'Denying my Existence' - a piece by Mary Harrington

[NotHavingIt]

Mary Harrington's world view has very clearly been revolutionised by her having become a mother, hence her interest in, and focus on, the effects of socialised childcare in 'Feminism Against Progress' and here, in this piece, on the postulated effects of maternal deprivation on developing identity.

As ever, speculative and exploratory - but certainly interesting.

https://open.substack.com/pub/reactionaryfeminist/p/denying-my-existence?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

That's fascinating - an angle that would never have occurred to me and I don't know if there's any actual research backing it up, but it resonates with me.

It's a really interesting idea and I would love to see some research into it.

My initial reaction is it is blame the mother. Maybe that's true but why is it always the mother? Why is the mother criticised for returning to work? Can fathers not be consistent presence in an infants life. If lack of a parental figure is a major root cause for such individuals it will just be more pressure on women no men to remain home

I would think a father, or indeed another person playing the same role, could generally fulfill that role - although there is some interesting research around even very early adoptions having impacts on children.

But I don't think we will ever really be able to get around the fact that there is such a thing as a mother-infant dyad, and there are all kinds of biological realities that mean that we will not see fathers or random other people playing the same role for children at scale.

At least not unless society tries to engineer that outcome, and I do not think it is possible to do that without disregarding or even denigrating the importance of the mother-baby dyad. People won't comply at scale unless they believe it's not important.

Another thought - some of this reminds me of some of the thinking that has gone on about mass education and preschools. Lots of people in the home education community have been influenced by this kind of thinking, that's where I am most familiar with it, so not so much about babies, but a similar idea.

Basically this thinking says that naturally, young kids are primarily attached to mum, then dad, siblings, extended family, typically in that order - their attachments grow out over time. The argument goes that by having kids in an environment where their primary interactions all day are with peers, and a lot more peers than adults, what you see is children who at a much younger age are primarily peer attached. Which has all kinds of developmental effects.

Of course public education is not new. That being said, many kids are there for much longer days than used to be the case, with wrap-around care, no lunch at home which was common when I was growing up, sometimes long commutes, and sometimes a lot more programmed activities after school and on weekends.

So perhaps the children now are having a lot less time with their families.

"Speculative and exploratory" is one phrase. Another might be "jumping to preposterous conclusions on the basis of almost no evidence" might be another.

There is a fair amount of evidence as I understand it on the importance of mothers to babies and young children.

Naturally, as described by Demicolon in her post about home education, children are primarily attached to mothers and from a secure base of that mother-baby/child relationship they begin to explore the world and form relationships with significant others in their lives and communities.

This would have been the norm for most of human history. Where there was interference in this norm the consequences would have been clearly observed as being negative.

The other people around the child would have also likely have been permanent members of the child’s community, so that the attachments formed would be lifelong.

We begin as one being with our mothers and separation is gradual. To force it before time or to hold back the process when the time comes for mother and child to move slightly further from each other will naturally cause problems for one or the other.

A secure, well grounded human being is usually someone for whom this process of gradual separation was respected. It makes up for a lot of other ills, problems from natural causes, disease, famines, etc etc

It seems that we have a generation which are feeling disconnected and untethered. Since our identities are naturally formed in large part by human relationships, our families and communities who have known us since birth, knew our mums and dads, maybe even grandparents a whole generation is missing out on this when they are brought up by transient carers.

We are known by those around us, it grounds us in the world and gives us a confidence in who we are, it means we don’t need to question our identities. Our family, friends, community validate us all the time implicitly through daily interactions over a lifetime and perhaps going back before our birth through knowledge of our ancestors.

Mothers bring us into the world gradually teach us that we are separate people worthy and loved and gradually introduce us to the significant people in our lives, gently, little by little, we build those relationships first with dad and siblings, with grandparents, aunts and uncles, with family friends with families nearby who have children the same age until we are fully integrated into our community.

I agree @PomegranateOfPersephone My children were me to start with and my relationship with them was different than my OH's. I was attuned to them in ways he could not be because we were not really separate people at birth. He was a great dad and involved in childcare from the very start. When I went back to work at 6 months due to economic necessity, he looked after them as much as me but still, his relationship was different. When they were hurt, they wanted me. They are two very secure and solid teenagers so I don't believe this was anything other than healthy. I do believe it was caused by our emeshed biology and the hormone rush which is childbirth. Our bonding was influenced by that and that's indeed what nature intended. I am not diminishing the role of an adoptive mother and I think they can have great, close relationships with their children but we do not need to pretend the influence of biology is not there to recognise their wonderfulness as mothers.

Thanks for linking to an interesting read. I’ve wondered for a while why there is talk of “denying the right of trans people to exist” as I have never, ever heard anyone speak in those terms, whatever their views on the trans issue. Makes sense that really people are talking about “validation” - so why does nobody say so? (Rhetorical question - requests for validation would be met with “should I validate you if you said you were Napoleon, or a giraffe? How is that different from validating something else which I can clearly see is untrue?)

