A little while ago I started a firestorm when I wrote about planning my daughter's future--and how we should consider a career choice that would make it easier to stay home with kids, should she choose to do that.
It made me think back to my own decision to stay at home, which was definitely NOT something I thought I would be doing. And then I read this article called "Why I'm at Home" by an educated woman whose journey sounds identical to mine. Heather Koerner writes,
I'm sure it started in my own day care experience. After attending a group day care for much of my childhood, I took different jobs during my college breaks as a child care worker and nanny. Though most of my co-workers were nice, sweet ladies who tried to make the day pleasant for kids, I still began to see that there was something unique and special about a parent's love that a child care worker could never duplicate. Even with my one-on-one time as a nanny, I saw that, as much as I cared about my job, it was still that — a job.
But what about me, I would wonder. I'm a well-adjusted, productive member of society and I came through day care just fine. What's the problem?
I thought about that — hard. Then the answer came to me in three little words: in spite of. Day care had not made my childhood happy. My childhood was happy in spite of my time in day care. It was my parents' individual attention each night and on weekends that helped me to thrive. It wasn't that the days were always bad, but that my parents' love was always best.
I started to ask myself the hard questions: Who is going to raise my child someday? Will the nights and weekends be enough?
Her whole article is really worth reading, but I thought I'd take her example and tell you all my journey.
My earliest memories are of lying on a cot in a day care, with a teacher rubbing my back. I loved that teacher. I was scared of everyone else (even the other kids), but that teacher (I believe she was an immigrant from Romania who didn't speak much English) loved me and I loved her. She was the only good thing about day care. I remember crying until she would hold my hand. I remember hiding in corners. I remember being forced to eat cheese (I HATE cheese).
I was in day care because my father had left us and my mother had to work. She had looked into becoming a foster parent to see if that could give us enough money so she could stay home, and it didn't. So she hated to leave me behind, and she marched off to work.
I grew up with a single, professional mother who worked hard to provide. The rest of my relatives (most of whom are women; we don't do boys in my family) also are very well educated, most with at least a Master's degree. My aunt had worked part time as a doctor, with a nanny the other half of the time. My role models were not stay at home moms.
So I always assumed I would be a professor. I would work part-time, write amazing papers, and still have summers off and time with the kids.
I pursued higher education, and did well. I earned scholarships. I kept wracking up degrees (I have three). We married in our fourth year of university, because we knew there was no point in waiting; we both would be in school for years. And I was earning enough money in graduate scholarships and research positions that we didn't really need to wait.
My husband was from a blue collar family. His mom had stayed home, and that was all he knew. I always felt sorry for her that she didn't have more opportunities (I thought of her as a "stay at home mom" then, as a category, not really as the mom I know now). I was enlightened. I could take on the world, and the kids would fit right in!
Keith wasn't so sure, but he held back his reservations because how can you argue against a woman working? That would be sexist.
And so it was that I started applying for Ph.D. positions in Toronto, where Keith would be doing his residency in pediatrics. I won another scholarship. I was on the right track.
Then one day I had to deliver a presentation to my Master's class about a certain sociologist. I couldn't understand a word this guy was talking about. It was all so vague, and airy fairy, and convuluted, but I had to present it, so I did the best I could.
At the end of the presentation everyone applauded. I got 100%. The professor said that was the best he'd ever seen; that I just made Baudrillard come to life and explained him so well.
AND I STILL HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
Excuse the term, but there is no other adequate substitute: I had BS'ed my way through. And everyone thought it was great.
It became clear to me that the professor didn't know what this guy was talking about, either (even though the professor was a specialist in this particular guy). And I thought to myself: do I really want to spend my life in academia, pretending the whole time?
Five minutes after that presentation I called Keith and said, "let's get pregnant instead."
And so ended my academic career.
We did get pregnant, and we moved to Toronto. I was so sick with Rebecca. Have you ever just prayed to throw up? I prayed that prayer straight for nine months and I never did. With Katie I could throw up like clockwork, every morning at 8:30, and felt so much better. It is way worse to not throw up than to throw up.
But in the meantime, even though I had decided to have kids and I had decided not to pursue a Ph.D., I hadn't really decided anything else. My future was still open.
And in Toronto, I had a job working with a consultant company doing their graphic design and databases. It paid fairly well, but it was a half hour subway ride away.
After doing this for three months (during which I had become indispensable), I sat on the subway one morning, praying not to puke before I got off (at which point I would begin the prayer again that I would indeed puke), and I asked myself, "why am I doing this? Why am I going on a subway an hour a day when I feel horrible?" We didn't really need the money. And I felt lousy.
So I quit. And was promptly hired to work from home by the same company, which I did for the next five years, off an on, just on little projects.
