Chapter 3 is finally what I've been waiting for-- the WHY behind the dominance of peer orientation. I'm a huge advocate for a cultural (and legal/ business) shift in extending maternity leave and that it's actually better economically in the long run, so I love that they tie in the economic argument as to why healthy adult attachments can have a direct impact on $$ also.
Interesting thought that feminism is also a driving factor for peer orientation and not just economics. I totally agree. Feminism has completely shifted the culture, social norms, and goals for mothers and women, that you should strive to do more than be present for your children. I feel this pressure all the time-- to not be a helicopter mom and let my children be autonomous. This book has given me permission to reclaim what feels natural as a parent, which might seem "clingy" or too protective, and also not feel forced to schedule my kids into various social activities. I've always felt this pressure to have autonomous kids that play on their own and self-entertain but now I'll welcome the chances to play with them and work on a healthy attachment.
It's so true that any mom who prioritizes parenting is seen by others as either a) a mom who thinks she's perfect/better than other moms, or b) helicopter/protective/mother hen/etc. It's such a clear indicator to me that we've lost touch with our humanity, with the importance/value of care work. I love that you're feeling more permission to do what feels natural. Wow do we women need more of that, in parenting and otherwise. More intuition, less relying on parenting books and reels on Instagram and even on what feels normal/accepted societally. They touch on that somewhere in the book: that the more we're simply in tune with our specific kids, the more we can just rely in instinct and not go to outside sources or ideas for parenting.
- I really enjoyed his description about, when there is a healthy, secure attachment, that the child holds a glowing image of their parent in their mind and it acts as a comfort, even when they're not around. This feels right to me and I've felt this in my experience of experimenting w/ letting my husband take our babies places for various lengths of time. Related to this is the idea that, when there is a healthy attachment, that kids feel that they're able to find many ways to connect w/ the parent...but that, when the attachment isn't secure, and it's dependent on only a few associated activities w/ that parent, that the child will be desperate for that certain activity and despair when it can't happen. This broke my heart for some kids, as parents these days are just so damned busy. I feel like this also explains why there are so many mentally ill adults in society, with specific attachment disorders. This should be an absolute signal to moms everywhere that being home w/ and for your children, especially during the early years, should be prioritized...that it's something worth prioritizing, it's something worth adjusting other things in their life to make that change. It's funny to me that he says, 'there is no innate preference for any particular caregiver' and that 'the problem is not both parents working'...but then goes on to say that these peer attachments are formed bc the natural agenda has been warped...I call bs. Babies and kids orient toward the mother.
- 'irritating/rude behaviors are always surface manifestations of deeper issues...punishment and control of these behaviors w/o addressing root behaviors are pointless'. Kids are just doing the best they can w/ what they have and I believe it's time we stop punishing them for it. I think many adults punish for these behavior bc their internal triggers are going off. 'I didn't get away w/ that when I was a kid, so why should they?' I'm guilty of falling into this subconscious, conditioned trap. It's a sick cycle of mental/emotional mistreatment. I second my comment from above---parents are so busy that any amount of presence, sitting w/ an issue, digging for root cause--is seen as a threat/enemy to productivity and progress.
*an interesting point he made was this phenomenon in which parents apologize and gently reprimand their babies for shying away from strangers and clinging to them...when this is what's supposed to happen. It's kinda creepy how repellant 'clinginess' or closeness, it is to modern parents. I think it's reflective of attachment disorders from the parents' childhood and also social pressure to be 'productive' while being a parent. Presence w/ children is seen as a waste of time.
- The sad reality he pointed out: the kids orient to their peers instinctually, it's beyond their conscious control. This is eye-opening. I think of myself as a teen and feel bad bc so much blame and responsibility was placed on my shoulders for my behavior, when I was simply reacting and trying to adjust to my conditions for survival. In the book, he talks about how attachments are born out of necessity, that the pursuit of attachment is indiscriminate and that kids seek a primary attachment with someone to fill the void of the maternal/natural attachment (out of desperation and drive to survive). This so clearly paints the picture for gang appeal for young people. Positive adult relationships gone, parents gone, village gone, globalism and chronic transplanting the norm plus prioritizing peer orientation...it's a natural progression. I feel this so much. As a child who was moved around constantly, I felt belonging in very few places and then I'd move again. Now, as an adult + mother, I've been on the hunt for an appropriate place to live for my kids--but since then I've been one of these chronic transplants...anonymous to the community and perpetuating the antithesis to the attachment village. :( I hope to grow roots in our next home.
