Judith Warner
Domestic Disturbances
May 24, 2007, 6:45 pm
The story of Madeleine McCann, the British three-year-old kidnapped from her resort apartment during a family vacation in Portugal, has obsessed the British public and media for the past three weeks. “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling, Simon Cowell from “American Idol” and Virgin founder Richard Branson have offered rewards for her return; a findmadeleine.com Web site has received over 65 million hits; Madeleine’s aunt, Philomena McCann, has reported more than 2,000 responses to a chain e-mail appeal she sent out internationally in the hopes of increasing the odds of a chance sighting of her niece.
The initial wave of press coverage in Britain – a mixture of empathy, despair and blame (by some) of Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate, for having gone out to dinner, leaving Madeleine and her twin siblings alone in a ground-floor apartment – has now given way to a secondary shock wave of self-questioning: Why, pundits ask, has the public turned itself inside out to find this one child? Isn’t there something awful about the degree of attention she has inspired while children in Darfur and Iraq – or in Britain’s public housing – die or disappear unnoticed?
Comparisons to the paroxysm of national mourning that followed the death of Princess Diana have been made. And, again, the whole issue of Britain’s new penchant for public displays of emotion has been dissected and, by some, found inappropriate. “The spasm of national grief that followed her abduction, the generous donations to the Madeleine fund, the lighting of candles, the celebrity appeals, the brimming lakes of sympathy: all this is of a piece with the way we deal with vicarious tragedy in these 24-hour, rolling media, emotive times,” Jan Moir wrote this week in The Daily Telegraph. “As in the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, people are no longer content to merely sympathise or empathise; they need to feel a part of things, too.”
In the United States, only People magazine has so far given Madeleine’s abduction the kind of front-page play it has garnered in Britain. And, as did the British press, People anchored its coverage around a “there-but-for-the-grace-of-God” kind of emotion; what happened to Madeleine, the magazine’s cover copy read, was “every parent’s nightmare.”
But then People went on to do something very American. The writer, Bill Hewitt, said: “Those closest to the McCanns described Kate as a devoted mother who had scaled back to working only a day and a half a week as a general practitioner (Gerry is a cardiologist) so that she could be with her children.” He went on to quote Aunt Philomena: “She’s working to keep her career up but spends the majority of her time with the kids.”
Message: Kate McCann is a Good Mother. Hence – unlike some other mothers – she didn’t even remotely deserve to have terrible things happen to her.
It’s at times like this that I just hate being a mother in America.
I did a pretty thorough article search through the British press this week. I searched “Madeleine McCann” and “mother” and “career” and “doctor” and “part-time” and countless other permutations. I found many, many mentions of Kate and Gerry as doctors. I found a description of how, by working hard, they’d raised themselves up from their modest roots to a solidly comfortable middle class (we would, I think, say upper middle class) lifestyle. These aspects of the McCanns’ life were evoked to spur sympathy and identification; to identify the McCanns as good, solid, striving Everypeople. Nowhere did I find Kate McCann’s Mommy Track work status exploited as a sign of personal virtue.
Only in America can you count on such drivel. Only in the country that, in 1997, attacked the working mother of eight-month-old Matthew Eappen (the infant who was shaken to death by the 19-year-old British au pair Louise Woodward) as “self-absorbed,” “materialistic” and “negligent,” would the push/pull of self-distancing and self-mirroring that binds the reading public to the Madeleine McCann case be framed, so unquestioningly, around the issue of her mother’s working status.
You may wonder why I feel so strongly about this matter of wording, which pales in importance next to the horrific tragedy of a child’s abduction. The epidermal ill-temper and sense of besiegement that fills me at the end of the school year (more on this next week) is undoubtedly part of it. But there is more. And it is this:
I fear that, at this point, there may well be nothing that you or I or any other journalist or reader or celebrity or politician can do to help poor Madeleine and her family. But there’s much we can do to cut down on the level of insulting and idiotic verbal pollution that creeps into the discourse of our everyday lives. The vile discrimination against working mothers in our country is now so ingrained and so poisonous and so taken for granted that it seeps, all but unnoticed, into the oddest of places, like an otherwise unrelated People story about a distant and heart-rending crime.