Then Rebecca was born, and I started going out to parks with her, and playing with her, and having a grand old time. And I realized, I don't want to go to work. I want to stay right where I am.
My commitment to being a stay at home mom came gradually. It wasn't something I ever thought I'd do. I was following the path I was told I should follow: I was getting an education, I was working, I was making something of myself. And even though it was silly, I never questioned it until a breaking point came, and then I realized, "I don't have to do this. No one is making me do this except for me."
So we decided not to buy a car. We didn't buy a house. We shopped at thrift stores and didn't go out to eat very much. We saved as much as we could, and then we moved to a cheaper city, where Keith's family was, as soon as we could get out of Toronto. HIs classmates were buying homes and cars and everything expensive, and we were living in a small apartment. But we had a great time, and the lack of money didn't really bother us at all.
I would occasionally chat with his female colleagues about the problems they were having with their nannies, who didn't like to stay after 6, and who didn't like to do housework. Why couldn't these women mop the floors and care for the kids and get dinner ready? Was that too much to ask?
And I would listen and wonder what planet they were on, because I didn't have time to do most of that, either. I spent a lot of the time out with my kids, because the apartment was small. She was asking the nanny to stop playing with the kids and clean the house all day. And then I just stopped listening.
I'm like Heather, who wrote that first article. I'm okay in spite of the day care, not because of it. But I don't want my kids to grow up and be okay in spite of anything. I want to give them the best, and the best is me. They need their mom.
I know some women will make different choices, but I guess my question is this: are they really your choices? I never really understood that staying at home was a valid choice. I never even really made it; I drifted into it, little by little. It was only in retrospect that I am passionate about it. I did what I was supposed to do, and didn't think twice about it. Is that really a choice?
When women sign up for a postgraduate degree, are they making a true choice for themselves, or are they doing what is expected of them? When they go back to work after the baby comes, is it a true choice, or have they never really thought that maybe there is an alternative?
It sounds silly, but I never saw the alternative. I always thought I'd get a Ph.D. because that's what you're supposed to do. So I'd encourage young women everywhere: MAKE A CHOICE. A real choice. Recognize that you could honestly do either: you could have a career, or you could stay at home. They both are legitimate. (I know some Christians argue the career isn't, but just let that go for a minute for the sake of argument).
They are not both presented as legitimate in our education system or in many of our families. Instead, it's assumed that women will work, will make a ton of money, will make a name for themselves. And thus, staying at home isn't really a choice.
But it is. It is your life. What do you want to do with it? Or more importantly, what is God calling you to do with it? Wrestle it out. I'm not going to tell you what to do, because I believe God can do that when you go to Him. All I'm going to say is that you have permission to make a choice. You do not HAVE to pursue a career. You do not HAVE to pursue a ton of education. You can choose, either way, to go the way that God wants you to go.
Are you open to leaving it in His hands, and maybe bucking the tide? I hope you are. It was so freeing once I said, I can make my own path in my life. And I'm so glad I did.
I have been thinking a lot lately that the majority of my main parenting role is behind me. And I find myself mourning the loss, a little bit.
You see, last week my husband took my daughter out driving for the first time (and she did quite well!). She's turning 16 this week, and she'll be out of the house in two years.
I've found myself waking up in the middle night, dreams of my girls as toddlers (and of the baby boy that I lost) dancing on the edges of my brain. It's really hitting me that they will be launching out on their own soon.
And so perhaps it's been natural that I've been thinking and praying about what to launch them to. Now perhaps the title of my post is not a fair one, for I do feel that children should decide their own future, and not necessarily do what their parents tell them. But at the same time, our job is to advise, and so I am thinking about how to advise them.
When I was growing up, we were so focused on "what you want to be", by which we meant "what job you want to have", as if that was all there was to life. You had to settle on a career, and then other things would fit in around it.
In retrospect, I find that extremely silly. I married a doctor, and we have seen family members and friends also go into medicine, with its at least eight years of training, and nonstop studying and stress, and then find out that they just don't like doing call and being away from their families so much. And so they try to work part-time, or cut back, and find it's really difficult. But how do you give up on a career you spent eight years training for--eight hard years?
What matters to you as an adult is not what career you have as much as the kind of life you have, and where you want to spend your time. Some careers demand much more of you than others. They may also pay more, and let you have a certain material lifestyle, but they eat you up and spit you out, too.
Planning your life based on what career you're suited for, then, doesn't necessarily make you happy or fulfilled. It is so much more important to figure out what your values are, and where you want to spend your time, and what kind of family you will want, and only THEN figure out what job you want. Because for most of us, family will come before job.