-He made the point that, it's for economic reasons that our school system is anti-attachment. That's the reality but it's also tragic to say out loud and accept as fact. Also, this peer-attachment orientation is received in other places as one of the least welcome US cultural imports. So, WE are associated w/ this unhealthy phenomenon on a global scale...cool. SMH. LET'S CHANGE IT!!
One more thing... you mentioned school being anti-attachment, and someone reading along said to me regarding school: so would you say the book is arguing against school, basically advocating that homeschooling is ideal? I would say no. They say our culture around school is anti-attachment mostly because we don't have the value/customs of teachers and parents being in close relationship and therefore kids being able to transfer that attachment to the teacher for the day (because of their trust with the parent and the parent's trust of the teacher, the kid can then trust and feel relationally safe with the teacher). I thought about how my parents would have my teachers over to our home for dinner, and I'd had the desire to do the same. I think we can fight against a norm like that by intentionally cultivating relationships with our children's teachers... it just takes more effort and a mindset to go against the grain, unfortunately. And, of course, I think homeschooling is beautiful and is most likely extremely supportive of attachment - unless, as I mentioned re: a depressed SAHM, it's actually really stressful and the homeschooling parent is therefore unable to provide the emotional closeness and attunement that attachment requires.
I welcome your thoughts on my thoughts, Bianca or anyone else! :)
Besides my general modern school concerns that I shared in another comment, I think that the way school is structured presents many more problems than what we see at the surface.
I def don't think this book is anti-school. The author talks about his experience w/ the school system and also mentions he doesn't think that both parents working is a problem. BUT yes, the WAY that schools are here is the issue. I think a close relationship w/ the teacher is important but also, the age of attendance is too young, the days are too many and the hours are too long. This consistent and frequent reinforcement of where they spend most of their time is what drives the instinctual attachment to peers. Also, the ratio of kids to teachers is insane in most schools! How could one expect a quality relationship to be cultivated when teachers have to abide by rules, curriculum enforcement, deadlines, quotas for kids passing tests and then think about their relationship to my child plus 24-29 more kids? For the exchange of a meager salary and then have the energy to live their personal lives? It's too high expectations with very little support. I believe we, as a society, expect wayyyyyy too much of caregivers, paid and unpaid, when we're asking them to literally care about our kids (which req a lot), for little in return.
This is why I'd like to see co-ops be more accessible, affordable, more state benefits for them and just more of them existing. They're fewer days, lower ratios, parents have much more of a say, the teachers are curated and treated well...I know, I'm an idealist but I believe that, if we focus on and prioritize the greater good, then our hard work to build up our society will benefit future generations.
And when I talk about caregivers being supported and paid well, I'm talking about homeschool moms too. It's absurd to expect a mom to homeschool, parent, cook, clean with no support--social, emotional, physical, psychological, professional and financial!
I hope anyone here understands that these are my thoughts and I'm an objective person, no judgement from me since only God has that power!
I'll mention too that I live in a rural area and we don't have access to, like, Montessori or Waldorf schools. Just public and private Christian/Catholic. So just the basics :)
I agree with your thoughts here! I'm interested in thinking about this as I'm a mom who's always been drawn to homeschooling yet so far am not (but am open to it for the future). I'm deeply considering this topic these days. It feels like the vibe is increasingly a little like "if you don't homeschool you obviously hate your children" and it very much annoys me. I think sending kids to school can still be a positive experience, both attachment- and education-wise, with parents who are intentional. It's definitely true that our educational system isn't ideal in so many ways... for either learning or relationships, but I think there's hope. I don't think it's HOMESCHOOL OR DIE. I'd love to hear more about what you mean by "co-ops"! I'm an idealist too, for sure. It's people that make culture, at the end of the day. I love all your thoughts and the straightforward manner in which you share them. Thanks for your contributions here!
