ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, August 14, 1996 TAG: 9608140009
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CARYL RIVERS AND ROSALIND C. BARNETT
DO YOU believe that day care interferes with a mother's ability to bond with her child? That working mothers are selfish materialists who harm their children? That men are not meant by nature to care for young children? Do you also assume that all these propositions have been validated by scientific studies?
If so, you may have been influenced by a well-financed, well-organized campaign by the right wing to prove the only family system that works is the Ozzie and Harriet family with a breadwinner father and a homemaker mother.
These days, the right uses the crisp language of science to back up its ideology, with authoritative papers from well-heeled think tanks. But, too often, the right ignores major studies and distorts the work of scientific researchers. These are some of the claims made by the right that rest on faulty science:
* Day care interferes with the ``attachment" process between mothers and children. Conservatives argue that day care causes all sorts of harm, including damage to the mother-child bond. What right-wingers don't mention is that a new, exhaustive federal study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that even infant day care does not interfere with mother-child attachment.
* Selfish working mothers put their own needs ahead of their children's and harm children. Mary Eberstat of the Institute for American Values writes that liberals believe ``parents must feel no guilt - in fact they should feel good - about putting their own wants and needs ahead of their children's.'' This ``selfishness'' hurts children. No mention is made of the 50 years of research on the children of working mothers that shows no differences on any measure of child development between the children of at-home mothers and those of mothers who work outside the home.
* Working parents are materialists who don't want to give up Caribbean vacations and fancy cars. The economy is fine and mothers could cut back on working. Conservatives often ignore the fact that more than half the U.S. companies in one major management study downsized last year, and that men's wages have been stagnant or declining for more than a decade. As one mother puts it, ``I'm not working to take my kids to Disney World. I'm working for health care.''
* Fathers aren't equipped to deal with young children. Right-wing advocates may support flextime for working families, but guess who ought to be taking it? Not dad. Conservatives contend that caring for young children damages a man's masculinity. David Popenoe of the Institute for Family Values argues that it is not ``natural'' for men to care for young children. There's no scientific data to back up this assumption. Many studies (and common sense) show fathers do very well as caretakers for young kids. Twenty-five percent of American fathers are now primary caretakers of their young children.
* It's so important for mom to be home full time that families should make any sacrifice to keep her there. But our major study of two-income couples, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, shows that men suffer high stress when their partners do much more child care than they do. Today's fathers greatly value time with their kids; and if they spend many more hours on the job - or take a second job, just so mom can be home, they face health risks. And since studies consistently show that homemakers can be vulnerable to anxiety and depression, making any sacrifice to achieve the ``ideal'' family could lead to a stressed-out father and a depressed mom - particularly if the woman would prefer to work.
The right repeatedly labels anyone with a good word to say about the working family as ``biased.'' We have been attacked, for example, as feminists out to disparage at-home mothers, even though we state clearly that women must be respected, not savaged, for individual choices. Different families will find that different solutions work for them. People need real data, not scare stories, to help them make choices.
The attempt to present the Ozzie and Harriet family as the only correct family seems doomed to fail. Federal statistics now show that 66 percent of all families are two-earner couples. The working family is now the ``typical'' family and our study shows that working couples are in good health and report that their children are thriving.
Rather than try to turn back the clock, we need family-friendly corporate policies that give workers flexibility to meet family responsibilities, good and available day care, and changes in all our institutions that adapt to new realities.
Caryl Rivers, of Boston University, and Rosalind C. Barnett, of Radcliffe College, are the authors of ``She Works, He Works.'' They wrote this commentary for Newsday.
L.A. Times-Washington Post News Service
LENGTH: Medium: 87 linesby CNB