Unfortunately, schools and universities spend almost no time talking about how you will build a family and all their time instead preparing kids for entrance tests and pushing them towards certain careers. But what if kids don't want those careers?
And so, coming from a highly educated family, I have begun to ask if I really want my children to be as highly educated--or, if so, what the purpose of education really is. And what do I want to advise them to do?
I'm raising girls, and so my advice list is very different than if I were raising boys. This doesn't seem fair I know, but I think it is reality. Most women want to stay home with their children. Most men do not. When they take surveys of working people and ask, "would you rather work less so that you can have more time with family?", the vast majority of women say yes. The vast majority of men say no. If most working women are unsatisfied, should this not count for something? Should we start asking about why and how we push girls into certain careers, then?
Of course it would be nice if everyone could work less, but practically it doesn't work that way usually. Someone has to make the money, and someone has to stay with the kids, and it's just easier if one person does one thing and the other does the other. I've known couples who have each worked half time, and that's great, too. But it's not that common.
And if most women want to stay home with their kids, and if we agree that a parent at home is superior to day care, then surely this must influence how we raise our girls?
Therefore, I'm considering these factors:
1. My daughters may have to provide for themselves for a time, or perhaps forever if they don't marry. Even if they do marry, they may have to support that husband while he's in training (I did), or be the sole support during times of unemployment or illness. Also, not to be pessimistic, but many women marry believing their husbands will love them forever, only to be abandoned. Therefore, they must have a skill that they could use to make an income. They must be trained in something that they enjoy, that they are suited for, and that matches their Christian values in some way.
2. At the same time, they should not train for a skill that would, if practiced, make it virtually impossible for them to stay home with their children. They should not spend years and years in training for something that they would, by nature of the job, have to quit if they wanted to stay home with their children. Therefore, dentistry, medicine, even teaching aren't necessarily high on the list.
3. Instead, we should steer towards jobs which are flexible and which allow part-time or even at-home work. Things like pharmacy, accounting, optometry, nursing, counseling, speech therapy, clinical psychologist, etc. etc. are closer to what they might do, because all of those jobs have part-time options (you could work a few nights a week if the family needed the income, or you could work from home).
4. University should be seen as a place to make good friends that will likely be lifelong, and so university should thus be chosen based on the type of student that is there far more than the quality of the particular program, since in the long run, who one marries and who one's friends are are of infinite more importance. For instance, I'm looking at universities for my daughter, and we're concentrating on cities with amazing churches for college & career groups, that offer shuttle services for church. We're looking at universities with strong Christian groups on campus. We're looking at places close enough that she could come home occasionally.
5. Any higher education should not assume an inordinate amount of debt, because then you have to devote your first decade of working to paying off that debt, rather than saving for a house so that it's easier to stay home with kids.
6. Entrepreneurial skills are extremely undertaught in schools, and necessary in life. Probably the best option my girls have is to figure out some sort of business they could do from home, so steering them in that direction is another thing I'm doing. We're looking at what skills the kids have, and what interests they have, that could turn into a business (after all, that's what I've done with my writing and speaking).
How would this differ for boys? Because a boy likely won't choose to stay at home as readily as a girl will want to, he could go into other careers like medicine more easily. But the other things are pretty much the same.
One last thing: it pains me to say that I am steering my girls away from certain educational opportunities, simply because they are girls. But my girls also agree. The number one thing they want in life is to marry and have kids. Most girls are the same way. And yet schools, and many parents, tend to turn to these girls and "pooh pooh" these desires and tell them they should aim for the sky anyway in terms of careers.
If my daughter honestly felt called to be a doctor, I would of course encourage her, because how do I know God isn't calling her to that? But since neither feels that calling (perhaps because they see how hard their dad works), I'd rather steer them towards a career goal that will mesh with their desires for a family, and their calling as mothers, which I still believe is different from a calling for fathers. I don't see men wrestling with the question of whether or not to work the way women do. It's time that culture admitted this and helped girls make smarter choices, before they wind up $200,000 in debt to train for a career they ultimately don't want.
I have seven years of university behind me, and while I don't exactly regret those years, I also didn't really use that education in what I'm doing now, and I'm not sure how useful much of it was. I met some amazing people (and married one of them), and I learned how to write. But I have learned much more since leaving university (I didn't realize how anti-truth universities really are until I got there and learned that "everything is relative"), and I know so much more about history and culture and literature and life just in my own reading than I ever learned at university. I had so many friends in the Ph.D. programs at those universities, and of them all, I can tell you that the men are still working in their fields, while all the women, with the exception of one, are not. They stopped working to stay home with their kids, and then found they couldn't keep up with the research demands a career in academia had.
