The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism

by Carrie L. Lukas

  A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read

  Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes, Mary Eberstadt; New York, Sentinel, 2004.

  Similarly, another women’s studies textbook, Women in American Society, considers the lack of institutional support for childcare outside of the home as part of the male-dominated political system that keeps women down:Many family policies are implemented to affect men as little as possible. Consider the case of childcare. In a family headed by a two-career married couple, child care is usually primarily the woman’s responsibility. It is the woman, not the man, whose job is understood to create the need for child care. Child care centers and baby-sitters are thought to be related to the structure of the woman’s time and responsibilities, not men’s....

  Of course, male-dominated political systems are slow to develop policies that benefit women because such policies often incur new costs to men.... If family- and employment-related policies charge women with primary responsibility for child care, men have more freedom to engage in activities outside the home and to make their own independent decisions than they do under policies supporting egalitarian divisions of family labor.3

  For leftist women’s studies teachers, there’s no debate about the policies that should be pursued in terms of childcare for American children. European-style socialism is the ideal model; the U.S. system is called the “stingiest such program among the leading industrialized nations,” and is depicted as blatantly anti-woman.4

  This sentiment is echoed by feminist organizations and politicians on the Left. When she was First Lady, Hillary Clinton made the case for increased government involvement in childrearing in her book, It Takes a Village. The chapter entitled “Child Care Is Not a Spectator Sport,” opens with a description of utopian childcare—socialist France:Imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three to five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms, with teachers recruited and trained as child care professionals. Imagine a country that conceives of child care as a program to “welcome” children into the larger community and “awaken” their potential for learning and growing.

  It may sound too good to be true, but it’s not. When I went to France in 1989 as part of a group studying the French child care system, I saw what happens when a country makes caring for children a priority. More than 90 percent of French children between ages three and five attend free or inexpensive preschools .... Even before they reach the age of three, many of them are in full-day programs....

  It is no wonder that so many French parents—even mothers who do not work outside the home—choose to send their children to these government-subsidized centers.5

  Clinton goes on to acknowledge that the United States can’t adopt the French system wholesale; it has the notable downside of requiring generous financial support from taxpayers. However, she makes it clear that government should take a much more active role in regulating child care and subsidizing daycare centers to make them the choice of more parents.

  Only those who dislike children, want to stunt their development, and keep women down would oppose government provided childcare—or so the story goes from much of the Left. One women’s studies textbook goes so far as to link many conservatives’ reluctance to have government intervene in matters such as childcare as support for wife beating and child abuse.6

  Government’s role in the mommy wars

  Opposing the creation of government funded daycare system is hardly akin to supporting child abuse. Opposition is based on a concept of fairness: Families who want to keep a parent home with their children shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support daycare for other people’s children.

  Government intervention into the area of childcare is the number one battleground of the so-called “mommy wars,” or the perceived conflict between the interests of working and stay-at-home moms. Feminists push for policies that reduce the costs of paid childcare, which feels like an attack on the value of the stay-at-home mom. After all, if outside daycare is free for families, then what value is the stay-at-home mom providing? Since she can be replaced at no cost, it becomes more difficult—even for families that believe parents provide superior care—to continue to forgo that second income. The implicit message of free or subsidized daycare is that women should get out of the house, turn their kids over to the professionals, and hit the pavement.

  Of course, childcare is never free, even if it’s provided at no charge to the user. Taxpayers would have to pick up the tab. And as tax rates rise to pay for these services, it becomes harder for a family to survive on just one income, forcing many women who would prefer to stay home to enter the paid workforce.

  Brian Robertson, author of Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn’t Telling Us, described the dynamic this way:The so-called “mommy wars” are not simply the result of overheated rhetoric on both sides of the day care debate; they are a natural consequence of the fact that the increasing push for national day care comes at the expense of mothers at home—and those who would rather be at home.7

  There are already policies in place that reflect this bias in favor of parent substitutes. The dependent care tax credit allows families to deduct a portion of employment-related expenses. The value of the credit can be up to $720 for one child or $1,440 for two or more children.8 The woman who has provided daycare on her own, forgoing outside income, gets nothing from this policy.

  What childcare arrangement do women actually want?