I'm just now reading these comments. SO, what I think is this...there are many things going on all at once that need triaging in our culture. With reference to this specific topic, I think a few key things are important:
1. Being intentional and thoughtful and doing your best is the most critical aspect. Intention, as a parent, is the force that drives all decisions and if it's in the right place, it can look different for every mom...but only each one of us knows if we're doing our personal best and at which pace/volume we can sustain things.
2. Homeschool is NOT the answer to all! I believe that, ideally, families would benefit most from a homeschool/co-op situation. This is because homeschooling not only prioritizes attachment between mother-child (benefits whole family but ESP mom + kids) but it also makes it most likely that you'll be the child's primary influence--the ability to raise your kids w/ your values and principles is the most salient impact that women can have on society. It also ensures that, given other priorities are in place, mom guilt is kept to a minimum.
3. However, and this is a big one, family is not the focus of our culture/society. Many, many resources for stay-home moms have dwindled and been eliminated in the past 50-70 years. Raising a child, in and of itself, is an overtime job--it IS work--and there are very little supports to sustain such an involved, intense and invested role. On top of that, many mothers who choose to stay home confuse the stay-at-home mothering role w/ being a housecleaner and cook. There's nothing wrong w/ wanting to make healthy meals for your fam nor is there anything wrong w/ trying to keep house. The problem lies in these lofty expectations that we're supposed to be responsible for all of that, solely based on our decision to be a stay-at-home mother. Grouping all of these different jobs into the same role is IMPOSSIBLE and it's what's made a lot of women be like, 'f that, that's insane'. What we need is a social attitude change towards stay-at-home moms; raising a child around the clock is worthy of respect, support and praise--without forcing so many more expectations upon her! Once we start to demonstrate that 'no, I will not be taking full responsibility for this intense smorgasbord of domestic duties but I will do my best to raise our child and make an effort to divvy up chores according to what makes sense and what's sustainable'...only when we start doing this in our own homes, encouraging our kids and other families to do the same, will culture change. Then, the demand for support and resources will be higher and the market will fill that demand with supply.
4. Overall, I think it's easier (less friction) to use what was supposed to be a community resources (school) that's just gotten out of control. It's also easier for moms to use that resource as a means to go back to some kind of job. The appeal of income plus potential benefits, getting out of the house, being around ppl your age, intellectual stimulation and the potential for our conditioned husbands to then take some responsibility for the kids & home---I fully recognize that there's some positive aspects to this & I see the appeal--I just don't think it's worth the possible longer-term effects on mom's psyche, the father's development of interpersonal skills, the kids potential indoctrination in the school > workforce pipeline. I am admittedly zealous, so if you're thinking I'm hardcore, you aren't wrong ;).
The concept of 'school' isn't wrong in and of itself, it's just the way that it's done here teaches things that I wouldn't want my kids thinking are normal. This is why I think co-ops should replace school for parents that are able. This Co-op idea is that it's made of families with same/similar values. Each fam would contribute funds to it, hire 'teachers' and select how many days per week their kid attends--as we know this changes with age, season, phase, etc. This $ would be tax exempt. There'd be so much value invested into it, that contributing would be organic and it'd become a community of sorts. This is the kind of co-op/community that we just moved to be near (I'm currently exhausted jic you're wondering hahaha). They exist but are few and far between. In my humble opinion, we need more separatism between males and females so that males can focus on income generation and females can focus on community cultivation (not exclusively but you know what I mean).
Hi Bianca! Thanks for all these thoughts! A few thoughts back:
-I don't disagree at all that mental illness in adults can probably frequently be traced back to early childhood experiences (so attachment being somewhere in the mix there)! Makes you think: what a total NON waste of time it is, then, to be a thoughtful parent! Literally world-changing. There's a great Marianne Williamson quote: "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children."