I think we push women far too quickly into career decisions without giving enough thought to what kind of life they really want to lead. If a girl wants to stay home, is that so wrong? And should that not be factored in?
And so I am here, thinking about what will happen when my baby is a mother, because, at 16, she is closer to her years of having babies than I am to those years past. This is a strange position to be in--I am closer to my grandchildren as babies than I am to my children as babies, most likely. And so I look ahead, and pray, and plan.
It seems like I really waded into some trouble in this post regarding the Roots of Empathy. I compared daycare centres to institutions, and several in the comments took exception to that.
I've been mulling over whether it's worth writing a long post on my reasonings behind what I think of daycare, and I was rather hesitant initially, because I know it's a sore spot for so many. In the church we do tend to judge each other by our choices with regards to childcare, and I don't want to perpetuate that.
But at the same time, if there's anything that I really stand for, it's this. So I'd be a coward not to address it. I know there are some who will be offended by what I say, but please understand that I do this after a lot of prayer and a lot of thought, and I don't do it lightly.
So let's start with first principles, and then we'll move steadily outwards looking at childcare choices, discerning God's will for our lives, and more.
1. Children Learn Through Attachment. A child's brain before the age of 3 is very different from a child's brain at age 8. When children are young, they primarily learn best when they feel very attached to a specific caregiver, or perhaps to a few close caregivers.
They need to feel secure and attached before they are really able to explore the world and their place in it. When children don't feel secure or attached, their ability to learn well is hindered. They may learn academically, but their social skills are hurt because their feelings aren't as acknowledged or affirmed. Therefore, any childcare arrangement must be one in which a child is able to attach to a safe caregiver.
2. Children Need to be Kept Safe. A parent's primary responsibility is the safety of their children. What is most likely to harm children? Other children. Little supervision. Unfamiliar surroundings so that they feel scared and act inappropriately. And above all, diseases.
Here's an excerpt from a column I wrote on the subject five years ago:
Day care certainly is a germ factory, since at any one time 16% of day care children will be ill, and 82% will attend anyway. Both the Canadian and the American Pediatric Associations say that day care centres are responsible for the epidemic of ear infections. Day care children are also three to four times more likely to be hospitalized than other children, and at least 50% more likely to die overall.
But physical illness is not the only problem. A 1998 study published in the Child Development journal found that the levels of cortisol—the stress hormone—of children in day care centres are opposite to everybody else. Most people start their mornings with high levels which peter off as the day wears on. Day care kids’ levels peak in the middle of the afternoon. The more these kids are in day care, too, the more likely they are to insecurely attach to their mothers and to exhibit behaviour problems in school.
If a child's safety and health are most important, we must consider these factors when deciding what to do.
3. We Have a Moral Obligation to our Children. Our children do not have an obligation to fit into our schedule; we have a moral obligation to raise them the best way that we can. For some that will mean daycare, because single parents often don't have a choice. Especially if you have to accept subsidized care, you often have little choice except the big daycare centres.
But many who say they "don't have a choice" really do. I don't mean to be harsh, but we can all make decisions to spend less money. You can move to a smaller community where housing costs are not as great. You can choose not to have a second car, even if it means you drive your husband to work everyday (I did this for years). You can choose to live in an apartment rather than a house (did this one, too).
Our children did not choose to be born. We chose to have them (even if they were accidents)! Therefore, we have an obligation to give them the best, safest life there is.
4. The Daytime Caregiver Should be Someone With Whom the Child will have a Steady, Ongoing, Loving Relationship. Here's one where I may differ from many Christian sisters. I don't necessarily believe that it must be the mother who stays home with the children. I just think that it must be someone who is very close to the child. One of the other pediatricians in my husband's group of doctors works while her husband stays home full-time with their two toddlers. She has greater earning potential, so he's home. And he does a great job with the kids--taking them to the Y, taking them to the park, reading to them, etc.
One of the happiest periods of my life when the children were very small (1 & 3) was the time when I worked half-time and my husband worked half-time. We were both earning equivalent amounts of money, and so it didn't make a difference who worked. For six months we split it, and it was so much fun! I got the intellectual stimulation of working two and a half days a week, but I also got to be with the kids. But so did Keith! And he grew a lot closer to the girls during those months, which has had a big impact on his relationship with them, even to this day.
I also think grandparents can be wonderful caregivers. I have several friends who have used grandmothers--in one case, even both grandmothers--to care for their kids while they worked. I wouldn't necessarily consider this ideal, but it's pretty close to it! I can tell you that I'm going to be a wonderful grandmother, and a grandmother is in the child's life, is concerned about the child's feelings, and can really give excellent care. So can aunts, for that matter.
