As if it's not bad enough that my kid realizes when I leave in the morning now and expresses his disappointment with a disconcerted look on his face, The Huffington Post adds to my guilt.
This article states:
As psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth showed in their research, a child needs a 'secure base' in his early years before launching out to explore the world. A strong attachment to his parents in his first years will give a child emotional maturity and a healthy mental development. Otherwise, his social and emotional development will not be normal.
So, my choices are to work to provide food, clothing and shelter for an emotionally stunted child or be bonded to my normal child who goes barefoot because we can't afford to buy him shoes.
Ok. I admit it's not that dramatic. I'm just trying to make a point.
The subject of the article does make an exception for those who have to work.
I'm not talking about mothers that need to work for financial reasons. I'm talking about women who are so caught up in the pressures of society and in their ambitions that they are not brave enough to suspend their careers for their children's sake.
Is there a distinction to your child when he's five months old? It's not like you can explain to him, "I would really like to stay home with you all day, but I'd really like to contribute to your 529, too."
I get her point that there is should be no stigma attached to staying home (see earlier post), but if you're working to achieve financial goals for the betterment of your family, that should be acceptable too. Hopefully my "emotionally stunted" child will thank me when we foot the bill for his college education.
0 comments:
Post a Comment