in it. Thing is, most people outside of Sweden seemed to see it as not so much a success as a proof of the untenable nature of the system -- the tax refunds were put in place because the system was overstrained and they needed less kids in it.
On the rest, chalk me up as Victorian. Or medieval. Whatever floats your boat.
Ms. Truett: For the record, I think "my" proposal (of paying for children, rather than for their care) is quite a bad one -- just not as bad as the atrocious and destructive idea of paying only for third-party childcare.
Centinel: I can't argue with your point that choosing to have children is a personal, not a communal, decision. We observe that a lot of people, making these personal decisions, make decisions that are unhelpful to society -- which of course is their right. I think it is legitimate to speculate on the reasons for it, though, and on whether a more desirable outcome for society can be achieved without unfair coercion of individuals.
Centinel: you write:
"All decisions are made based on self interest, be they to protect independence or to pass on your genes to a new generation. The idea that there is some "higher" value to having children rather than, say, working 12 hrs a day is outmoded. If I wish to live my life in pursuit of simple pleasures, that is my choice."
These things may seem self-evident to you, but the philosophical position they mark out (rejection of societal duty and natural law, and reductionism of motives, for example) is not universally held. You have apparently raised personal freedom to become the primary arbiter of morality; this is at least a nondestructive position in general.
The decision to follow (or not follow) the dictates Natural Law, God, or the instructions on a box of Jello are all based on your personal self interest. Whatever values you and I place on an actiion are factored in to our utilitarian calculus. While individual choices and beliefs are certainly not universally held, self-interest is the primary component of decisionmaking, and, as such, to assume some moral superiority for following your dictates over another is a bit outmoded, to my thinking. Well, at least as far as getting all self-righteous about your self-interested actions.
Centinel,
Are you making a descriptive or a normative claim? That is, are you saying we all do act in ways that maximize our self-interest, or are you saying we all ought to act in such ways (this is the difference between the doctrines of psychological egoism and ethical egoism)?
Psychological egoism, as described by Mr. Milton, is not falsifiable, since the definition of "self-interest" can simply be expanded to explain whatever action happens to be taken. It quickly descends into tautology, and is useless as a theory.
One may choose to identify all the actions he sees as manifestations of self-interest. There is no way to invalidate such a world view, though I maintain it is a choice made by the viewer.
Assuming, then, that psychological egoism is a tautology, that still doesn't provide an ethical basis for having children over personal independence. It appears to me that arguments against P.E. center on the standing of altruistic actions. I think that an argument can be made for and against either choice as being more or less altruistic/moral. Of course, you gentlemen are the experts in ethical framework. I'm just an enfeebled law jockey.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
