A new book outlining the importance of mothers in the first few years of life has been receiving a lot of flack because it doesn’t back up the path many mothers are taking today.
The researcher didn’t intend to cause an uproar with her work, she simply wanted to help parents provide the optimal conditions for early childhood development. What she found was that the role of a mother from birth to age three is far more critical than modern women have been led to believe.
Simply put, the researcher found a mother’s care and nurturing serves as an external emotional support system for the child. Babies and young children, she found, depend far more on mothers to help them develop the cognitive ability to cope with the stressors in life and to learn to self regulate their emotions, than anything else.
In short, babies learn these skills from the outside in, with the constant reassuring presence of a mother literally serving as a neurological system by proxy. Short of a stable, emotionally solid mother (the author did admit not all women are suited for the task) the researcher recommended a single constant caregiver during the early years, preferably a female relative.
Interestingly, she found the worst possible environment for early childhood development was a group daycare setting. Studies showed babies and young children in such an environment were not learning these critical skills while at the same time their blood cortisol levels indicated they were also under great duress caused by the coming and going of multiple caregivers and an overly stimulating environment.
These findings indicated the increase in the emotional and social issues children experience today (poor emotional control, lack of empathy, aggression, social issues, personality disorders, and perhaps even some form of autism) could be caused by mothers going back to work after only a few months rather than after a few years.
Additionally, once those formative years passed, the window for developing these critical developmental skills closed, leading to a lifelong impact, both for the individual and also for society.
Fathers also provide young children with equally important but different skills, the researcher found, such as helping boys learn to regulate and channel aggression in a productive way, as well as helping girls develop a solid sense of self.
Where mom soothes a boo-boo, she said, dads help kids brush it off and get back in the game. Both parents are key, but according to the researcher as far as the day to day care, at least in the first few years, a mother’s presence was far more developmentally critical, while dad’s role dovetails in and grows larger and larger as the child moves from infant hood to toddler to child.
When presenting the premise of her book to a millennial, the author was shocked to get an almost violently angry response and was accused of trying to set women back 50 years. The author was surprised at the reaction, as she never intended her research to be politically charged.
But needless to say, it unintentionally flies in the face of the current narrative that moms and dads are interchangeable, and that any caregiver will do.
Her research does not surprise me, and it is something I just intuitively sensed with my own children. A good friend who is also a therapist advised me, when I asked what makes children grow up to be happy, healthy, functional adults to, “Baby your babies when they are babies. Don’t let them cry it out too young. Attend to their needs. Put them first. Because if you don’t, nothing will ever be enough when they are older.”
I can understand this research may not be what modern women want to hear, but that doesn’t make it any less true. The author recommended women who desire children should take an attitude that they can have it all, career and motherhood, but not all at once. Those initial years spent working towards helping baby develop cognitively and emotionally will pay off far more than currently believed — in fact, for a child’s entire lifetime.
What do you think? Please share in the comments.
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
i absolutely agree with the author. babies NEED their Mammas. they NEED to be held and nurtured and cared for. if they can’t have their Mamma for any reason, then one, single, female caregiver is preferred. years ago i kept an infant and her toddler brother in my home while their Mom and Dad worked. she has since credited much of their healthy development to the care i gave them.
also being able to keep siblings together when young is, i think, important. in daycare they are split by age and separated.
it is a desolate reflection of what feminism and evil has done to our society that such research has received such violent response simply b/c it doesn’t fit into one’s narrative or beliefs. as i’ve told my girls over and over ad nauseam … you can choose to believe the truth or the lie but what you choose to believe will never change what is truth and what is lie.
imho, children need their parents for as long as they live on this earth, just in different ways as they grow older. we were created in families, and i believe we NEED families. the fractured family has, imo, resulted in our fractured communities and society as, imo, the family is the foundation of community and society.
– – –
i found out a few days ago my mother will be in the area visiting next month. we haven’t seen her in something like 8 years. if my girls walked past her (or my dad) on the sidewalk, they wouldn’t know it. how tragic my parents put their own wants and ‘needs’ ahead of their family’s to the point that their own grandchildren wouldn’t even recognize them. one of my daughters said she wanted pumpkin pie for thanksgiving … i told her that if my mom is here at that time then she will gladly make one. and my daughter replied, “You Mom can cook?!” actually, my mom is a fabulous cook; how pathetic (on her part) that my girls have no idea that is true.
i want to say we’ve totally lost the concept of ‘sacrifice,’ but then i think how tragic it is that one even needs to think of mothering as a sacrifice, as something ‘lost’ rather than something gained.
my Aspie-Girl realized recently what it has taken for me to be her mother, and she went through a season of intense guilt. i had to assure her that there is nothing i would have rather done than to be her mother. how sad that choosing to be home and be her mother is considered a ‘loss’ on my part.
