Feb 11, 2022·edited Feb 11, 2022Liked by Isabelle Hau
Isabelle, about the AEI/Brookings report and your question about addressing disparities in the measure of “secure emotional attachment to parents.” The chart shows disparities linked to income level. Studies show that relieving poverty has positive impacts on parent and child well-being. I don't know of a specific study that shows how alleviating poverty improves parent-child attachment, but I do know that poverty impacts parental depression, which is a factor in attachment. How many more studies do we need before we give mothers or other primary caregivers simple, monthly cash support? Other countries have proven the success of cash support; why is the U.S. searching for other answers?
The U.S. is a leader in developing unhealthy practices and cultural attitudes about children and parents (see Darcia Narvaez, PhD and The Evolved Nest for the science supporting this statement).
Unfortunately the AEI/Brookings report fails to recognize two of the fundamental shifts in mindset needed if we want children to thrive.
To illustrate the first shift in mindset needed, I did some editing. Here is the report’s introductory paragraph:
"The future of America rests in part on how the country prepares the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments that last a lifetime. Yet, many children in the United States do not have the resources or relationships they need to build a strong foundation for their future."
This is my edited version:
The future of America rests in part on how the country supports parents in preparing the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments in the well-being of both children and their parents in order to improve children’s life-long physical, mental and emotional health. Many parents in the United States invest their time and resources in their children with little support from policies, systems and society. As Marc C. Bornstein, Head of Child and Family Research at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development declares: “Parents create people.”
My second critique:
Throughout the report, the value of parents’ time together with their children is referenced, but the next step is ignored: valuing and compensating parents’ time. As economist Nancy Folbre observed: "resources are redistributed from parents to nonparents, with the “resources” being the parents’ (especially mothers’) investment of time and expense" ("The Invisible Heart," 2001).
It seems the pandemic's crisis of care, and mothers' role in providing much of this essential work, has taught the experts nothing.
This paragraph from the report's introduction points to its mindset of valuing parental employment:
“The working group agrees that public investment, adequate family income that is based in part on parental employment, and loving relationships in safe and nurturing environments are all critical to ensuring that children have what they need to prosper.”
Issues of the value of waged work and caregiving are not new. It's time to tackle them head-on: why is care by a parent perceived (and counted in the GDP) as “non work”? Why is caregiving worth paying for when it’s done by a child care provider but worth nothing when it’s done by a parent?
As maternal feminist Enola Aird wrote in “Watch Out for Children” (2001): “Fundamentally, we face a conflict of values. It is a conflict between the values of the money world and the values of the “motherworld” — the values of commerce and the values required to raise healthy children.
Isabelle, about the AEI/Brookings report and your question about addressing disparities in the measure of “secure emotional attachment to parents.” The chart shows disparities linked to income level. Studies show that relieving poverty has positive impacts on parent and child well-being. I don't know of a specific study that shows how alleviating poverty improves parent-child attachment, but I do know that poverty impacts parental depression, which is a factor in attachment. How many more studies do we need before we give mothers or other primary caregivers simple, monthly cash support? Other countries have proven the success of cash support; why is the U.S. searching for other answers?
The U.S. is a leader in developing unhealthy practices and cultural attitudes about children and parents (see Darcia Narvaez, PhD and The Evolved Nest for the science supporting this statement).
Unfortunately the AEI/Brookings report fails to recognize two of the fundamental shifts in mindset needed if we want children to thrive.
To illustrate the first shift in mindset needed, I did some editing. Here is the report’s introductory paragraph:
"The future of America rests in part on how the country prepares the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments that last a lifetime. Yet, many children in the United States do not have the resources or relationships they need to build a strong foundation for their future."
This is my edited version:
The future of America rests in part on how the country supports parents in preparing the next generation to live and to lead. Childhood is a consequential and cost-effective time to make investments in the well-being of both children and their parents in order to improve children’s life-long physical, mental and emotional health. Many parents in the United States invest their time and resources in their children with little support from policies, systems and society. As Marc C. Bornstein, Head of Child and Family Research at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development declares: “Parents create people.”
My second critique:
Throughout the report, the value of parents’ time together with their children is referenced, but the next step is ignored: valuing and compensating parents’ time. As economist Nancy Folbre observed: "resources are redistributed from parents to nonparents, with the “resources” being the parents’ (especially mothers’) investment of time and expense" ("The Invisible Heart," 2001).
It seems the pandemic's crisis of care, and mothers' role in providing much of this essential work, has taught the experts nothing.
This paragraph from the report's introduction points to its mindset of valuing parental employment:
“The working group agrees that public investment, adequate family income that is based in part on parental employment, and loving relationships in safe and nurturing environments are all critical to ensuring that children have what they need to prosper.”
Issues of the value of waged work and caregiving are not new. It's time to tackle them head-on: why is care by a parent perceived (and counted in the GDP) as “non work”? Why is caregiving worth paying for when it’s done by a child care provider but worth nothing when it’s done by a parent?
As maternal feminist Enola Aird wrote in “Watch Out for Children” (2001): “Fundamentally, we face a conflict of values. It is a conflict between the values of the money world and the values of the “motherworld” — the values of commerce and the values required to raise healthy children.