-Regarding moms being home in the early years... yes, it's a been a disservice all around to promote any ideas that make women feel that being home with kids is oppressive or somehow a "backwards" choice. Also, have you read the work or Erica Komisar or Bethany Saltman? Developing a healthy attachment is about more than just physical presence - it's about connection and delight. EK makes the point in her book "Being There" that a SAHM who is depressed is going to be less good for a small child than a mom who, say, works full-time outside the home but knows how to connect and is super present and attuned when she's with the child. So there's nuance there, I think.
-I don't remember the book saying there's no innate preference for any particular caregiver (I'm curious and am going to go back and look!)... it's definitely true that very young children prefer Mom, due to biology. (It's call the dyad for a reason.)
-Punishment/harsh treatment being due to internal triggers - absolutely. Goes back to the first point you made. I wouldn't call this a trap; it's more just reality. We carry wounds from our own childhoods that will affect not just our lives but our children's lives unless we set about healing. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about apologizing to your kids, and I want to follow it up with some thoughts on how you go about healing so that you can, for example, be in a place to be able to do that. Because I think so many parents (because of busy-ness and lack of awareness and many things) don't know the power of healing themselves for their children. If you know you know - but if you don't, you don't!
-Totally agree with your 3rd thought!
-Orienting to peers isn't instinctual unless there's a void (a space where attachment should be/be stronger with parents or other caring adults, but it isn't). It's the orienting that's instinctual, not necessarily to peers. Thanks for sharing about your personal experience here!
Also, my previous comment having been stated, I think homeschooling is a deeper, more invested and advanced version of attachment parenting that isn't accessible or possible for all people. Our society, as it's currently structured and how it functions now, gives parents few choices for 'appropriate' school choices. I think that there should be more co-ops and of course that also relies on parents choosing to cooperate in them and start them. Why do I think co-ops should be the norm?
I don't think it's optimal for:
-the state to determine standards for a kids' development
-kids to be in classes in which they're 1/25-30 kids
-kids to be away from home for 5 days per week, 7ish hours per day
-girls to be held to the same attendance standards as boys since we are cyclical (menstruation)
- the mom to be the sole teacher as the homeschooler, *while she is also parenting and acting as maid (*which is another, separate problem :)
- the kids to have little social consistency or cohesion (homeschooling w/o stable community)
Public schools have many more issues than this, social and political.
Homeschooling w/o time off for mom also presents unique issues for the family, so it's not sufficient in and of itself, in my opinion.
**The part about 'no innate preference' was at the beginning of a chapter. Hope that helps!
I totally agree that moms who stay home without unique support for her needs could end up depressed and miserable--which isn't helpful to anyone...however, I definitely believe that there's a nature component to the motherbaby dyad which is inherently supportive of mental health for both, so I think being the primary caregiver and attachment figure in at least the first 3 years of life is biologically harmonious and thus, should induce the opposite of depression, at a very cellular level. Now, there are exceptions to this based on lifestyle and support level. Everyone has different mother/father wounds, backgrounds, partnerships, beliefs, family dynamics, values, etc...That being said: if the mother is completely unsupported, stressed, medicated or otherwise externally pressured, it could overshadow the biological benefits of motherbaby attachment, making it depressing. I think this is a modern epidemic. I don't think there is any getting around the fact that the intended primary attachment figure is the mother--no matter how we try to justify nuance and perspective. I def believe that God designed us females that way and that it's positive for us to surrender to that. I hope you know that I'm typing these words with love and compassion! It can be hard to have a text only convo :/
I believe the template God laid out is intelligent and most wise but I also acknowledge that it can be more difficult for some women to arrive to/surrender to than others since we all live in this world and society that imposes it's own pressures, difficulties, dilemmas, confusions, etc. I'd love to hear what you think about what I've typed <3
Caught up 👏🏼 I feel like this book helps me understand my childhood and the dynamic of my family. I was definitely a peer-oriented child
Chapter 3 is finally what I've been waiting for-- the WHY behind the dominance of peer orientation. I'm a huge advocate for a cultural (and legal/ business) shift in extending maternity leave and that it's actually better economically in the long run, so I love that they tie in the economic argument as to why healthy adult attachments can have a direct impact on $$ also.