– – –
when my girls were in middle school/public school, and i would chaperone field trips, i often heard the kids make comments that they knew their parents weren’t available to them b/c they were both working. it was a lament. as i was at the school often i got to know the local school police officer enough to have conversations with her. she would tell me of the times she’d have to confront parents on the behavior of their kids – many in the UMC area of the school zone. the parents would ask her what they could do to help their kid, and she would flat-out tell the mom to stop working and stay home and be available. why is this the last thing thought of? GRRR!
The idea that there is a certain window of time and if certain things don’t happen in that window of time they wont ever get done is completely correct.
IMO, the one and only child-training book is “To Train Up A Child” by Michael and Debbi Pearl. They have follow-up books, “No Greater Joy” volumes I, II and III, which are essentially compilations of question and answer letters concerning To Train Up A Child.
The book advocates a 3-part approach which consists of training, discipline and tying heart-strings. Most “traditional” families use discipline only with a little of the tying heart-strings by chance. The age at which this is done is 9 months to 18 months and if it”s done at the correct time with 100% consistency, there won’t be any problems with the children later.
If that job is not done by the time is 3, the child will most likely never be properly trained at all. And yet there are parents who ignore those warnings (which are in the books) and try to beat their kids into submission at ages 10-15. It doesn’t work.
And, yes, liberals and SJW types absolutely hate the Pearls and all they stand for. I don’t agree with them doctrinally because they parrot the lies they were taught concerning sexual morality, but when it comes to training children, they are the gold-star teachers and their books are worth their weight in gold.
what do they mean by “tying heart-strings?”
Emotionally bonding.
If that job is not done by the time is 3, the child will most likely never be properly trained at all. And yet there are parents who ignore those warnings (which are in the books) and try to beat their kids into submission at ages 10-15. It doesn’t work.
when my girls were little i looked at discipline as a ten year sort-of-investment … if i wanted them to obey at 11, then i needed to work on that at 1, at 12 then i needed to work on that at 2, etc. i knew that the consequences in those early years, though they *seemed* harsh to my kids at the time, were nothing like they’d be ten years later. ten years later the consequences of bad choices could be much more severe and life-altering.
one example … when my Oldest was about 7 she flat out, intentionally, to my face, without flinching, lied to me. i was so angry i told her i needed time to determine how to handle it. (over the years that became a sort of ‘fear’ in my kids … if mom was too angry to deal w/it right away and needed time, they knew they were in big trouble!). their Dad had already moved out, so i called him before i talked to her, and we agreed together. i knew that, at 7, the life-consequences to lying were minimal. but at 17 they could be devastating and life-altering, and i wanted to make sure she ‘got’ it. our neighborhood had a neighborhood party every summer that she looked forward to all.year.long. we were several weeks out from the party, so i decided that taking that away from her would be the punishment/discipline. not only would she loose going to the party but we all would have to stay home as she was too young to leave alone at home. she was devastated. she thought her life was over … especially when i began with, “I talked to your Dad and we agreed . . .” but she never forgot it, and she never forgot that her choices affected all the rest of us, too. she had the weeks to wait till the party came up knowing she couldn’t go … and then we moved before the party the following year, so she missed her last opportunity to go to that party. it was a BIG deal for all of us. but the lesson was bigger and worth it for her.
A new post at Spawny’s there is
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/cis-heterosexual-and-hypermasculine-man-privilege/
So true Ame and Toad, those early years will never come again and are so critically formative! It makes me sad to think of how many children have experienced this hardship of not having that mothering, and how many women were led to believe, “it’s ok” and how incredibly sad it is for all involved. I hope research like this will help all of society see the irreplaceable value of parenting — both moms and dads! And how as a society we would be better to acknowledge these red pill truths than deny them to support some false narrative.
I can see why they got into hot water. Women have raised themselves up to be goddesses. They are immune to criticism and are not accountable nor responsible to any one.
This is not going to end well.
For those of you who think that I may be exaggerating.
http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2017/11/god-is-more-than-a-mother-bear/
I don’t know how much more we can take.
How to be your puppy’s best friend by the monks of new sket is the only book you need to read when it comes to raising kids or dealing with women.
I also disagree with letting babies be babies etc. That’s how you get spoiled whinny little fags who cant hold their own in the real deep shit. This letting kids be kids is a rather modern and demonstrably failed concept
@Ton, agreed it can be taken too far, and that’s not what I was trying to say. It’s not good to put babies first over everything, like the parents relationship, nor is a family set up w the children being primary good. I believe there is a lot of wisdom in raising kids by the seen but not heard, bottom of the family heirarchy (rather than as equals or even in charge) model of old. I was speaking more about the choice to be a mom vs having kids but not actually mothering them. I know women who seem to have had kids just to have them as some kind of trophy and I also know moms who put their kids so first and treat them like little royalty it’s dysfunctional and just as bad in a different way. There’s got to be a sweet spot in there between those extremes. Thoughtful and good mothering (and fathering!) 🙂
Also other studies show thst between a regimented (parents rule and the rules are clear and non negotiable) vs a permissive style (no/few rules or kids say or group vote), kids raised w a regimented style fare much better adjusted as adults.
