Self-sacrifice of stay-at-home mothers

The decision to place a child into institutional childcare is usually motivated by one of three things: 1) financial gain — a mother needs to work outside the home to increase her family's income; 2) intellectual gain — the mother wants to have her talents or intellect recognised outside the home; or 3) personal gain — a mother wants the freedom to pursue her own desires and from the burden of childrearing. In some cases, the decision is a combination of all three.

Yet, given the indisputable evidence of harm suffered by children who undergo extended, outsourced childcare, perhaps it is time parents considered a challenging alternative: poverty in both the material and social aspects.

Poverty, as experienced by most people in developed Western nations, is a far cry from the dirt-poor experience of our forebears. 'Poverty' by today's standards, is more likely to involve forgoing expensive holidays and large modern homes, rather than forgoing food, clothing or a weatherproof house. The modern form of poverty is aligned with the notions of frugality and modest living, and often necessitates a degree of selfsufficiency: sewing clothes, growing food, or learning home maintenance skills.

However, even this relatively affluent type of poverty can inspire terror in a culture used to an excessively-high living standard, and so inflation, rising interest rates and financial uncertainty lure mothers into the paid workforce, oblivious to the economic impact of government-subsidised childcare.

We can all sympathise with families who are close to financial breaking point and facing the prospect of losing their home due to an inability to make the mortgage repayments. Yet, at what point does saving the family home (or purchasing one) become a matter of placing material possessions above the needs of children? Surely it is preferable to accept a life of renting, or living in a shabby or small home, over outsourcing childcare, and giving children the subtle message that they are less important to their parents than money?

Other mothers may be in a better financial position but want their skills and gifts recognised in the workplace or by their academic peers. This is one trap mentioned by clinical social worker, Erica Komisar, who spoke at a recent meeting of ARC — the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. Addressing the harms of institutionalised child care, she gives a wholistic appraisal of the value of parents, concluding that motherhood, more than simply being a role, is a vocation — a surprising conclusion for a secular psychoanalyst. Komisar states that she has met many women who want to stay home with their children but are pressured to return to the paid workforce because they are "too intelligent" to be stay-at-home mothers.

Komisar also addresses the economic aspect, suggesting that couples should be realistic about the financial impact of children prior to marriage, and not expect a new mother to return to work, as a matter of course. She points out the need for sacrifice, noting that this is an antidote to the prevailing selfishness which makes parenthood so difficult for many of today's young couples. Refreshingly, Komisar acknowledges the beneficial effects of the extended family, and encourages people to see the essential goodness of family life and to accept its responsibilities in order to enjoy its rewards.

The idea of self-sacrifice is echoed by Emily Finley, in her thoughtful article, "'Mother culture' and mothers as transmitters of culture". Finley addresses our culture's obsession with "selfcare", highlighting that a mother's experience of caring for her family is actually the means for her to experience fulfilment, rather than being an obstacle to it.

Finley also argues that stay-at-home mothers who make an effort to educate themselves are a powerful weapon in the fight to regain Christian culture. She explains how the modus operandi of revolutionary forces all the way from the French Jacobins to contemporary woke leftists always includes the "liberation" of women from the obligation to raise their own children. She writes, "Women who remained at home to raise their children were passing on the old ways and traditions and were, moreover, not economic contributors to the collective."

It is important to note that not all the harms of institutional childcare manifest in the form of poor academic outcomes or a propensity to break the law as adults. Another potential negative is the perpetuating of a cycle of over-achievement: the emptiness of this lifestyle is often hidden beneath the trappings of external success. Similarly, the contribution made by a well-educated, stay-at-home mother to her family is often overlooked.

The social scientist measures only tangible markers such as qualifications, employment achievements, financial assets and other material values. Forming children's souls and thereby improving the culture is simply too subtle a criterion. Not all of our human actions can be evaluated, tabled and then summarised in a neat abstract; and in any case, it is that kind of utilitarian thinking which is behind the philosophy that introduced out-ofhome childcare in the first place.

Catholic writer Noelle Mering believes that rather than relying on studies to prove the harms or otherwise of institutional childcare and early education, we should be asking if childcare can replace a mother. She makes a good point. Whether or not a study shows that prolonged daycare is harmful, it can never place a value on motherhood itself. The idea that studies should be our source of guidance is itself a dehumanising conclusion. Mering continues, referring to mothers: "Indeed, her time, investment, and consistency are invaluable, beyond what any pile of statistics can demonstrate — and these can be discounted, and too often are, if we have succumbed to a reductive technocratic vision of the person."

For parents to rely on traditions and on an intuition about what is good for their children is yet another exercise in poverty. To decide that, in the face of pressure from family members, co-workers, economic forces and cultural norms, they will personally raise their children, is not likely to win them any awards or accolades. However, parents who choose this kind of poverty for the sake of their children will not go unrewarded: their legacy will be a cultural contribution with an eternal value.

Kathy Clubb is a mother and grandmother and has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. She has undertaken official pro-life work for 10 years, first in Tasmania, and then in Victoria. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria's abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have also appeared at LifeSiteNews, Online Opinion, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.

Sources
Noelle Mering, "Dear science: what if kids need their moms?", Catholic Answers (San Diego, CA), February 23, 2022.
URL:Dear science: what if kids need their moms?
Erica Komasar, "Psychoanalyst's advice for young parents", Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), October 19, 2024.
URL: Psychoanalyst's advice for young parents
Emily Finley, "'Mother culture' and mothers as transmitters of culture", The Christian Imagination (USA), November 27, 2024.
URL: Mother culture' and mothers as transmitters of culture
Jenet Erickson and Jay Belsky, "Another perspective on the latest research on early child care", Institute for Family Studies (Charlottesville, VA), September 27, 2023.
URL: Another perspective on the latest research on early child care

<< Back to newsletter