But what if you don't have family? Are you then stuck? It is harder, no question about it. I didn't have grandmothers who were in a position to look after my children, and I don't have sisters, either. But a close friend from church could also fill that role, especially for single parents who don't really have a choice.
5. Institutional Care is Not Fun and, I would argue, not fair. We live quite near the largest daycare centre in my small town. It's also one of the most expensive, and the one that those with government subsidies use. In other words, this is the "cream of the crop" of daycare centres near here.
And this sort of thing is what I see everyday:
Imagine two women, probably 19-20, pushing two strollers with 5-6 children each. In each stroller, at least one child is crying. The two caregivers, though, are chatting with each other at the Stop sign, oblivious to the children's wails. There's really nothing they can do, anyway.
My children didn't always nap at the same time everyday. They didn't always eat at the same time everyday. They wanted to explore the world, and some days we did certain things, and other days we did certain things. When they were in the process of losing their afternoon or morning naptimes, some days they would nap, and some days they wouldn't, and that was okay (though a little aggravating for me!)
In an institutional daycare centre, there is no room for individuality. All the children nap at the same time, in cribs lined up, one after each other. They eat at the same time. They often have to sit in a stroller, or in a seat, or in a high chair, waiting for the caregiver as she gets everybody strapped in before she serves lunch.
The daycare centres may look pretty, with painted walls and lots of toys, but it doesn't stop the fact that it is an institution. Children must conform to the schedule or everything is chaos.
Do you remember when your baby was 10 or 11 months old, and how challenging that child was? Imagine having 4-5 of the same age, and you're the only one caring for them. Could you do it well? Likely not. The children may have more toys at daycare, but there is a reason why we don't tend to have four babies at a time. It's hard to look after four kids of the same age all at the same time. Kids are very demanding at that age. They need you to rock them, and talk to them, and look out for them. Could you do it well if you had four?
I know moms who look after 6 kids under 6 at the same time. It is tiring. But it is not the same thing, because the children are not all the same age. It is much easier to care for a sibling group of various ages than it is to care for four children of the same age.
One of the joys of childhood is being able to explore, relax, and learn about the world. They don't do that in the same way when everything, by necessity, has to be regimented.
Don't blame the caregivers, though. Daycare is one of the most challenging jobs, and thus has one of the highest turnover rates. That's why kids rarely have consistent caregivers at a daycare centre. I have had wonderful friends who worked at a daycare centre who recently quit. Both in their forties, they raised four beautiful children each. They are great moms. But they weren't great daycare workers because, they said, it's an impossible job. You cannot provide that many kids with the kind of love and attention a parent can. And the kids bit them and the other children. They hit. They cried for their mothers, even after months of being in the centre. Not every child cried, but enough did that it made my friends really sad. They felt like they were enabling something that was dysfunctional, and so they quit to do something different. Their conclusion? "You just can't replace a mom."
6. Your primary responsibility is to your family. I remember reading Floyd McClung's book Living on the Devil's Doorstep: From Kabul to Amsterdam when I was just 19. He was the founder of YWAM, and took his family to live in the red light district in Amsterdam. He was busy with his ministry. Then he began flying all over the place raising money and awareness.
And one day, after being away from his family for an extended period of time, he felt God telling him something. And this was the message:
I have given the world to the church to save. But to you individually I have given your family. You serve your family first, and then the world.
That stuck with me, even before I was married, and I have often come back to that thought when I'm trying to make decisions about my life. This is a fallen world that desperately needs help. But God has given that world to the church, not to you individually. To you individually He has given your family. And thus your family is your primary responsibility. You don't leave them for something substandard so that you can fulfill a role that is the church's. We must all have a place in the Great Commission, but it comes after our role in caring for our families.
I don't believe this applies only to moms considering daycare. I think it applies to men, like Floyd, who are also balancing ministry. I do not believe God calls us to sacrifice our children for ministry.
In fact, I would argue that 1 Corinthians 7 supports that.
I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs, how he can please the Lord, but a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world, how he can please his wife, and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs. Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit, but a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world, how she can please her husband. (verses 32-34)
In the context that Paul is speaking, he is giving advice about marriage. And he is telling people it is better not to marry because then you can be fully devoted to the Lord. Once you're married, you can't.
Think about this for a minute. If Paul thought that you should always be fully 100% for missions outreach, whether you were married or not, he would have said something like, "Do not let your feelings for your husband or your children distract you from ministry." But instead he acknowledges that a married person will be concerned about his or her family. It's natural. It's the way it should be. Hence, if you want to be fully devoted to ministry, you should not marry. Otherwise there are always other considerations. You have to worry about your own safety, because others are counting on you. You have to worry about finances, and a house, because others rely on you. You have to worry about their safety. So you can't be as devoted to the work of the Lord. Hence, Paul says, if it is possible, don't marry.
