Oy vey. Where to start.
I have had so many thoughts and discussions around exactly the same ideas and LLL. I was dismayed to read statements by the founding mothers that were definately anti-wohm. This was at a time when I was trying to decide whether or not to become a leader. I have always personally felt supported as a wohm by LLL, in my own experiences at meetings and interactions with various leaders. But I had to ask myself - can I be committed to an organization that perhaps doesn't support this? Or is the one on one experience more important? I talked to other wohm about it too, and found that for the most part their experience came down to the attitudes of the individuals they encountered. Perhaps its just me, but this is more powerful than the policies and pronouncements of a larger organization. (I also realized that the founders are from a generation that is just going to have very different ideas about it all and took it with a grain of salt.) I should point out that the stated philosophy of LLL is open to interpretation, and I felt in the end that the philosophy did jive with my own parenting.
I don't think you can boil the argument down to quality vs. quantity. Yes, I am separated from my child while I work. But I have many choices to make both about how that separation is handled and how we spend the time we are together that definately do and can fulfill attachment with my child. Being together 24/7 is no guarantee of attachment or a happy, healthy family. Being apart is no sentence to suboptimal parenting either. Its about the choices you make in your own situation.
Our family has never looked at having others helping us care for our daughter as something LESS. Our attachment is strong, strong, strong. We work in partnership with our DD's caregivers. They have added a ring of love, learning and experiences to her life that only compliments what DH and I are doing. They are part of our "village".
In some people's minds, its solely the mother's responsibility to care for her child 24/7. We don't live in a culture that supports mothers, and we all know that motherhood in any context can be isolating. I think that's a narrow view - for mothers, families, society AND children. When oh when can we let go of this Cleaver family view that dictates that the only choices are either A) mum cares for child in isolation at home or B) she must work outside the home without her child. The many voices here proove that there are soooo many alternatives and different situations. Fact is, throughout history and throughout the world, women have participated actively in their communities WHILE caring for their children. Its a pretty short window of time in a very specific part of the world that has decided that choices A) and B) are it. Its the either/or conundrum that's got to go. This mindset seems to trap us in "the mommy wars", as well as covering up the zillion and one happy, healthy options available.
The choices and pressures are so much more complicated than working either because of financial necessity and/or for mother's personal fulfillment. Simplifying to that degree minimizes the difficult decisions that almost every mother faces. I also think that it puts the "blame" when its there squarely on the shoulders of the mother. The larger society has to take some responsibility in how our children and families are supported. I scratch my head every day and wonder how we can change things from the inside out, to give both mothers and children the respect they deserve in our world.
OK, getting off the soapbox now. You mamas are awesome. That's why I'm here. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I found the WOHM forum.
I have had so many thoughts and discussions around exactly the same ideas and LLL. I was dismayed to read statements by the founding mothers that were definately anti-wohm. This was at a time when I was trying to decide whether or not to become a leader. I have always personally felt supported as a wohm by LLL, in my own experiences at meetings and interactions with various leaders. But I had to ask myself - can I be committed to an organization that perhaps doesn't support this? Or is the one on one experience more important? I talked to other wohm about it too, and found that for the most part their experience came down to the attitudes of the individuals they encountered. Perhaps its just me, but this is more powerful than the policies and pronouncements of a larger organization. (I also realized that the founders are from a generation that is just going to have very different ideas about it all and took it with a grain of salt.) I should point out that the stated philosophy of LLL is open to interpretation, and I felt in the end that the philosophy did jive with my own parenting.
I don't think you can boil the argument down to quality vs. quantity. Yes, I am separated from my child while I work. But I have many choices to make both about how that separation is handled and how we spend the time we are together that definately do and can fulfill attachment with my child. Being together 24/7 is no guarantee of attachment or a happy, healthy family. Being apart is no sentence to suboptimal parenting either. Its about the choices you make in your own situation.
Our family has never looked at having others helping us care for our daughter as something LESS. Our attachment is strong, strong, strong. We work in partnership with our DD's caregivers. They have added a ring of love, learning and experiences to her life that only compliments what DH and I are doing. They are part of our "village".
In some people's minds, its solely the mother's responsibility to care for her child 24/7. We don't live in a culture that supports mothers, and we all know that motherhood in any context can be isolating. I think that's a narrow view - for mothers, families, society AND children. When oh when can we let go of this Cleaver family view that dictates that the only choices are either A) mum cares for child in isolation at home or B) she must work outside the home without her child. The many voices here proove that there are soooo many alternatives and different situations. Fact is, throughout history and throughout the world, women have participated actively in their communities WHILE caring for their children. Its a pretty short window of time in a very specific part of the world that has decided that choices A) and B) are it. Its the either/or conundrum that's got to go. This mindset seems to trap us in "the mommy wars", as well as covering up the zillion and one happy, healthy options available.
The choices and pressures are so much more complicated than working either because of financial necessity and/or for mother's personal fulfillment. Simplifying to that degree minimizes the difficult decisions that almost every mother faces. I also think that it puts the "blame" when its there squarely on the shoulders of the mother. The larger society has to take some responsibility in how our children and families are supported. I scratch my head every day and wonder how we can change things from the inside out, to give both mothers and children the respect they deserve in our world.
OK, getting off the soapbox now. You mamas are awesome. That's why I'm here. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I found the WOHM forum.
: Dh and I were both rather irked. The general idea was to encourage dads to spend time with their kids, but the whole notion is based on otherwise reinforcing traditional gender roles. We've just now moved to a 'hood with a Saturday playgroup that's everyone welcome like in our old city, and there are also Saturday family storytimes. 
: Are you seeing shades of grey, Hannah's Mom? Complexities? Nuances? Individual variances? Don't you know that's not allowed around here?
Follow Mothering