Interesting thought that feminism is also a driving factor for peer orientation and not just economics. I totally agree. Feminism has completely shifted the culture, social norms, and goals for mothers and women, that you should strive to do more than be present for your children. I feel this pressure all the time-- to not be a helicopter mom and let my children be autonomous. This book has given me permission to reclaim what feels natural as a parent, which might seem "clingy" or too protective, and also not feel forced to schedule my kids into various social activities. I've always felt this pressure to have autonomous kids that play on their own and self-entertain but now I'll welcome the chances to play with them and work on a healthy attachment.
It's so true that any mom who prioritizes parenting is seen by others as either a) a mom who thinks she's perfect/better than other moms, or b) helicopter/protective/mother hen/etc. It's such a clear indicator to me that we've lost touch with our humanity, with the importance/value of care work. I love that you're feeling more permission to do what feels natural. Wow do we women need more of that, in parenting and otherwise. More intuition, less relying on parenting books and reels on Instagram and even on what feels normal/accepted societally. They touch on that somewhere in the book: that the more we're simply in tune with our specific kids, the more we can just rely in instinct and not go to outside sources or ideas for parenting.
Ok, I just finished these 2 chapters :).
Here are my thoughts:
- I really enjoyed his description about, when there is a healthy, secure attachment, that the child holds a glowing image of their parent in their mind and it acts as a comfort, even when they're not around. This feels right to me and I've felt this in my experience of experimenting w/ letting my husband take our babies places for various lengths of time. Related to this is the idea that, when there is a healthy attachment, that kids feel that they're able to find many ways to connect w/ the parent...but that, when the attachment isn't secure, and it's dependent on only a few associated activities w/ that parent, that the child will be desperate for that certain activity and despair when it can't happen. This broke my heart for some kids, as parents these days are just so damned busy. I feel like this also explains why there are so many mentally ill adults in society, with specific attachment disorders. This should be an absolute signal to moms everywhere that being home w/ and for your children, especially during the early years, should be prioritized...that it's something worth prioritizing, it's something worth adjusting other things in their life to make that change. It's funny to me that he says, 'there is no innate preference for any particular caregiver' and that 'the problem is not both parents working'...but then goes on to say that these peer attachments are formed bc the natural agenda has been warped...I call bs. Babies and kids orient toward the mother.
- 'irritating/rude behaviors are always surface manifestations of deeper issues...punishment and control of these behaviors w/o addressing root behaviors are pointless'. Kids are just doing the best they can w/ what they have and I believe it's time we stop punishing them for it. I think many adults punish for these behavior bc their internal triggers are going off. 'I didn't get away w/ that when I was a kid, so why should they?' I'm guilty of falling into this subconscious, conditioned trap. It's a sick cycle of mental/emotional mistreatment. I second my comment from above---parents are so busy that any amount of presence, sitting w/ an issue, digging for root cause--is seen as a threat/enemy to productivity and progress.
*an interesting point he made was this phenomenon in which parents apologize and gently reprimand their babies for shying away from strangers and clinging to them...when this is what's supposed to happen. It's kinda creepy how repellant 'clinginess' or closeness, it is to modern parents. I think it's reflective of attachment disorders from the parents' childhood and also social pressure to be 'productive' while being a parent. Presence w/ children is seen as a waste of time.
