The paid maternity leave debate is dominated by labour supply considerations – that is, parents returning to the workforce as quickly and reliably as possible. What we hear very little of in this debate is how worthwhile maternity leave (or parental leave) is for the baby. You’d think we’d hear more about it, not just because we’re supposedly capable of empathy, but also because babies are our labour supply, our future labour supply.
I underestimated a lot of things about having a baby, but I especially underestimated how intensive baby care work would be. I used to think a woman pushing a pram was just a woman pushing a pram, but having been that woman I now understand that even this simple exercise in parenting is actually filled with almost constant interactions with the baby. The cooing, the talking, the pointing things out, the putting the booties back on, the stroking the cheeks, the pulling the hat back into place, the exaggerated faces to try and make them laugh, the singing of nursery rhymes, the encouragement of their attempts at clapping, the looking at dogs and reminding them what noises dogs make, the soothing, the wondering if they need a nappy change.. and on it goes. Pretty much every bit of time with a baby is spent interacting with them, it is exhausting, were it not for some very strong biological drives you would seriously shirk the responsibility, and every now and then regardless of the biological drives you do some shirking. You kind of realise it at the time, although you may not think about it, that something is going on here between you and your baby, something with a lot of purpose. You’re instinctively driven to constantly tend to this baby, and it turns out that among other things you’re basically programming the brain of your baby.
Canadian Professor Stuart Shanker, a Research Professor of Philosophy and Psychology looked at what systems a baby is born with and what systems are missing to find out what develops during babyhood and how it is developed. For example, reflexes are there from the beginning in a baby but executive functions are not, and these systems are used to do things like regulate emotions. Turns out these systems can only be developed by interaction with a primary care giver (male or female, but it must be consistent and done with dedication or ideally love) - which happens through interactions between the baby and its mother/primary care giver, back and forth, over and over again.
Parental leave with a baby is critical for development of the baby’s brain. Professor Shanker’s research indicates that our abilities to cope with stress and our subsequent vulnerabilities to adult depression may be related to this very important early one-on-one interaction with a primary carer. Listen to the whole interview (it’s not that long) here, which is part of a longer program reframing the maternity leave debate. We will value ‘mother work’ much more highly when we better understand the importance of this work.
This kind of research is often used to beat mothers up with and I am cautious about the reframing of this maternity leave debate. But men can do this early one-on-one interactive work with babies just as well as women can. And you don’t need to hyper-parent or buy expensive products to perform this crucial parenting task either, it is just you being a fool ’oohing and ahhing’ over your baby. Paid carers can also provide this kind of one-on-one interactions for babies but consistency with the one person for the first twelve to twenty-four months and the kind of diligence that a parent is biologically driven to do is a big ask of the paid care situation – particularly if you’re working with a ratio of one carer to five babies.
I knew it! This was so great to read, thank you. I’ll listen to the whole interview in a minute.
And “were it not for some very strong biological drives you would seriously shirk the responsibility,” to which my partner said (I had to read this post aloud) ‘and what is interesting is that you don’t need to have the biological connection to have the biological drives’
As much as I support the thrust of this argument, I am very wary of statements like “Parental leave with a baby is critical for development of the baby’s brain”. I think there is a lot of evidence in the form of perfectly well adjusted kids that have been in care with a number of carers from 6-12 weeks of age that dispute such a claim.
Babies are pretty resilient – parents who are around outside of work hours still represent stability when combined with good quality care (even if there is not a primary carer for that each child).
My gut instinct is to say “don’t pin this on the kids”. The real value in parental leave is sane parents. And a perfectly valid value it is. I think you are absolutely right that you were programming your kid’s brain. The value in parental leave is that parents get to programme them the way that suits themselves, and that may well have serious long term benefits for some people. Certainly it does for me. I need my kids to fit my mould or I would be unbearable. Other people have different priorities and that is fine.
Ultimately, community is a tangled web, it has to be supported on all sides, as required. The bias has been against kid raising as a valid use of time, and that is fundamentally flawed.
Wow, I am rambling tonight. I’ll go away now.
Anyone who thinks taking care of a baby is easy, has never spent time with a baby. The first time I left the house with my oldest I had to return home 4 times because I kept forgetting things. Between the diapers, bottles, wipes etc babies require a lot of luggage. Of course this doesn’t even include the 4 am feeding.
I know that your argument was about the babies brain but I believe that the other issue that you didn’t mention is bonding. That first year is where they learn to love and trust you. It is an opportunity that you only have once. I didn’t live with my parents for the first three years of my life and I firmly believe that alot of the problems that we have communicating today are based on that lost bonding opportunity.
I think the maternity/paternity leave debate in Australia is insane, when it is so clear that babies are totally dependent on that loving, nurturing, you are the most important person in my life – type devotion, that is really hard to find in the marketplace. I have nothing against quality child care, per se, but I think the first year of paid parental leave, not just at a minimum wage – but commensurate with prior earnings, or a decent payment for the valueable, priceless care work, that goes into rearing a baby. Babies deserve more than anything to feel secure, loved and enjoyed!!! and if that means positve brain wiring then all the better…luv yr blog..
