This isn’t to say that work outside the home is bad. Far from it. When we get into the “work versus raising kids” debate, we often forget that most traditional societies have women doing both and are able to do both somewhat simultaneously. They would forage, either leaving their children for a bit or sometimes bringing them. Their other contributions to the well-being of their tribe coexist with childrearing. Men mother in teaching children vital skills and nurturing when needed. Some men even allow babies to dry nurse on them while mom is away.
This idea that we must separate ourselves for work, that we cannot coexist as mothers and workers, coupled with the devaluation of mothering leads many to detach themselves from their mothering identity completely. And for those that don’t, we return to the issue of justifying the choice to mother.
This means competition and judgment and a further move away from the proverbial village that is needed to really support families.
If you decide to break free, you’d better show us that you’re doing something amazing with it.
d) The fourth and final pillar is one that subsumes all of the above: a detachment from biology. One of the great pushes from liberal feminism was and is to fight for women to be seen as separate from their biological role as mother in contrast to the patriarchal argument of keeping women out of the workforce – we weren’t biologically made for it (though again they also held a hand over us as mothers too). However, instead of it being a fight for women to be seen as “mothers and more” (thinking of the aforementioned identity crisis) it has come to be a means to simply deny biology with depressing results from a mothering perspective.
To deny biology for us means to also deny biology for our children and for the dyad of mother and child. Our children are biologically wired to expect certain behaviours when born – touch being one of the most prominent and one we are moving away from – and if we dismiss biology, assuming we can move beyond it, we fail to provide what our children need to thrive. This includes the physical touch, emotional connectedness, and round-the-clock care that research has, time and again, shown us matters. One of my favourite quotes of all time on this issue comes from Dr. Helen Ball at Durham University who has said:
100 years of rapidly changing infant-care fashions cannot alter several million years of evolutionarily derived infant physiology.
In short: We can change the way we parent to fit our cultural ideals – which we are doing – but that does not mean our children will adapt to this in the way we would expect or hope.
Conclusions
What we have ended up with here are several ways in which we are detached – how we have become “detached mothers” – thanks to the practices and cultural ideals that are encouraged and pushed by both the patriarchal society and the liberal feminist movement within it. I believe these practices are unsustainable and will result in a societal implosion as our empathy weans, mental illness rises, and we become more detached from one another on every level.
We can change this but it means changing our entire concept of motherhood and what we value.
This new mindset can only come if we move playgrounds. We will never make the changes needed if we continue to play on the patriarchal playground – it is why liberal feminism has taken root, it’s the only type that could.
We need a playground that respects both the feminine and the masculine and this begins with mothering.
The more we can return to raising our children with a focus on attachment, love, compassion, respect – for them and their biology – the better the chance they will enter a world they feel connected to instead of detached from. A world they want to nurture and respect. This doesn’t mean any one practice over another, but rather an appreciation of what our children need and learning how we can provide it using ways that don’t dismiss them or ourselves as mothers.
We also need policy changes that flip the patriarchal and liberal feminist narrative on its head. Notably, we need policies that respect mothering as the valuable role that it is. Just a few ideas include:
• Parental leave options for up to 3 years as they have in places like Finland
• Paying parents who are at home taking the responsibility of their children instead of only to daycares
• Flexible work policies that allow women and men to work from home and work off-hours to blend work and family
• Programmes for new parents that are based on peer-to-peer assistance (like LLL) instead of professionals stepping in
• Start educating our children in high school about infant biology and attachment, just as we teach them about accounting and Shakespeare
At the end of the day, when we make sure people realise the immense value of raising children and provide a framework in which this can happen, we all do well. It doesn’t mean saying work outside the home is meaningless – a fully matriarchal playground is just as unequal as a patriarchal one – but rather that we can find ways to value the yin and yang in our society so we can work together to thrive. This starts with our mothering and how we treat the most vulnerable members of our society.
Lauren Apfel was right – sleep training is a feminist issue – just not in the way she believed.
Originally published here
Tracy Cassels, PhD is the Director of Evolutionary Parenting, a science-based, attachment-oriented resource for families on a variety of parenting issues. In addition to her online resources, she offers one-on-one support to families around the world and is regularly asked to speak on a variety of issues from sleep to tantrums at conferences and in the media. She lives in Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada with her husband and two children.