  Ironically, the type of care most often pushed by feminist groups and the government is the type of care least popular with parents. According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation in 1993—the most recent data available—nearly half of the almost ten million children under age five were being cared for by relatives while their mothers worked. Most of those children were under the care of either grandparents or their fathers. Twenty-one percent were cared for by “non-relatives,” including family day care providers or in-home baby centers. Just 30 percent were in organized daycare facilities, or what is sometimes referred to as institutional care.9

  In 2000, the polling firm, Public Agenda, conducted a survey of 815 parents of children under age five, as well as focus groups and interviews with employers, children’s advocates, and those in the child care field and issued a report called “Necessary Compromised.” The survey results from the parents revealed an even more striking preference for parental care.

  When asked the questions, “Which would you say is the best child care arrangement during a child’s earliest years: to have one parent stay at home; to have both parents work different shifts so one is almost always at home; to have a nanny or babysitter at home; to have a close relative look after the child; to bring the child to a mom in the neighborhood who cares for children in her home; or to place a child in a quality day care center,” 70 percent of respondents thought it was best for one parent to be at home. Another 14 percent preferred both parents working different shifts. Just 6 percent thought a “quality day care center” was the best arrangement for kids.

  In another question, parents overwhelmingly listed daycare as their “least preferred option.” More than seven in ten parents of children under five agreed with the statement “parents should only rely on a day care center when they have no other option.”

  Certainly many parents surveyed thought there was a role for daycare. Parents overwhelmingly understood, and sympathized with those for whom daycare was a necessity. Many voiced support and concern for single parents and believed that daycare, including programs like Head Start, should be available and could help children from lower income families. And the majority of those currently relying on daycare for their youngest child were satisfied with their arrangement, even though it was not their expressed ideal.

  We’re the government and we’ve come to help

  Most parents of young children say that they themselves, not the government or employers or society in genera
l, should bear the primary responsibility for child care. Few parents spontaneously propose that government offer additional services or subsidies to help them, and few voice resentment about career or financial trade-offs that they may make during their children’s early years. Just 1 in 5 say making child care more affordable is a higher priority than alternatives such as improving schools, expanding health coverage or lowering taxes.

  Public Agenda, Necessary Compromises

  Overall this survey reveals that most parents think that having a parent stay at home is the best way to raise a child; very few are clamoring for government intervention in childcare; and, even fewer embrace the feminist vision of universal government funded institutional care as the ideal for raising children in the United States.

  Is it guilt or good mothering?

  Why are so many women reluctant to use institutional daycare? Mostly because people generally believe that parents and family members or close friends do a better job caring for their children. The Pew survey found that all women, including those who worked, believed children were better served by having a parent at home when they are young:Only 29 percent think that when both parents work full time they can often do a good job of child raising. The same small proportion says that most single mothers can do a good job. Tellingly, only 41 percent of mothers who work full time are confident that such situations are good for children. Women, whether or not they work, believe the more traditional setting, in which the father works full time and the mother stays home, is best for raising children. Twice as many women say the increased number of mothers entering the workplace is bad, rather than good, for society (41 percent to 17 percent).10

  Similarly, Public Agenda found that parents’ preference for parental care was rooted in a belief that parents are best positioned to provide care and that daycare centers simply cannot be trusted to devote as much attention to the child.

  The preference for parents to stay-at-home could be an outgrowth of nothing more than tradition or the working mother’s sense of inadequacy, fueled by (unnecessary) guilt. Books have been written in an attempt to extinguish the guilt women may feel when they work and make the case that society needs to do a better job in helping them. Consider this quote from Not Guilty! The Good News for Working Mothers: “Each day, in large ways and small, they [working mothers] find their choices scrutinized, their motivation under attack, the well-being of their children constantly called into question.”11

  Similarly, Joan K. Peters, in When Mothers Work: Loving Our Children Without Sacrificing Ourselves, highlights how working women are blamed for their children’s problems and calls on society to update its view of the role of mother:We now presume that the common cause of all children’s woes is their mother’s work, which prevents full-time nurturing. Meanwhile, we ignore the more complicated root cause: our failure to modernize motherhood, to restructure family and change society along with the changing character of women’s lives.12

  These books are essentially a defense of working mothers and call on society to support, instead of condemn, the reality that women are increasingly in the workforce and less available to care full-time for their children.

