"In our rush to feminism and fair play for women (which I, myself, still advocate) and financial solvency, the critical role of mothering has been relegated, and children are now raised by rotating caregivers rather than mothers and fathers. It’s against our design, and it doesn’t work. Our children are becoming insecurely attached and unattached en masse, which has dire consequences on their forming personality. I wonder if all the politically chauvinistic and patriotic Americans would pay attention if they understood that daycare is undermining our advantage. Our citizens are becoming less than mediocre on average. That will be our legacy." Dr. Faye Snyder, PsyD, Founder of the Causal Theory. (Post Script: I am getting some passionate feedback about this quote. I think it is being received as rather politically incorrect, and understandably so. Dr. Faye's voice can be a bit harsh sounding, but I don't mind. I would rather be on red-alert about dangers to children than just hope they'll turn out okay. She doesn't pussyfoot around like some parent-protecting therapists and I love her for that. She's all about the kids, as it should be. Join in with your two cents! This is the most fun I've had in months.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh darling I can say I agree full heartedly.

Mothering has completely overshadowed any other enjoyable work I have done.

It is so so challenging some days-especially as my son has days as you described in the last post-because I know that my response is so very important.

I really enjoyed catching up with what you have been up to tonight. Happy you are writing and posting pics of that beautiful boy.
Love and hugs

12/17/2006 11:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Lana said...

I don't suppose you really will care all that much, but I had to let you know I wil no longer be visiting your site. I really felt connected for a long time to your words, but the last post and other things you have written have utterly and completely isolated me from you. As a full time psychologist and consultant who is also raising two fabulous sons, I feel as though my choices are not respected by you...or worse yet are utterly dismissed. It is unfortunate, that such a powerful and articulate woman and writer would choose to alienate other women who have made the choice to parent and work away from the home. From a psychological background, I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment that parents who work outside of the home put their children at risk of attachment disorders. I have seen far more unhealthy parents who are home full time with their children, and know that there are multiple factors to childhood disorders such as ADD and such. Your comments are damamging and judgemental, and while I respect they are your opinions, I pray no one who reads them believes they are fact, or even widely accepted theories.
Anyway, I can no longer spend my time and energy with someone who is so clearly judging my parenting. I think it is so sad in a world where women must fight for their rights to be whomever the choose to be...working mom, stay at home mom, not a mom etc...to have other women be so unsupportive.

12/18/2006 06:36:00 AM  
Blogger OmmmMaggie said...

I love your posts and I love you, you know my dear Pixie.
As I read this quote, I found myself wondering about the "it takes a village" approach that was such a huge part of tribal life for millenia. I actually worry that having a child raised in a tight nuclear family (mom, dad and kids) can also be isolating and damaging in its own way - most notably in that it can harbor harmful secrets and no one that the child feels they can talk to. I don't know exactly what is meant by rotating caregivers, but when mom and dad are part of a larger, nurturing and loving circle of caregivers (such as grandparents, aunts and uncles) the child usually benefits greatly, in numerous ways. They are exposed to different personalities, no one caregiver gets burned out or isolated themselves, and the child learns social skills early on. This, of course, is not a call for parents to shirk their roles in any way, but an expanded circle of care is certainly a boon to many, many children. What's your take?

12/18/2006 10:51:00 AM  
Blogger pinkcoyote said...

Lana, I'm sorry that you feel judged, damaged and unsupported by me. I honor your willingness to share your feelings here at pink coyote.
I must say that I do not feel guilty of making the conscious choice to alienate any moms from here, as you have projected.
I cannot presume to judge your family's health based on your choices, just as you cannot presume my ideas about parenting are limited to that which I express here.
I welcome any dialogue about parenting you or any other parent may wish to have with me. I am not an expert, just a tuned in Mommy who wants to put my child and his needs first, before anything else: career included. I do not expect you or anyone to do the same.
What I express here is often a call to give thought to the decisions we make as parents to put our child in daycare(s) while we run off back to work.
This quote seems to have stirred up quite a bit of something...

12/18/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger pinkcoyote said...

To Maggie,
I love the village approach if one is lucky to have this, as you do. I see "the village" as one trusted family member whom baby can bond with and will be a friend to the child for a very long time. This is very different from moving the child through daycare/different providers during childhood, esp first five years.
My belief, and attachment theorists would agree, I think, that the person who is at home with baby DURING THE DAY, is mommy. That is to say that the day caregiver will be imprinting the majority of teachings, personality, cause and effect, discipline, and guidance to express feelings on the child. If a parent doesn't mind this being a daycare provider, then so be it. I happen to mind very much.

That is, of course, my opinion.

12/18/2006 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger OmmmMaggie said...

I think we're on the same page, Pix. I feel it's healthy to create a balance between stability (which promotes the secure base) and adaptability (which promotes...um, adaptability).

For instance, we are going to split time with baby (father gets alone time in the morning while I work a little, then we're all together for a few hours, then I get alone time when father goes to work in the afternoon). I think there's a certain benefit to baby learning how to handle transition from adult to adult (mother-to-father in the first six months or so, but then also to grandparents and the like), but the caretakers must always be attuned to the baby's inner state and know when the tension is getting to be too much, and handle that in a way that doesn't crack the secure base. Does that make sense? I guess what I'm wondering is if Dr. Faye believes that mother should be nowhere but with baby for the first five years. If so, that seems highly unrealistic and potentially unhealthy for both mother and baby. Plus, it doesn't say much for the value of baby's attachment to father and other extended family. I doubt that that's really what Dr. Faye is saying, but I'd like some clarification on that point.

I love this open discussion! Thank you for hosting it.

12/18/2006 04:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home