Ariane – I’m so glad you’ve added this perspective to the discussion (and for the record, you weren’t at all rambling)because it is a really important part of the debate. Like I said in the post, I am cautious about this reframing of the debate because it can very easily turn into a criticism of womens’ choices, especially working (outside the home) mothers, and that’s a point you’re expanding upon.
I know how quickly this can turn into an attack on working mothers and I am ill at ease with this debate because while I was fortunate enough to be able to avail myself of 12 mths maternity leave, I wasn’t able to take a full 2 years and my child had a variety of carers including grandparents and paid daycare.
If we find there is something critical happening in the development of babies in their first 1-2 years of life maybe we can start to think differently about their care, maybe we can elevate its importance, see it as something other than some moron pushing a lump around in a pram.. and if the debate around workplace family policies is hijacked then it will be people once again saying it is women who must to stay home with their babies, end of story. If the debate isn’t hijacked then the conclusions can include mothers/fathers really need to have this time at home with their babies where they can/want, and where they don’t choose this they need flexibility in their workplaces to allow them to still provide that interaction with their babies for the first 2 years, and where we have paid care arrangements we need to be able to provide affordable HIGH quality childcare for EVERYONE.
Even the mother and father who opt to start back at paid work early in the first year, because damnit they love working and it is the only thing that keeps them sane during this parenthood caper, and who feel under threat from a bunch of experts telling them how they should feel about parenthood have a lot to gain from this debate.. because more flexibility for the first two years would mean being more likely to negotiate reasonable working hours so they can be home before the baby goes to sleep at night etc.
I take your excellent point that parental leave can be justified by the benefits they deliver parents and that this is no less important than a baby’s development.. but in my heart of hearts I think there is a real case for children’s needs here too.. I think we’ve had a free ride on the backs of mothers and children forced to fit in to a working model which has largely benefited and suited men.
Could not agree more blue milk, well said!!! There has to be some balance between the pervasive ‘get back to work’ mantra, and socially responsible parenting…I actually think it is time for fathers, who often feel they have to bow to the pressure of the ‘ideal worker’ ideal to stop bowing to jobs with inflexible, long hour, on non-family friendly cultures. Let’s see men use thier power at work to demand change. Many mums bend over backwards, with schedules that look like pretzels, to adjust their work lives around thier children? Many take crappy casual jobs, or do part-time work that lacks quality but provides plenty of quantity. I think it’s high time for working dads to have the courage to reshape the work mould to fit thier family commitments just as mums have done forever. By saying no to long hours, overtime, take-home work, and the whole preposterous pressure to be breadwinner, dads will not only have more time for thier families, but workplaces will adjust, and like lemmings eventually follow the lead…ps. I know there are heaps of great pioneering dads out there, doing thier bit, but I don’t think we’re at the lemming stage yet…I’d be happy with a wilderbeast migration of dads, at least some animal analogy that doesn’t plunge to thier death after they have met their goal…sorry, I’ll stop now…what about sheep?
What I’ve learned from being home is that the “a good job is the most fulfilling thing in life” meme just isn’t true. Being home with your child means you get to spend all day with someone you love tremendously – someone who needs a lot of help, sure, but really, compared to most days at a job, even a job you like…I don’t know. Even with the way that childraising is presently culturally structured, with the isolation and low social value, it is largely awesome. Just imagine if childcare was respected as a worthwhile activity…
Yeah, I agree with you blue milk, and I really should have been clearer that you had acknowledged this point. I really should welcome this kind of research for all the reasons you mention. It’s just that I have seen the governmental and economic process take this kind of data and focus on the minutiae rather than the broader message so many time and it ends up marginalising some other group (parents who do go back to work, or people who think they should have a sensible work/life balance even if they don’t have kids etc). I am just getting too cynical.
[...] Blue Milk has some interesting musings and a great interview link on maternity or paternity leave giving babies the opportunity to bond with their primary carer, and vice versa click here. [...]
The problem with staying home is that while you may love your child/children tremendously, some parents take a while to find that love, or they love the kid but don’t like them very much til later, or they’re struggling so much with what the parenting gig entails that they really need to spend a few hours a week doing something that they know they are good at, so that they have the energy to go back to the job they feel so hopeless at.
It’s incredibly important for children to be nutured by people who love them, by people who have time for them, by people who ooohh and aahhh over them. Given that not all parents have the capacity to provide that, or can’t provide that all day everyday, we need a model in which all children spend at least some of their time being adored. Which means that we need flexible working arrangements for mothers, and fathers, and also for grandparents and aunties and uncles and friends. Parents who aren’t coping should be able to rely on their extended network, at the moment that network can only support them on weekends and in the evening for a couple of hours.
You’re right of course, Kate. If you were responding to my rhapsodizing over being home, I was just reflecting on the fact that the current socio-economic structure labels being at an away-from-home workplace the default and being home as either vacation (from work) or where low-value work is performed. I wonder if it is that labeling which partly makes it harder to be there, if it means that every moment you are at home and spending time with the young person in need of care you are becoming less socially valuable. If you have a hard day at work you think, jeez, what a crappy day. At least I made some money. If you have a hard day at home, under the current paradigm, what do you have?
[...] their profession and negotiating abilities deserve at least a few months to recover physically and to establish their babies. Paid parental leave is not a holiday. Women must demand not to be continually penalised in the [...]