Posts

mother and baby

How Crucial are Mothers to the Early Development of Their Children?

What used to be a biological imperative is now a point of contention. Mothers staying close to their babies, nurturing and nourishing them in their early years, was how our species survived and thrived for millennia.

Now, an author and psychoanalyst who dares to suggest that mothers should be their child’s primary caregiver, at least for the first three years of life, is under fire for fueling the “mommy wars.” Erica Komisar’s book, Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters, details the scientific evidence that mothers are the best early caregivers of their children and that substitutes—daycares, nannies, relatives, even dads—are not comparable to the care that only mothers can provide.

Komisar’s book is scathing in its honesty. She says there is no such thing as a good daycare. She says that the guilt many working mothers feel over not staying home with their children is good. “Guilt is a signal feeling,” she says. It’s a sign that should not be ignored but listened to. She writes in her book: “Too often, mothers are putting their work and their own needs ahead of their children’s.”

Needless to say her ideas are not well received by many. The Wall Street Journal reported on the book last week, writing about Komisar’s recent publicity experiences:

“Christian radio stations ‘interviewed me and loved me,’ she says. She went on ‘Fox & Friends,’ and ‘the host was like, your book is the best thing since the invention of the refrigerator.’ But ‘I couldn’t get on NPR,’ and ‘I was rejected wholesale—particularly in New York—by the liberal press.’ She did appear on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America,’ but seconds before the camera went live, she says, the interviewer told her: ‘I don’t believe in the premise of your book at all. I don’t like your book.’”

Komisar, a New Yorker who considers herself to be politically liberal, discovered in her private clinical practice what she felt was an unmistakable link between rising rates of childhood mental health issues and absent mothers. She told the Journal:

“What I was seeing was an increase in children being diagnosed with ADHD and an increase in aggression in children, particularly in little boys, and an increase in depression in little girls.” She realized that “the absence of mothers in children’s lives on a daily basis was what I saw to be one of the triggers for these mental disorders.”

So as not to be a hypocrite, Komisar, 53, waited to write her book until her children were older and didn’t rely as much on her emotional and physical closeness. She writes in her book: “The truth is, we can do everything in life, but not at the same time.”

While Komisar advocates for a more “child-centric society” that can appeal to liberals and conservatives alike, her left-leaning political views support policies such as a year-long paid maternity leave for new mothers. By arguing that mothers matter—and that they matter more than we may think—Komisar hopes to make the case for government policies that prioritize motherhood.

Conservatives, who are often embracing of stay-at-home-motherhood but eschew coercive state policies, gravitate strongly toward Komisar’s child-centric ideas. On the other hand, according to The Wall Street Journal article, “most liberals won’t even acknowledge the problem.”

The data presented in Komisar’s book are compelling and hard to ignore. She finds that “infants and toddlers who have the constant and consistent presence of an attentive and sensitive mother are more likely to be emotionally and psychologically healthy children and adolescents.”

A mother as a child’s primary caregiver in the early years is incomparable and non-substitutable. Mothers provide the nurturing, emotional connection, and security that babies need in order to grow into happy, healthy, well-adjusted children and adults. The problem is obvious and the science is clear: mothers matter.


This post Psychoanalyst Author: Mothers Are the Best Early Caregivers of Their Children was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Kerry McDonald.

Does Forcing Obedience In Children Result In Them Having A Better Work Ethic?

This is in response to an article titled “PARENTING: Lessons in obedience today result in a better work ethic tomorrow” by Jenni Stahlmann and Jody Hagaman.

I disagree with the premise that children need “lessons in obedience” in order to develop a “better” work ethic. I’ll list the three aspects of obedience the authors present in the article, followed by my rebuttal.

1.“Teaching our kids to respond to us immediately helps fight a sense of entitlement.”

No. Ironically, when you expect immediate obedience from children just because you say so, you are teaching them what entitlement looks like. Expecting children to immediately drop whatever they are doing in order to blindly comply, is teaching them that your agenda is ALWAYS more important than theirs. It doesn’t teach them that you both have agendas and to be mindful of that. It doesn’t teach them cooperation, negotiation, understanding, fairness, justice, empathy or respect for others. It teaches them that the “person is charge” must always be immediately obeyed. When it comes to work ethic, I wouldn’t want to hire someone that is going to be mindlessly compliant. I want someone that is going to thoughtfully disagree with me, point out something they feel isn’t fair, and present ideas that contradict mine. Take a look at the true innovators, entrepreneurs and change-makers in our society. Are these “reflective rebels” or “obedient rule-followers”?

2. “Kids should learn to obey mom and dad with a “happy heart” or “cheerfully”.

No. This is teaching children to mask their true feelings and act “cheerful” even if they aren’t. Children should be allowed to express their feelings without fear of judgment or punishment. If the child is unhappy about certain responsibilities, they should have the right to express their unhappiness and have those feelings validated. This doesn’t mean they should relinquish those responsibilities, but instead they can receive understanding and empathy for their situation. If children aren’t allowed to express and have validated their true feelings by parents, they will seek out others who will. Regarding work ethic, I would find it very unfortunate to have an employee hide their true feelings from me and instead resign because of their unhappiness. If they would have felt comfortable with communicated their true feelings, perhaps some negotiation could have taken place and we would have both been satisfied with the outcome. I want to work with others that can communicate their true feelings, not hide them behind a fake “cheerful” mask.

3. “Obeying mom and dad thoroughly means taking full responsibility for their work and pressing on until the job is 100 percent done.”

No. Taking “full responsibility” for something is more meaningful when it is done without coercion. Forcing obedience and compliance 100% of the time sounds like an authoritarian nightmare. Is it fair to expect perfection from children, when we are all imperfect—including the parents? I would prefer employees that want to complete a project and do their best, because they enjoy the project and want to deliver a great result for the client, not because they want to simply obey me out of fear.

“Instant obedience and mindless compliance are poor goals indeed, when raising children. A thoughtfully questioning, passionately curious and humorously resourceful child, who wants to know why, who delights in inventing ‘compromises’ and who endlessly pushes the boundaries, tends to become a thoughtful, passionate, resourceful adult who will change the world rather than being changed by the world.” [L.R. Knost]

Recommended reading / listening / watching:
We Need to Talk about Childism
Why Obedience is NOT my Parenting Goal
The Case Against Coercion
The Inauthenticity and Immorality of Coercion (Podcast)
What if we trusted you?: Jerry Michalski at TEDxCopehhagen 2012 (Video)
The Grass Moment – Helping Kids to Become Reflective Rebels