Thus, I think another principle, when it comes to insitutional daycare, is that God would not call a family to choose this for their children in order to advance His kingdom in another way. Perhaps there may be exceptions, but I think those exceptions would be few. When you are a mom, your primary responsibility, within the will of God, is to your kids. I do not believe that God would call you outside of that.
And remember--your children are only young for a time! I'm now 40, and my kids are both teenagers. I'm in a position to do much more ministry than I was at 26, and quite frankly, I'm better at it now than I would have been then. I also still have 25 years before traditional retirement (which I don't even really believe in, anyway). And even when the kids were little, I was still involved in ministry. I just did it in a way that allowed me to be home with them!
So where does all of this leave us? I would say these conclusions:
1. When you have pre-school aged children, who are still at a very vulnerable place in their development, your primary responsibility is to ensure that they have a safe, caring place with a caregiver that they can attach to.
2. That caring place should not be an institutionalized daycare centre, with numerous children and a turnover of caregivers. If you must use daycare for financial reasons, then choose one run in a home by a Christian friend whom you trust. And take all the precautions to ensure that it is a safe home. Don't assume anything.
3. Don't put your child in daycare just based on standard of living. If you need daycare to afford a house, choose an apartment. Give up the second car. Move to a cheaper city. Put off your education if you need to, or take it part time or online. You can never get these years back, and your child needs you.
Those are the conclusions I've come to. I do not write all this to criticize those who make other choices; it is just that I feel strongly that institutionalized settings harm children, and to not speak up because I fear hurting people's feelings seems cowardly.
Here in Canada, the Liberal party keeps pulling out the "universal child care" option as a platform in their elections, claiming that they speak for children by wanting to increase the number of day care centres. They do not speak for children. They speak for a worldview, an ideology that they want to promote, that is essentially "anti-family values". If they cared about kids, they would instead support tax breaks for families so it would be easier for one parent to stay at home.
Often day care is sold as being "for the kids", a fun place where they can be stimulated and made "kindergarten-ready". It isn't for the kids. And as Christians, we need to stand up and support policies that would make it easier for parents to stay home, make it more likely that marriages stay together, and less likely that single parents would be forced into this in the first place.
I hope that clears up my views. I also don't want the comments to become a "fighting arena", where we label people as bad or unChristian. I think it's fine to express an opinion, but please acknowledge that others have the right to theirs. I've now expressed mine; if you disagree, feel free to explain why, and I will not assume bad motives on your part. I just ask that others who want to comment do the same thing: don't assume bad motives on anyone's part, and don't malign anybody's faith (or lack of faith!). Let's just talk about this like friends!
And if you found this post interesting, or worthy of discussion, why not use the Share button to share it on Facebook or Twitter? Thank you!
Every now and then I read a bizarre article in a magazine that fails to mention the one big elephant in the room. You know the ones: articles that talk about how women make less than men, but they fail to talk about how women take time off to have children. Or articles that talk about how badly certain racial communities do in school, but they fail to talk about the family makeup of many within that community.
A while ago I found an article in Time magazine, and I bookmarked it to come back to later.
Here's the argument, and you tell me if you can figure out what's missing:
Children need to learn empathy to avoid growing up as a bully. Children who are raised impersonally, like in an orphanage or in Sparta, often lose the ability to have any empathy at all. Certain school curricula can teach children empathy.
See anything absent? I sure do. How about this? The biggest difference between toddlers who are sent to day care and children who are raised by a parent is the ability to feel empathy. The article goes on and on about how schools can raise children's levels of empathy, but fails to point out that perhaps the reason we're in the mess we're in is that parents aren't raising their children in the first place.
Now, let me put a caveat in here. I know daycare is sometimes necessary. I grew up in daycare, and I turned out rather well (though I hated being in daycare; I don't remember much from when I was 3, but I do remember that). My mother was single, and she had no choice.
I also know that parents who have their children in a small, family run daycare, where they are cared for by a friend, often do fine. I'm not talking about them. But I know lots of parents who have more than enough money for one parent to stay at home who instead opt for their child to go to day care so that the parents can pursue a career. Here's a paragraph in that article that stood out to me:
Institutionalized infants do not experience being the center of a loving family's attention; instead, they are cared for by a rotating staff of workers, which is inherently neglectful. The infants miss out on intensive, one-on-one affection and attachment with a parental figure, which babies need at that vulnerable age. Without that experience, they learn early on that the world is a cold, insecure and untrustworthy place. Their emotional needs having gone unmet, they frequently have trouble understanding or appreciating the feelings of others.
