'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

Agreed. I guess my point on poverty is that the more empowered and work ready women are, the less likely they are to suffer poverty as a result of divorce. But of course divorce has complicated positive and negative effects at both individual and societal level.

I think it's a bit silly to try and conclude from this that Harrington doesn't know about slavery.

In any case, historical questions are usually much more complex than you seem to realize, rather like dictionary definitions. There are a good number of historians who would suggest, for example, that one of the reasons slavery began to be less important in the early modern period was because capitalism, as well as emerging technology, created a new relationship between the worker and employer which was in many ways better for the employer, and in any case rendered slavery unnecessary.

But even so, none of that means that the overall trajectory of capitalism isn't to marketize more and more areas of life, or nature for that matter.

I'd also say that there is no research that says that fathers have the same hormonal response as mothers to interacting with their babies. There is research which says they have a response, and that it is in some ways similar, but when you dig in and red the fine print, similar is carrying a lot of weight.

"In Feminism Against Progress I suggest there may be a link between growing up in childcare and young-adult emphasis on safety. To be clear: I’ve used third-party care, recognise that it’s a necessity for millions now, and don’t want to cast aspersions on anyone’s commitment to their children’s wellbeing. The vast majority of childcare workers are devoted, kind, and committed to helping their charges flourish. But there are structural differences to the norms inculcated in third-party versus maternal care that are difficult to avoid"

According to a new survey from the American Cato Institute, three in ten Americans under 30 support the installation of cameras in the home to monitor for wrongdoing"

https://open.substack.com/pub/reactionaryfeminist/p/devour-me-mummy?r=clsg2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

"It’s difficult to prove a causal link, but it is striking that bureaucratically managed physical and emotional ‘safety’ has become a key political demand for young adults, around two decades after the rapid spread of nursery-based childcare"

Again, this is not about the admonishment or judgement of mothers, but about how differnt patterns of childcare effect generational responses and expectations.

That is one of the more bizarre articles I’ve read. The idea that being in nursery from (let’s say) 1-4 years old is more influential on your sense of being institutionalised than your attendance at SCHOOL for the next 14 years seems laughable to me. Sadly Mary has not a jot of evidence to back up what to me seems a deeply weird claim.

to do a thought experiment in the contra: does anyone really believe that if the same cohort of children had the same childhood EXCEPT they stayed home with mum for 4 years you would see different results to the survey? I doubt it.

I mean basically this woman just isn’t that good at what she does. I’m totally up for good evidence led questioning of impacts of child care settings on kids. But she’s just throwing random jelly at the wall.

We all have to be socialised to a greater or lesser extent in order to be able to function in any given society. Apart from learning the rudimentaries of reading, writing, numbers and about the world around them, socialisation is what schools are about. We have to become members of a community and to perceive ourselves as members of that community. Learn it rules, its mores and codes and so on.

I guess it is all a matter of degree. But it is easy to imagine a baby in full time childcare gets its needs met in a more regulated, rule orientated way, and maybe develops a far more communal sense of self than a child that has far more individualised care or attention. The young child becomes one of many.

You see those snakes of children ( or chain gangs as I refer to them) all tied together being led through the streets. It must surely effect their self perception and their relationship to whoever is providing the care?

It is always said that the first seven years are the most formative period in our lives, and by the time a child gets to seven the basic self image is formulated - from the age of seven onwards the social self is in development.

The baby teeth are replaced by the second adult teeth at around six/seven.

Between conception and age three, a child's brain undergoes an impressive amount of change. At birth, it already has about all of the neurons it will ever have. It doubles in size in the first year, and by age three it has reached 80 percent of its adult volume.

Ok, few random points.

The increase in survival rates of premature babies probably has an impact on several things mentioned in this discussion: increases in childhood cancer and mental health issues in young people, in particular ASD which is linked to identifying as trans. Someone was asking earlier about the impact of adoption, it's about a 6 month delay in hitting developmental targets in young children.

Family breakdown. For most families the mother remains the primary caregiver after divorce and it's the relationship with the father that breaks down. Surely that means we need to look at improving the relationship between men and their children, rather than the relationship between women and their children. Maybe more divorced men should go PT at work so they could spend more time with their children to maintain a strong bond?

Breastfeeding. It is really hard to remove the confounding impact of parental income and education level on breastfeeding research. I would think that increased performance at GCSE is more than likely due to the higher educational level of the mothers who BF for a year. And I say that someone who BF all my children for over a year (and one for 4 years due to a CMPA).