- The sad reality he pointed out: the kids orient to their peers instinctually, it's beyond their conscious control. This is eye-opening. I think of myself as a teen and feel bad bc so much blame and responsibility was placed on my shoulders for my behavior, when I was simply reacting and trying to adjust to my conditions for survival. In the book, he talks about how attachments are born out of necessity, that the pursuit of attachment is indiscriminate and that kids seek a primary attachment with someone to fill the void of the maternal/natural attachment (out of desperation and drive to survive). This so clearly paints the picture for gang appeal for young people. Positive adult relationships gone, parents gone, village gone, globalism and chronic transplanting the norm plus prioritizing peer orientation...it's a natural progression. I feel this so much. As a child who was moved around constantly, I felt belonging in very few places and then I'd move again. Now, as an adult + mother, I've been on the hunt for an appropriate place to live for my kids--but since then I've been one of these chronic transplants...anonymous to the community and perpetuating the antithesis to the attachment village. :( I hope to grow roots in our next home.
-He made the point that, it's for economic reasons that our school system is anti-attachment. That's the reality but it's also tragic to say out loud and accept as fact. Also, this peer-attachment orientation is received in other places as one of the least welcome US cultural imports. So, WE are associated w/ this unhealthy phenomenon on a global scale...cool. SMH. LET'S CHANGE IT!!
One more thing... you mentioned school being anti-attachment, and someone reading along said to me regarding school: so would you say the book is arguing against school, basically advocating that homeschooling is ideal? I would say no. They say our culture around school is anti-attachment mostly because we don't have the value/customs of teachers and parents being in close relationship and therefore kids being able to transfer that attachment to the teacher for the day (because of their trust with the parent and the parent's trust of the teacher, the kid can then trust and feel relationally safe with the teacher). I thought about how my parents would have my teachers over to our home for dinner, and I'd had the desire to do the same. I think we can fight against a norm like that by intentionally cultivating relationships with our children's teachers... it just takes more effort and a mindset to go against the grain, unfortunately. And, of course, I think homeschooling is beautiful and is most likely extremely supportive of attachment - unless, as I mentioned re: a depressed SAHM, it's actually really stressful and the homeschooling parent is therefore unable to provide the emotional closeness and attunement that attachment requires.
I welcome your thoughts on my thoughts, Bianca or anyone else! :)
Besides my general modern school concerns that I shared in another comment, I think that the way school is structured presents many more problems than what we see at the surface.
I def don't think this book is anti-school. The author talks about his experience w/ the school system and also mentions he doesn't think that both parents working is a problem. BUT yes, the WAY that schools are here is the issue. I think a close relationship w/ the teacher is important but also, the age of attendance is too young, the days are too many and the hours are too long. This consistent and frequent reinforcement of where they spend most of their time is what drives the instinctual attachment to peers. Also, the ratio of kids to teachers is insane in most schools! How could one expect a quality relationship to be cultivated when teachers have to abide by rules, curriculum enforcement, deadlines, quotas for kids passing tests and then think about their relationship to my child plus 24-29 more kids? For the exchange of a meager salary and then have the energy to live their personal lives? It's too high expectations with very little support. I believe we, as a society, expect wayyyyyy too much of caregivers, paid and unpaid, when we're asking them to literally care about our kids (which req a lot), for little in return.
This is why I'd like to see co-ops be more accessible, affordable, more state benefits for them and just more of them existing. They're fewer days, lower ratios, parents have much more of a say, the teachers are curated and treated well...I know, I'm an idealist but I believe that, if we focus on and prioritize the greater good, then our hard work to build up our society will benefit future generations.
And when I talk about caregivers being supported and paid well, I'm talking about homeschool moms too. It's absurd to expect a mom to homeschool, parent, cook, clean with no support--social, emotional, physical, psychological, professional and financial!
I hope anyone here understands that these are my thoughts and I'm an objective person, no judgement from me since only God has that power!
I'll mention too that I live in a rural area and we don't have access to, like, Montessori or Waldorf schools. Just public and private Christian/Catholic. So just the basics :)
I agree with your thoughts here! I'm interested in thinking about this as I'm a mom who's always been drawn to homeschooling yet so far am not (but am open to it for the future). I'm deeply considering this topic these days. It feels like the vibe is increasingly a little like "if you don't homeschool you obviously hate your children" and it very much annoys me. I think sending kids to school can still be a positive experience, both attachment- and education-wise, with parents who are intentional. It's definitely true that our educational system isn't ideal in so many ways... for either learning or relationships, but I think there's hope. I don't think it's HOMESCHOOL OR DIE. I'd love to hear more about what you mean by "co-ops"! I'm an idealist too, for sure. It's people that make culture, at the end of the day. I love all your thoughts and the straightforward manner in which you share them. Thanks for your contributions here!