Also raises another issue which has concerned me on recent years - what effect does the increased institutionalisation of childcare have on the development of young brains, and especially emotional development? I see little crocodiles of nursery children from time to time walking around the town centre with their carers. Sometimes the carers are engaged and chat with the children. Others couldn’t look less engaged or interested if they tried. It’s sad to think of very small children spending their formative years with the latter type. I have to wonder if the rise and n this form of childcare is in any way related to the growing levels of MH problems in later childhood and beyond.

@coronabeer

I work in childcare and I agree with you. I managed 2 weeks in a nursery for me it was battery farmed children. I now switch between nannying and childminding. I'd say childminder is the best for kids by far if they do the baby years and through to school wrap around. When I was nannying I would ask how many nanniothe kids had before me as high nanny turn over meant challenging kids- cause ir effect is debatable

Listen to any child of a working class family raised in the 70s in the UK for a reflection on how being brought up (or simply moving from formative year to formative year) was unrecognisably different from today.

Kids weren't offered myriad hobbies (costing money), or asked how they felt, or asked for their opinion, or given many choices at all. I still find it odd when I hear mothers sayind to young kids "do you want strawberry or vanilla?". The resounding cry of the 70s mother was "you'll get what you're given and be grateful". Mothers were younger, parental relationships different - at least in my neck of the woods. Those generations (50s, 60s, 70s) were forged in a fire of self sufficiency.

I suspect there is quite a lot in what Mary says but that the root causes are wider than simply early maternal bonding. There are so many variables in that mix.

The one that always strikes me closest is the lack of engagement with the outdoors and nature that has occurred since the advent of the internet.

Yeah, Joody, I also wonder about the boundary issues. When my kids were babies, in the 15 to 20 year ago range, attachment parenting was all the rage in the middle classes with SAHMs. There was a ton of focus on attachment to mum, on the other hand, there was a real lack of boundaries in many cases - the idea being that anything other than total affirmation of the child's every whim represented a kind of damaging stress. So lots of co-sleeping, lots of late breastfeeding on demand - with the emphasis on the demand.

And to a large extent many of the working mums had the same lack of boundaries, just not always about the same issues.

Those kids were constantly being externally validated one way or another.

I thought it was interesting for her reflection more broadly on how some people don’t feel an inward sense of being a complete person and, as a result, require the scaffolding from those outside the self. Or seek a sense of self from outside the self. I’ve thought that the appeal of tattooing can be explained by this. And also her reflection on how a lack of external validation does translate into a sense of existential annihilation for those without a stable sense of self. That helps explain those intense young people.

Maybe something there with the maternal connection but other issues so clearly evident eg autism, feeling different, a need for control, anxiety, social media influences, plus rejecting the male gaze (for girls) and anger and entitlement (for boys) and the sheer current pervasiveness of this narrative.

This is interesting.

Also when you consider autism. I've got autistic kiddos and am autistic myself. There seems to be two types of parents to autistic kiddos. The ones who push conformity and do things like the abuse that is ABA therapy and the ones who support their child and their autonomy and needs without exception and at the expense of others. Obviously those are the two extremes and there are many in the middle but I often find the advice to let my autistic kiddo negatively effect the lives of others around him don't sit well with me. I worry what he's learning of meltdowns always get him what he wants. Hard to balance that with the fact he genuinely does have it harder than most other kids

Rod liddle wrote about this exact point in 22nd march. I keep wondering how I end up agreeing with somebody I used to hate reading, but clearly motherhood changed me. www.spectator.co.uk/article/childcare-an-inconvenient-truth/

No man is an island. We all in exist in relationship to others. There's a reason why solitary confinement is such an extreme punishment.

But she may have a point. According to Hannah Barnes children presenting at Tavistock were often growing up in care or in abusive families.

No wonder TRAs are so concerned to ban talking therapy for gender dysphoria.

I think those things are all issues, but some have been forever. If there is an increase in young people who have an insecure sense of self, the question seems to be, what has changed? I don't think there is much question that something has changed - levels of depression and anxiety in young adults are through the roof.

If there is an increase in young people who have an insecure sense of self, the question seems to be, what has changed? I don't think there is much question that something has changed - levels of depression and anxiety in young adults are through the roof

I don’t disagree but also think that all the older, more established markers that used to help define identity have been lost, some thankfully, but the importance or significance of religion, tight community connections, extended families, a rootedness in place, nationalism, a secure job, the expectation of LTR and marriage, kids etc. have dissipated or diminished. But what’s really replacing them? Simultaneously anything and yet nothing solid.