Industrial revolution. Until that point men and women were working together and raising their families together. So why do people like Mary Harrington only concentrate on the change in the mother's relationship with her children and not on the changes in the father's relationship? I grew up on a farm, I saw my Dad and Mum at every mealtime and snacktime and was as likely to spend time with my Dad as with my Mum. I think because since the industrial revolution men have often been absent from the home for a large chunk of the day their potential role in the emotional life of the family is massively underestimated by modern writers. We should really be looking at pulling men back into the home to do an even share of parenting and unpaid work so women can do an even share of the paid work, it would lead to much better outcomes for childen than segregating 'male' and 'female' roles. Absent fathers are not good for kids.

Off topic somewhat, but I often wonder on the impact on babies and young childen of their patrenst bveing fixated on their mobile phones/smartphones. You often see children with a parent who has almost totally, psychologically abandoned them. the baby in the pram is looking not at the face of the caregiver and receieving feedback and stimulation, but at a face covered and absorbed in a screen.

parents being fixated on mobile phones

@stealthbanana The first 3 years are the most important for a child's cognitive, emotional, and physical development later in life. Decades of neuroscience and behaviour research supports this.

I think that is what Mary Harrington points towards. The ideal of a situation in which both parents are more home based, and working together for the good of the family; the extended family, and the wider community. more embedded in the way that you suggest people were pre-industrial revolution.

Indeed. None of which is relevant to drawing a line between millennials feeling comfortable with cctv. If it was you would be very clearly be able to see it - because you could compare results in countries which have always used socialised early child care (Nordics) with those who didn’t. The reality is that internet usage / digital native related behaviour is far more likely to be the cause - and that should be studied too.

and Mary doesn’t seem to ever talk about fathers - only mothers. Wonder why?

So what? I’m not being a smart ass, but brain volume has very little to do with intelligence, knowledge or mental health as an adult.

She does!

But she's mainly interested in women and in feminism ( as in she's interested in women's issues)

The first three years are when the architecture of the brain is being laid down, which itself lays the foundations for all future learning, behaviour and mental health.

I used to teach children with SEN, and often you would get the sense that some of these young people seem to have become frozen at the age of about 4 years in learning terms. As if they had missed certain windows of development, and once that window has been missed it is very difficult to catch up.

The first three years are when the architecture of the brain is being laid down, which itself lays the foundations for all future learning, behaviour and mental health.

Yes this is true, however the brain is also very plastic and adaptable. So it’s not really architecture in the sense of permanency like the foundations of a building or even the hard wiring of a motherboard in a computer. The analogies used by psychology texts don’t really convey how highly malleable the brain still is until your mid-twenties and how it never actually loses all its plasticity.

In other words, the foundations shift constantly and are overlaid and rewritten with each new experience. Future learning, behaviour and mental health is the cumulation of everything that comes before, not just the first few years and the longer you live the less impact those years have on measures of success.

Early experiences and formations can certainly be mitigated by later ones, but the imprints are certainly there and have echoes throughout our lives.

@NotHavingIt The first three years are when the architecture of the brain is being laid down, which itself lays the foundations for all future learning, behaviour and mental health.

I completely agree that the early years are really important and because they are not economically productive can easily get ignored/walked over/exploited to make a profit by the society we live in which is naturally capital driven. I just don't think the evidence is there to make the connections Mary Harrington does. I also think that the importance of childhood, of mothers and of families is worth discussing despite this. But if people start believing in links/facts just because they support their world view and confirm existing concerns well... that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

As I keep suggesting, Mary Harrington's points relate more to the impact of early years instutionalised care than to maternal deprivation, as such. And that is certainly what I find interesting.

There are many possibles angles to explore as to why we now have a generation of young people increasingly looking for the state, or for society, to protect them from unwanted thoughts, or from perceived threats to their safety. Trigger warnings; safe spaces, and so on.

There are clear analogies to be made with the nature of instutionalised, highly regulated care with its form filling, health and safety measures ( which often result in a totally risk averse approach to any play activity or situation) and the bureaucratic recording of any harms, no matter how slight.

Obviously there are other factors which may contribute to the sort of climate we are now witnessing on university campuses, in particular. The nature of social media and echo chambers, for one - and which is discussed in 'The Coddling of the American Mind'. The authors tend to pin point, not only the increasingly risk averse helicopter parenting styles, but also the advent of the iPhone, for one. The first generation brought up with access to the Iphone is now coming of age.

I think the best thing to do is to read Mary Harrington's book; what we've been doing here is focsing on just one very small element of the issues she discusses. You don't have to agree with everything she says, but undertsanding the arguments woud help in developing a more informed rebuttal or alternative perspective.

I don’t think there is any evidence that the younger generations are increasingly looking to the State/society for protection/safety any more than prior generations did. The exact fears/perceived threats are different but from what I’ve read every generation has looked to the State (or its equivalent) for protection/safety for millennia.

I've not been following all the arguments around this but is the attempted cancellation if Kathleen stock evidence that young people do want those in power to protect them from hearing anything which they deem offensive? Like hearing that people think sex is biological and immutable is so offensive that the powers must stop people saying it?