The author is referring to Romanian orphanages, but I see little difference between that and daycares, where you have a ratio of four babies to one caregiver. Who honestly thinks those babies are getting personalized attention? I have several friends who work at a daycare, and all are uncomfortable with the care. Two have recently quit; one to do foster care, and one to do something else entirely. Both women raised their children at home, and the contrast between the care that they gave their own kids and the care that they were able to give all these kids at a large daycare was stark. They felt that it was wrong to exacerbate the situation by actually helping parents leave their children at the daycare which they knew was not good quality for the children, even though these women are amazing moms.
And it was hard on them, too. They were hit. They were bitten. They were routinely smacked. And not by children from "bad" homes, either. On the whole, these are kids from two-parent homes, where the parents go to church. But daycare is not a fun place to work, because the children often are quite violent.
Home daycares can be a different story, but when there are cribs lined up everywhere, so all the children can go to sleep at the same time, even if there are also colourful toys and stimulating pictures and loads of books, there's something wrong. And studies show that.
In order to develop empathy, children must feel a sense of attachment to their caregiver. They have to have long interactions where they "converse", even if it consists of just cooing and the parent figure gushing over them and tickling them. It's hard to attach when daycare workers change as frequently as they do (turnover is horrible in daycares). And you can't have one-on-one time when there are just so many kids who need your attention. It isn't the daycare workers' fault.
I feel as if there is a conspiracy of silence around this, and it isn't just hurting kids. It's hurting families, too. I know many women who want to stay home with their kids, but they're being told by husbands and parents that kids in daycare do fine. In fact, they do better in school because they're so stimulated! So you should work. How can they refute that?
You are enough for your child. In fact, you are indispensable for your child. And rather than relying on schools to teach your children empathy and attachment, I think we should rely on ourselves. Certainly it is hard to survive on one income, and you might need part-time care. But on the whole, try to be the primary caregiver for your child. Hire friends or family to care for your children if necessary. And remember that there really is no substitute for a loving Mommy.
When my children were babies we were living in downtown Toronto. My husband was a resident at the Hospital for Sick Children, and we were surrounded by high powered individuals. All of the other residents who had kids were female, and they didn't have anyone to stay at home with their children, so they all had nannies and day cares.
The neighbourhood I lived in offered many expensive and flashy day care centres, with sand pits and water play and art and music.
And all around me, parents were signing their children up for a few afternoons a week in Montessori, or in Waldorf, or in something else that was "stimulating". Even stay at home parents were signing their kids up for part-time day care. And I didn't.
I felt really guilty for a while. Was I depriving my children of the ultimate experience? Was I really enough for them?
It took me a while to realize that yes, I was enough. What children need is stability, love, and interaction, and I gave them all of that. They don't need fancy toys and play circles and lots and lots of peers. They just need the family. That's not to say that day care is always bad; I did sign my oldest one up for two afternoons a week, for three hours each, once we moved to Belleville, just so that I could finish a book I was working on while my younger one napped. Sometimes you do need to for your work's sake, and Rebecca did enjoy it.
What I feel strange about, looking back, though, is that I felt guilty for not signing my children up. I felt as if I were depriving them. And that's just plain silly.
Our culture is conspiring to tell mothers that they're not good enough. The powers that be want you to put your children in day care. Supposedly it creates jobs, and it feeds this idea that we need more teachers, more government, more schools. In Ontario, where I live, they are about to start full-time kindergarten for age 3 and up, I believe, even though studies show that full-time kindergarten has no educational benefits four years down the road. By that time, those who weren't in full-time have caught up. But there's this common thread through government that parents can't do it right, and that they need help.
My children learned to read young, but they didn't learn because of a day care. They learned because I took them to the library every week, and we read constantly. That was the environment they grew up in. You don't need a preschool to make them "school ready". You just need a mom who is involved in their lives.
My government is about to spend billions on something that parents can (and I believe should) do themselves. I understand that some parents have to work, and I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the fact that they're providing this full-time kindergarten so that even when parents stay at home others can be teaching their children. The government wants to make sure it's done right, and they can't trust you to do it.
This irks me. Irks isn't even a strong enough word. Enrages is perhaps too strong, but it sounds closer to the truth. Everywhere the family is under attack. Children shouldn't be raised by parents; let us do it for you. Let us teach your children to share. Let us teach your children to read. Let us teach your children our values, because you can't do it right.
No wonder parents feel inadequate! So if you're feeling like you're not doing a good enough job, because there's always laundry waiting to be folded all over your house, and you haven't sat down to play a game with your children in days because you're just trying to keep your head above water as you clean the house, deal with a fussy baby, or get Christmas presents bought with children in tow, remember that you are enough. You're not perfect, of course. None of us is. But you don't have to be.
