A Mother's Work

When it was first released, "A Mother's Work" proved to be very controversial. Feminists were unhappy with Fallow's criticism of daycare and questioned how she was able to write a book when she was "supposed to be at home with her kids." Traditionalists harrumphed over Fallows' validation of working mothers and some daycare, and fathers being just as qualified to nurture children as mothers. A book on family/work tension that both sides found fault with intrigued me. I anticipated a realistic and complicated look at the issues and I was not disappointed. When Fallows approaches her topic from the viewpoint of what is best for children, she is not overcome with sentimentality. A major section of the book evaluates childcare--different types, politics of daycare, its effect on children, and present needs for daycare. She spent time visiting a variety of childcare providers. She describes her visits as if the reader were sitting with her, following Jill and Beth throughout the day. I felt what kids must feel in childcare, fun and joy as well as loss and pain. Fallows concludes that, while more money is needed for daycare, no one is willing to pay for it--not parents, business or government. Her analysis of reasons why childcare has not been valued economically is an important consideration. It has been noted that 53% of mothers with children under age 6 are employed outside the home. Fallows focuses on the very significant 47% who are not, noting that there is little difference between family incomes of $10,000 and $35,000 in determining if the mother works. Interestingly, these percentages remain the same among single mothers. Her research and analysis show that a significant proportion of families are choosing to have a parent at home with young children. Fallows criticizes the pro-family movement for its complacency about financial and vocational security for women, its exclusion of less that "ideal" families, and its simplistic notion that motherhood is career enough for all women. Nor does she let the feminist movement off the hook for its continued devaluation of women who stay at home and the outdated stereotypes by which it judges these women. Fallows concludes by recommending that parents should care for young children whenever possible, that both parents work out a career/parenting balance, that parents at home need protection for their financial security and that more and better daycare is needed. Her book provides a "radical middle" on a polarized topic. Christian egalitarians who value children, work and mutual submission should be pleased with this book. (This review was previously published in "Daughters of Sarah" Mar/Apr 1988.)

Whoever reviewed this book (above) is missing the point entirely. The issue is not good daycare vs. bad daycare; rather, it is the institution of daycare itself, as an entity, as a fixture in our modern society, that is being analyzed - and ultimately deemed corrupt and dangerous.When children are separated from their parents, at young ages, for hours and hours at a time, they feel abandoned and desperate. The programs offered by the centre, or the staff-to- child-ratio, is irrelevent. Quality childcare occurs at home, where there is love, affection, and devotion - not in brightly lit holding tanks where children wait and wait and wait for their parents to rescue them. What a life for these poor souls. Fallow's work is wonderful and had a huge impact on my life, and the lives of my friends. It may upset a lot of women who think daycare is just dandy, but easing the guilty consciences of irresponsible, selfish parents is clearly not on this author's agenda, thank goodness.