There was someone I saw interviewed about her new book on the pill and how transgenderism is the precursor for trans humanism. She made a similar argument and that hero rid of the pill and going back to traditional marriage would be a good thing. I now can't think of her name. Hopefully someone here remembers? Maybe it was Mary Harrington. I'm new to learning all this and don't have a mind for names

*getting rid of. Not hero.

Grrr my typing infuriates me

Yes I've looked it up. Im indeed taking about Mary Harrington and her book 'feminism against progress'. Where she sets out what she calls reactionary feminism. If my understanding is correct the argument is feminism hasn't brought the gains we hoped and has harmed us more. The pill didn't give us freedom it gave men more access to our bodies. Same for porn. Work didn't liberate us as we still do list the home work etc. her solution is return to more traditional marriage.

Im paraphrasing and didn't agree with her so hard to remember accurately

Lol @PurpleBugz it was the same person, Mary Harrington

I'm so bad with names it embarrassing haha

I don’t think Mary Harrington thinks that the pill should be got rid of rather that women persuaded by her arguments might choose not to use it.

She always says things can’t be undone and there is no going back into the past. What has happened has happened.

Also raises another issue which has concerned me on recent years - what effect does the increased institutionalisation of childcare have on the development of young brains, and especially emotional development? I see little crocodiles of nursery children from time to time walking around the town centre with their carers. Sometimes the carers are engaged and chat with the children. Others couldn’t look less engaged or interested if they tried. It’s sad to think of very small children spending their formative years with the latter type. I have to wonder if the rise and n this form of childcare is in any way related to the growing levels of MH problems in later childhood and beyond.

I observed one of these crocodiles in the park in town the other day.
They all ground to a halt as two children were instructed to hold hands. They all had the statutory HiViz tabbards on. They looked so lacking in spirit, fun, interest in their surroundings, trained as they were not to take a step without instruction. Like a troop of little robots.

I believe the quality of most nurseries is very low, in particular the lack of outdoor play and exploration. I remember visiting a potential nursery with DD2 when she was young. It was in a converted building within the grounds of a stately home with access to wonderful outdoor space. I claimed DD needed me there for her trial morning, so I stayed and offered to help. In no time I was put to work, busy washing paintbrushes and reading a story. The manager was in her office doing admin. At elevenses the children sat at tables and their snacks and drinks plonked down while the staff sat at another table having their coffee. Very different from the pre-school DD1 had attended where snacks and drinks were passed around with expected please and thank yous, and staff sat and engaged the children in conversation.
No one went out for a walk. I questioned the manager and she said they went some days but a lot of parents didn't like their children going out. 🤷‍♀️
There is a nursery in my village and I occasionally pop in to drop of unused swabbing sponges from our theatre kits which are great for painting and they always appreciate my gifts. But the outdoor area is very unloved and needs a good clean and tidy up. Clearly not much used. They overlook the village playing field and there is great outdoor access but I never see them outside.

I found a sheet from DD2's Montessori nursery that she went to.
It was in a private home, the couple who ran it lived upstairs with the entire downstairs and garden given over to nursery. Rabbits were let out to hop around the garden and the children cleaned out their hutches and swept the paths. The cat pottered about. There were stick insects and tadpoles to observe and learn about. Apples collected and baked into apple turnovers and crumble.
They never needed to trail out in a crocodile.
I know most nurseries can't have that sort of set up, but outdoor play and engaging with nature (as opposed to a closely choreographed short walk) should be an essential ingredient.

Funnily enough, focussing on early mother-child bonding and taking on intensive time investment "hunter-gatherer" strategies like baby wearing, cosleeping, and even "elimination communication" (remember that?) were all features of the super-crunchy mothering approach of almost 20 years ago now, all a reaction to the Gina Ford routines-and-sleep training approach that was fashionable before that. I had a foot in both camps - I was into routines, but also into reusable nappies.

In my small sample of people I've known with children from that time, there was a wide range of crunchy-vs-routines parenting, and a mums who went back to work quickly were very much the exception as nearly everyone either stopped working altogether or dropped to very part time/scaled back work.

The only trans kid from that cohort came from an attachment parenting-oriented, politically progressive family with a very trad domestic set up (she didn't earn enough at her creative job to pay for childcare). Both parents also had a horror of unfeminine women and made remarks about that fairly often over the years. Their trans child (now at uni) is autistic and same-sex attracted.

For the rest of us, none of the kids have even tried being they/thems, despite us all being of quite a liberal bent and ranging from stay-at-home parents to straight back to work parents.

I find a lot of Harrington's writing is starting to verge on being Just So stories. She is putting no more effort into backing up her hypothesis that women need to get back to hearth and motherhood than I just have in my anecdote above, yet she seems to be being taken quite seriously.

I wonder if she was an attachment parenting advocate or a routines one? That's the bit of her parenting approach that really interests me.