Some journalism in one of the more forward-looking papers has become lazy of late. Follow this link;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/01/babies-dont-suffer-working-mothers


As an advocate of the emotional needs of children, it astonishes me that progressive organisations like the Observer/Guardian are perpetrating the myth that children can have a healthy upbringing without the stability of consistent care.

Whether that care takes the form of the mother or father, grandparents or a paid-carer, is a key issue within this debate, but the article printed in the Observer (and which made it's front page today) doesn't seek to look into these important aspects; it focuses solely on mother-child relations, and encourages the misguided notion that children can now do without the consistent care they need. In an astonishing paragraph summarising the study it read "It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral."

It doesn't take much research to see that the authors of the article have a history of writing on feminist topics. Nothing wrong with that, but it puts the piece in perspective. It wouldn't be surprising if many of the Observer/Guardian's writers were young, ambitious left-leaning feminists, and one can imagine the hotbed of excitement in the office at a study that vindicates the desires of those who would rather not be stay-at-home mothers. It was probably that excitement that lead to the article making the front-page.

At this point readers may be jumping to the wrong conclusion that I'm a chauvinist. I'm very far from that and men who truly are chauvinists disgust me.

I won't go any further in taking apart the article itself, if you read some of the comments it has incited you will get the idea. The article didn't get a good reaction from the online readers.

But the item in today's Observer opens up a wider debate which seems sadly overlooked, especially in considering how relevant it is to these issues.

The debate around childcare is always framed in terms of whether it is better for the mother to stay at home or to work during the early, formative, years of the child. It rarely steps into the realm of the father's role. It also occasionally tends to deteriorate into arguments about whether it is sexist or not to argue that mothers should spend more time with their children, instead of working.

All these arguments fail to breach an accepted paradigm; that feminism and the results of its rise were an intrinsic good.

When I broach the topic of whether feminism is an intrinsic good I tread on hallowed ground and must do so daintily.

Indeed, I feel I recognise the importance of feminism more than many. Feminism and its impact on society have been sadly understated by so many across the globe and this understatement continues to this day.

Feminism's rise, and the resulting sexual revolution, was of course a redefining moment in Western civilization, a huge event with little to compare in history. Feminism’s rise was also of course something which occurred in a relatively small moment of time, tiny, even, when looking back over history.

Coinciding as it did with the zenith of excessive capitalism, it became entangled in the economic philosophy of that doctrine. And so, whilst feminism could have happened some thousands of years ago at the dawn of democracy in Athens, and lead to female emancipation at the time, with perhaps little other changes, instead it came about at a time when money was never more central to human affairs. Thus, it became about money.

Feminists will argue - quite rightly - that in order to be on an equal footing with men they must be able to earn equally. Money empowers, and in a society which revolves around money, it empowers a great deal.

But I find it fundamentally saddening that this is how feminism has developed.
Ultimately, money was the creation of patriarchal societies of old. It was also a creation of humankind's, not an intrinsic thing tied to our humanity since the first homo-sapiens existed. Childrearing, on the other hand is something very much tied to us, as with all great apes. To me, this importance is lost in the feminist/patriarchy debate. In a sense, so too have the children who this concerns become lost…. those children who are no longer afforded the opportunity of consistent parental care in their formative years, which was so normal in the past.

It is therefore bizarre, if not frightening, to think that a creation of man's – money, or currency if you will – has as demonstrated by feminism (as the arguments of today's feminists and those of the past attest), taken greater priority in both the mind of the individual and wider society than childrearing.

Perhaps it is utopian folly to consider, but would the sexual revolution not have been more genuinely revolutionary if the role of the child-rearer (at the time predominantly women), was recognised as the most important role an individual can carry out in their lifetime?

There are evolutionary aspects to consider too. These will become clearer over time, as the neuroscientific evidence begins to stack up as to the effects of parental/consistent-carer absence during a child's formative years, but for now there are still points worth looking at.

It is astonishing to think that a human instinct, child-rearing, has been overtaken by the desire to attain wealth, and the trappings that money allows.

The sexual revolution was too big an event in human history for it not to be an aspect of evolution. But is it a change humankind has made which will increase or decrease our survivability as a species?

Anyone who understands evolutionary theory will understand that it is all about adaptations; adaptations that increase the chances of survival, e.g. the increase in the size of our brains was an evolutionary adaptation that lead to us living longer because we could think faster and better.

Does sexual equality, where both parents are out carrying out the hunter-gatherer function, mean that people are more likely to live? and live longer? In a way it must, because it offers more chances to obtain the money necessary to eat/drink/buy shelter. But emerging neuroscientific evidence shows that brain development in children who are given proper care in their formative years, mostly by their parents and because one of them has stayed at home, tend to show better development patterns around the brain than children who are left at nurseries from a young age. Better cognitive ability, and better emotional stability.

In short, poor care of children in their formative years can lead to more aggressive children - not really surprising if you think about it (no matter how controversial that may seem).

Does a more aggressive child, with poorer cognitive and emotional ability carry better chances of survival and procreation than others? I would contend not.

Of course, it's impossible for me, or for that matter anyone else, to contend whether feminism as an evolutionary adaptation/mutation is going to lead to higher survivability in children or not. Perhaps it is the other side of the coin; as any evolutionary biologist will also tell you, mutations and adaptations can lead to a dead-end of reduced survivability, and the extinction of species.

Whilst I would never be so stupid to argue that feminism will lead to our extinction, it is interesting to think whether in terms of evolution it is a beneficial or negative change for society in the way it has played out, so closely tied to capitalism as it is.

Nothing though can detract from the fact that the parenting instinct has been overrun by an instinct for cash.