Hey :)
I'm just now reading these comments. SO, what I think is this...there are many things going on all at once that need triaging in our culture. With reference to this specific topic, I think a few key things are important:
1. Being intentional and thoughtful and doing your best is the most critical aspect. Intention, as a parent, is the force that drives all decisions and if it's in the right place, it can look different for every mom...but only each one of us knows if we're doing our personal best and at which pace/volume we can sustain things.
2. Homeschool is NOT the answer to all! I believe that, ideally, families would benefit most from a homeschool/co-op situation. This is because homeschooling not only prioritizes attachment between mother-child (benefits whole family but ESP mom + kids) but it also makes it most likely that you'll be the child's primary influence--the ability to raise your kids w/ your values and principles is the most salient impact that women can have on society. It also ensures that, given other priorities are in place, mom guilt is kept to a minimum.
3. However, and this is a big one, family is not the focus of our culture/society. Many, many resources for stay-home moms have dwindled and been eliminated in the past 50-70 years. Raising a child, in and of itself, is an overtime job--it IS work--and there are very little supports to sustain such an involved, intense and invested role. On top of that, many mothers who choose to stay home confuse the stay-at-home mothering role w/ being a housecleaner and cook. There's nothing wrong w/ wanting to make healthy meals for your fam nor is there anything wrong w/ trying to keep house. The problem lies in these lofty expectations that we're supposed to be responsible for all of that, solely based on our decision to be a stay-at-home mother. Grouping all of these different jobs into the same role is IMPOSSIBLE and it's what's made a lot of women be like, 'f that, that's insane'. What we need is a social attitude change towards stay-at-home moms; raising a child around the clock is worthy of respect, support and praise--without forcing so many more expectations upon her! Once we start to demonstrate that 'no, I will not be taking full responsibility for this intense smorgasbord of domestic duties but I will do my best to raise our child and make an effort to divvy up chores according to what makes sense and what's sustainable'...only when we start doing this in our own homes, encouraging our kids and other families to do the same, will culture change. Then, the demand for support and resources will be higher and the market will fill that demand with supply.
4. Overall, I think it's easier (less friction) to use what was supposed to be a community resources (school) that's just gotten out of control. It's also easier for moms to use that resource as a means to go back to some kind of job. The appeal of income plus potential benefits, getting out of the house, being around ppl your age, intellectual stimulation and the potential for our conditioned husbands to then take some responsibility for the kids & home---I fully recognize that there's some positive aspects to this & I see the appeal--I just don't think it's worth the possible longer-term effects on mom's psyche, the father's development of interpersonal skills, the kids potential indoctrination in the school > workforce pipeline. I am admittedly zealous, so if you're thinking I'm hardcore, you aren't wrong ;).
The concept of 'school' isn't wrong in and of itself, it's just the way that it's done here teaches things that I wouldn't want my kids thinking are normal. This is why I think co-ops should replace school for parents that are able. This Co-op idea is that it's made of families with same/similar values. Each fam would contribute funds to it, hire 'teachers' and select how many days per week their kid attends--as we know this changes with age, season, phase, etc. This $ would be tax exempt. There'd be so much value invested into it, that contributing would be organic and it'd become a community of sorts. This is the kind of co-op/community that we just moved to be near (I'm currently exhausted jic you're wondering hahaha). They exist but are few and far between. In my humble opinion, we need more separatism between males and females so that males can focus on income generation and females can focus on community cultivation (not exclusively but you know what I mean).
Hi Bianca! Thanks for all these thoughts! A few thoughts back:
-I don't disagree at all that mental illness in adults can probably frequently be traced back to early childhood experiences (so attachment being somewhere in the mix there)! Makes you think: what a total NON waste of time it is, then, to be a thoughtful parent! Literally world-changing. There's a great Marianne Williamson quote: "There is no single effort more radical in its potential for saving the world than a transformation of the way we raise our children."