I have seen this as a manager too. Trying to work with people who were raised wo a concept of a chain of command and leaders/followers are a real pain to work with and they don’t last long.
Parents need to teach their kids the rules of life. If they don’t, the world will later and the world is a much harsher teacher. Parents raising their kids in the soft style of today (maybe bc it’s easier and less work than real parenting or maybe out of guilt over being gone so much etc.) are doing them no favors.
❤ love it! Love being a mommy and being with my babies!
Pingback: What’s Important To You? | doingmarriageright
Suesaid:November 1, 2017 at 1:12 am
“Yes. Used to be.”
That’s up for interpretation. All I can say is that women don’t seem worth the bother for a lot of you guys. That’s fine. Don’t bother, then.”
Most aren’t.
Face it, after sex, being a mother is the Only thing we truly need you for. The feminine influence on our children. With surragacy we dont even really need you to carry the child.
Modern women are raging against being a sexual partner and here against being a mother, not a womb, a mother in the true sense.
So Sue et al, if you don’t want to be sexual partners or mothers, what exactly do you bring that makes you “worth the bother for a lot of you guys?”
Seriously, answer the question.
What do you bring? In exchange for our work, protection and resources??
VR and robots will replace you for sex.
Surrogates and nannies will carry and raise our children
The guys will provide support and entertainment.
We can cook, clean etc. For ourselves.
What makes you “worth the bother”?
We did not want this world. You created it.
But as men we adapted to it and problem solved it.
What makes you worth the bother vs mgtow??
“the author was shocked to get an almost violently angry response”
Science denial is fine if your politics are ‘correct’.
The day my son was born mrs stopped working. Went back when the youngest went to university because being a Mother was her destiny for us. I worked two jobs for decades to fill in the income. Because that is what a family is.
So she earned my loyalty and support til we go in the home.
She earned the devotion of two functioning adult children who love her.
I wonder about cultures where childcare was by a nanny…ie, the child had the benefit of lots of attention from a consistent person, but that person not his actual mother…viz the upper classes in traditional England (Churchill, for example, was raised mostly by his nanny) and ditto in the American Old South.
The upper-class Brits also sent their kids off to school at a very early age.
I just happened to see this: “Face it, after sex, being a mother is the Only thing we truly need you for. The feminine influence on our children. With surragacy we dont even really need you to carry the child.
Modern women are raging against being a sexual partner and here against being a mother, not a womb, a mother in the true sense.
So Sue et al, if you don’t want to be sexual partners or mothers, what exactly do you bring that makes you “worth the bother for a lot of you guys?”
Seriously, answer the question.
What do you bring? In exchange for our work, protection and resources??”
Goodness, talk about missing the point of what I was saying! (On the OTHER discussion–why quote it here?)
All I was saying is that if a man has only criticisms for women, then he should stay away from them. I’m not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with that.
People shouldn’t feel forced to associate with those they find distasteful.
I don’t know where you get the line about, “if you (women) don’t want to be sexual partners or mothers.” Where did I say that? All I was suggesting is that a man only has critical, negative things to say about someone, then he shouldn’t feel compelled to associate with them. He’d be happier if he didn’t. It sounds like a lot of men already are happier.
Wait, what are “babies?”
Never heard the word used by women before, so I’m confused. Are they what women used to have before they had “furbabies?” Now that word I hear a lot.
Sue, was not a shot at you but those who fight this author’s viewpoint.
I get exactly what you meant in the last post
Just your quote summed up my argument so well I had to use it.
Answering this post indirrectly answered the question of why bother.
The things we men value most seem to be the very things feminists rally the hardest against so yes we don’t bother. Not out of fear, rage, jealousy, hurt, dtc. Why should we.
Many men don’t bother because frankly, there is nothing worth bothering about.
Then to your point rather than be left alone we get the where have the men gone. We dont get it. Many would happily go away a la mgtow and then be left alone. But then we get the where are the men articles and our clergy saying man up and marry.
Also related, if women dont want to Raise the child (19 years) why do so many freak out about Having one (9 months)?
I guess its like marriage. You want the wedding (one day) but not the marriage (50 years).
P.s. I mean the royal You as in women (feminists) not you particularly.
Sue,
It seems as if things get worse every time I turn around. I came to this corner of the internet looking for answers about interent dating. Last week, I read a post from a guy that sent out a flurry of them. What came back were solicitations for prostitution. As least, he got some responses. Silence is what men usually get.If you don’t believe me, here is the post.
https://relampagofurioso.com/2017/10/29/more-proof-american-women-are-broke-selling-sex-on-dating-apps/
The point is, while you may not be responsible for it, that women are in a steep decline and most men are not responsible for it either. We are just sitting here baffled by it all. I don’t think this was what God intended.
There is one more thing. Boys never stop being sweet on girls. That is why all this stuff hurts.
“I don’t think this was what God intended.”
No, it sure isn’t.
Then, we have some agreement.
There is a new post st Spawny’s
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/what-is-their-issue/
Pingback: Mommy Dearest – Donnie Harold Harris