  They highlight research showing that children can thrive in daycare, some better than under the constant care of their mothers. However, most of these books focus on the importance of work in mother’s lives, in terms of helping to achieve balance and maintain a separate identity, and argue that these benefits pay dividends to her children. As Holcomb emphasizes:the idea that children inevitably suffer when mothers work, that women’s interests and children’s interests are at odds, has gained wide acceptance. So has the notion that women are inevitably exhausted and depleted when they try to combine a job and family duties. But these ideas are just plain wrong.13

  A politically correct defining moment: Dr. Spock

  ... in A Better World for Our Children: Rebuilding American Values, Dr. Spock casually suggests that “it is particularly desireable” for parents to spend time with children during the first three years—a far cry from his original insistence that mothers being with their children “as much as possible” during these crucial years is a “necessity.” Spock has explained his change of phrasing with surprising candor:“I’m scared of going out too strongly for “You should stay home!” because in early editions of Baby and Child Care I hinted at that by saying “the early years are very crucial, and maybe you should postpone the advantages of earning a living.” And women pounced on me, [saying,] “You made me feel very guilty!” But I noticed they went off to work anyway even if they felt guilty, and that’s ... the worst of all possible arrangements. So I just tossed it out. It’s a cowardly thing that I did; I just tossed it in subsequent editions.”

  Brian C. Robertson, Day Care Deception: What the Child Care Establishment Isn’t Telling Us

  In defending daycare’s effects on children, Holcomb works to minimize the impact a mother’s absence will have on her children: “In many cases, a job will have far less significance in a child’s life than, say, a family move, marital problems, or a parent suffering from depression.” This acknowledges that a mother’s absence can be traumatic for children—similar to marital strife or parent’s illness—things that we tend to hope children can avoid. She emphasizes the benefits that additional income can bring a family, and that most children, regardless of the circumstances in which they are raised, turn out just fine.

  All of that’s true. No researcher I’m familiar with says that daycare will cause serious problems for most children. But that doesn’t mean that women should ignore research on the potential impact of daycare, or any other arrangements for raising their children. Women in particular read regularly research on the benefits of the latest dietary trend or exercise regime, or of the need to steer children away from exposure to this chemical or that, even when the risks are extremely small. It’s equally important for women to be informed about the potential impact of where their children spend their days.

  The muzzle on daycare critics

  Daycare is such a politically charged issue that it’s difficult to get an honest assessment of the latest research. Brian C. Robertson argues persuasively that a different standard is applied to studies critical of institutional daycare. He describes the fall from grace of one researcher, Jay Belsky. Belsky had initially won praise for his research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which found organized daycare was not associated with negative effects on children. But when additional research caused him to question his initial findings and to conclude that daycare was associated with negative outcomes, he found himself and his research under fierce fire.14

  Belsky highlighted the hypocrisy of his critics, who dismissed his findings by claiming that the effects were small and did not appear in a majority of children, but had championed results of a similar magnitude when their preferred finding was confirmed: quality of care has an impact on children.15 He concluded: “Quality of care matters ... and so does quantity. The latter part seems to be an intolerable truth.”16

  Robertson details other researchers who have changed their tunes about daycare in reaction to the backlash against those who criticize institutional care. T. Berry Brazelton, an expert on child development, initially suggested that early separation from parents could have detrimental affects on children and recommended avoiding it when possible. But in subsequent additions of his book, he removes this advice and apologizes for “adding to mothers’ guilt” about not staying home. According to Robertson, Brazelton does not cite new evidence that refutes his previous position, but acts out of a fear of offending some parents by mentioning inconvenient facts.17

  Dr. Benjamin Spock did a similar about face. Robinson highlights how Dr. Spock went from arguing unambiguously for the importance of mothers caring for their children to downplaying their importance, so as not to offend parents. Similarly, daycare researchers—including those at prominent government institutions, like The National Institute of Child Health and Human Developme
nt, which receive millions of dollars from taxpayers to conduct research on these issues—admit their reluctance to give bad news about childcare. As NICHD investigator Robert Rianta explained: “There’s more caution in drawing implications that might be worrisome to parents.”18

  The research on daycare: some negative effects on kids

  Parents need to hear about the effects of daycare so that they can make informed decisions. The weight of the evidence suggests that children placed in daycare centers for long periods of time are more likely to exhibit problems, including behavioral and attachment disorders, than peers who are raised at home. However, children in higher quality daycare are less likely to suffer any ill effects, and may enjoy some benefits from increased socialization

  The NICHD studied data on childcare to determine the relationship between the amount of non-maternal care during the first 4.5 years of life and children’s behavior. They cite studies that have showed that reliance on “non-maternal care arrangements” predicted increased behavior problems, especially aggressive behavior, among three- and four-year-olds.19

  NICHD is careful to note that not all research replicates these results and some research suggests positive effects from center-based care. But the NICHD study goes on to detail evidence that greater aggression during school years is linked to extensive child care, and that “more time in care predicts less harmonious mother-infant interaction and less sensitive mothering.”20