-Regarding moms being home in the early years... yes, it's a been a disservice all around to promote any ideas that make women feel that being home with kids is oppressive or somehow a "backwards" choice. Also, have you read the work or Erica Komisar or Bethany Saltman? Developing a healthy attachment is about more than just physical presence - it's about connection and delight. EK makes the point in her book "Being There" that a SAHM who is depressed is going to be less good for a small child than a mom who, say, works full-time outside the home but knows how to connect and is super present and attuned when she's with the child. So there's nuance there, I think.
-I don't remember the book saying there's no innate preference for any particular caregiver (I'm curious and am going to go back and look!)... it's definitely true that very young children prefer Mom, due to biology. (It's call the dyad for a reason.)
-Punishment/harsh treatment being due to internal triggers - absolutely. Goes back to the first point you made. I wouldn't call this a trap; it's more just reality. We carry wounds from our own childhoods that will affect not just our lives but our children's lives unless we set about healing. I wrote a post a few weeks ago about apologizing to your kids, and I want to follow it up with some thoughts on how you go about healing so that you can, for example, be in a place to be able to do that. Because I think so many parents (because of busy-ness and lack of awareness and many things) don't know the power of healing themselves for their children. If you know you know - but if you don't, you don't!
-Totally agree with your 3rd thought!
-Orienting to peers isn't instinctual unless there's a void (a space where attachment should be/be stronger with parents or other caring adults, but it isn't). It's the orienting that's instinctual, not necessarily to peers. Thanks for sharing about your personal experience here!
Also, my previous comment having been stated, I think homeschooling is a deeper, more invested and advanced version of attachment parenting that isn't accessible or possible for all people. Our society, as it's currently structured and how it functions now, gives parents few choices for 'appropriate' school choices. I think that there should be more co-ops and of course that also relies on parents choosing to cooperate in them and start them. Why do I think co-ops should be the norm?
I don't think it's optimal for:
-the state to determine standards for a kids' development
-kids to be in classes in which they're 1/25-30 kids
-kids to be away from home for 5 days per week, 7ish hours per day
-girls to be held to the same attendance standards as boys since we are cyclical (menstruation)
- the mom to be the sole teacher as the homeschooler, *while she is also parenting and acting as maid (*which is another, separate problem :)
- the kids to have little social consistency or cohesion (homeschooling w/o stable community)
Public schools have many more issues than this, social and political.
Homeschooling w/o time off for mom also presents unique issues for the family, so it's not sufficient in and of itself, in my opinion.
**The part about 'no innate preference' was at the beginning of a chapter. Hope that helps!
I totally agree that moms who stay home without unique support for her needs could end up depressed and miserable--which isn't helpful to anyone...however, I definitely believe that there's a nature component to the motherbaby dyad which is inherently supportive of mental health for both, so I think being the primary caregiver and attachment figure in at least the first 3 years of life is biologically harmonious and thus, should induce the opposite of depression, at a very cellular level. Now, there are exceptions to this based on lifestyle and support level. Everyone has different mother/father wounds, backgrounds, partnerships, beliefs, family dynamics, values, etc...That being said: if the mother is completely unsupported, stressed, medicated or otherwise externally pressured, it could overshadow the biological benefits of motherbaby attachment, making it depressing. I think this is a modern epidemic. I don't think there is any getting around the fact that the intended primary attachment figure is the mother--no matter how we try to justify nuance and perspective. I def believe that God designed us females that way and that it's positive for us to surrender to that. I hope you know that I'm typing these words with love and compassion! It can be hard to have a text only convo :/
I believe the template God laid out is intelligent and most wise but I also acknowledge that it can be more difficult for some women to arrive to/surrender to than others since we all live in this world and society that imposes it's own pressures, difficulties, dilemmas, confusions, etc. I'd love to hear what you think about what I've typed <3