Being a Mommy is such a privilege, and it's a sacred trust. Children were created to need mommies and daddies, not to need schools or day cares or extra stimulation. Even if your life feels chaotic, that's okay. At least your children have you. So don't worry too much about not being enough. Read to your kids. Give them crayons to draw. Now you've prepared them for school. But as you hug them, talk with them, walk with them, and love them, you've given them stability, confidence, and values. And that's preparing them for life in a way no school or day care ever could.
Around the blogosphere there's a lot of talk that maybe Palin isn't a good pick because she should be home with her baby.
I'm sympathetic. I really am.
But here's where I see it.
When I look at Palin, I look at almost a Deborah figure.
She didn't set out to go into politics, unlike Hillary Clinton. She didn't have some master plan of her life. She was just a mom who was upset at things at the school, so she joined the PTA and tried to fix them. Then she ran for city council for the same reason, and started to fix things.
Then she was asked to run for mayor, which she did, and she--you've got it--fixed things.
Then it was the Ethics Committee for the Oil & Gas Industry, where she discovered corruption, and reported it. And then it was the governorship.
She never asked to be on the VP list. But she is determined to do a good job, and from what I hear (though I could be wrong) her husband is home lots with the kids.
She's not running on behalf of women's rights, or downplaying stay-at-home moms, the way a lot of female politicians do. She's not saying that women need to take a more public role in life. She's just been in the right place at the right time in Alaska to get rid of some very entrenched corruption on the part of the Old Boys' Network.
Which is why she reminds me of a Deborah. Or a Margaret Thatcher, for that matter.
I'm uncomfortable with the baby being so young, although I think he's been with her in the office a lot. But I guess you can't help the timing of the election. And I do think that she is the best candidate from McCain's point of view, because she is so big on anti-corruption and on energy.
On the whole I think women should stay at home, although, as a physician's wife myself, I know many female physicians whose husbands stay at home instead, and it works quite well. The children still have a consistent parent for a caregiver.
I think this is a really tough one, for several reasons. Many of us women do feel called to things outside of the home as well as to childrearing. And certainly being a mom has to be a top priority. But what happens when God asks you to do something that isn't ideal for your family?
I think of this a lot with Billy Graham. He wasn't there when his kids were growing up. Certainly Ruth was, but would you take a job that would take you so much away from your kids? I also have a lot of friends in the military, and several who are overseas right now. Being overseas for six months isn't great on your kids, either. But is it wrong? Or is God calling them to something extraordinary, where He will also provide the extra grace for their family?
The truth is that some jobs are not good for families. They really aren't. But somebody has to do them, and some of them are absolutely vital for our well-being as a nation and as a society. So unless we want all of those jobs--police officers, military members, politicians, missionaries, evangelists--to be done by people who don't really love their families, who don't have families, or who don't even love God, then we have to admit that God may ask stuff of some families that doesn't seem fair or right.
It's a tough one, and as a busy speaker I have to balance a lot of this, too. I don't have an answer, but these are the thoughts that have been going through my head.
In the case of all these jobs, I don't think any of them should be taken unless one's whole family feels a definite calling. It's not enough for just one person to feel a calling--the whole family has to feel it, and it has be after a lot of prayer. But there will be times when Christian parents will have to take jobs that require being away from home a lot. And then they're not able to put their number one priority as number one. I do think God provides the grace when He also provides the calling. But it's not just Palin who is doing this. It's all over the Christian church in many different homes.
Even in my own family, when the children were young my husband wasn't home much. He worked about 110 hours a week at the hospital, and he was chronically exhausted. It worked because I was able to be home full time and take on the burden of parenting. And because of that, the kids are still very close to him, because when he as home, I didn't need him to spell me off. We did family things. That's why it has to be a family calling. If I were also working it would have been a disaster. But having Christian pediatricians is an important thing, so I think God called our family so that Keith was away a lot, and didn't parent a lot in the early years, but it was for a greater good.
And, in Palin's case, let's not forget that if she had stuck with two children, as I did, none of this would be an issue. Her oldest two are 19 and 17. But because she went on to have five, and obviously wasn't that enamoured with birth control, she now has two younger ones (and one middle one). In my case, at 44, I'll be fine to be VP if anybody wants to call me. But that's because I didn't have as many children as I probably should have had (more on that some other time when I feel like being especially honest).
So those are my Saturday thoughts. And I must now get to work finishing an article I didn't do at all yesterday because I was glued to the news!
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
when I was just 19. He was the founder of YWAM, and took his family to live in the red light district in Amsterdam. He was busy with his ministry. Then he began flying all over the place raising money and awareness.