The foul poison of working-mother-hate is not, of course, absent in Britain, nor is the maternal guilt and self-doubt, the hand-wringing and the agonizing over other-than-mother care that generally accompany it. Clearly, the McCanns were susceptible to some of this cultural noise. They reportedly left their children in an apartment unattended, even though their resort offered both drop-in child care and babysitting. The reason: they didn’t want to hand their children over to “strangers.”
Had they not fallen victim to this fear of babysitters – this grossly over-generalized terror that is a corollary of the cultural hysteria over working motherhood – Madeleine might be with them today.
Or perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part, an attempt to find rhyme or reason – and a blueprint for safety – in an incident of random horror.
————————————————




1.
May 24th,
2007
9:18 pm
Maybe one reason they didn’t get a babysitter is that children have been abducted from hotels and resorts BY babysitters! You can call this fear hysterical, but in Mexico it happened to a friend of a friend of mine. Can you imagine how horrible? In that case it was an infant, evidently stolent to sell for adoption.
I agree that the weird mention of the mother’s “virtuous” working habits was awful, and at first even puzzling to me: “What does this have to do with anything?” I thought, until I realized that the purpose was to forestall criticism of a working mother.
But I would not have left three small children unattended at a resort, or anywhere really, even if it was possible to check on them every hour or so. An hour is a long time. Even without the usually very remote possibility of kidnapping, a child could fall out of bed, etc.
Another story that horrified me was the story of a little girl kidnapped from her bed in an unlocked trailer. (She was later raped and murdered by her abductor.) Her father and grandparents were sleeping nearby, but the door was unlocked, and the abductor sneaked in and grabbed her. Ok, so maybe it’s silly to obsess over stories like this when thousands of children die unnoticed from preventable diseases or malnutrition every day. But who can help being terrified by them? And, sometimes good legislation happens because of the collective horror: after the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped, kidnapping became a federal crime, which reduced the kidnapping rate. Amber Alerts have made it easier to catch kidnappers in cars.
— Posted by elizabeth
2.
May 24th,
2007
10:54 pm
In my experience, it is when people are insecure in their own decisions they feel it necessary to demonize those who choose differently. I see this effect on both sides of the debate.
— Posted by Scott
3.
May 24th,
2007
11:18 pm
I wouldn’t accept at face value the idea that if the parents hadn’t ‘fallen victim’ (a very bad choice of words Judith) to a fear of babysitters, Madeleine might be with them. Much more accurate to say that if they hadn’t given in to terrible judgment, Madeleine would be with them. Why are you omitting a stunning fact: the “two siblings” you mention that the parents left her with were under 3. I don’t know of any parent, mother or father, working or home, who would leave three children under the age of 4 alone in a ground floor apartment in a foreign country. None.
There is some working mother hate in this country, but among the mothers I work with, there is plenty of derision aimed at moms who stay at home. In a situation like this, the only mommy credentials that count are whether you know that when your children are not in your care, they must be in the care of another trustworthy person. They cannot be left to fend for themselves!
— Posted by fran
4.
May 25th,
2007
12:25 am
As a working mother abroad, I too share your disgust at the American attitude towards working mothers. I am lucky to be raising my kids in a culture where it’s actually odd when a woman doesn’t work, where childcare from 3 months is the norm, paid maternity leave until that time, many jobs for women with flexible hours, most that allow her to leave at 3:30.
Also, many dads who pick up their kids from preschool at 4 pm.
And I feel very grateful (although also ill tempered, but only for August when there’s no childcare to be had anywhere).
Also, not leaving your child with babysitter because of “fear of strangers” but leaving them alone? I feel sorry for them, but that sounds like a contender for the Darwin awards.
— Posted by Abbi
5.
May 25th,
2007
12:37 am
I was an editor at People several years ago. “Devoted” is an adjective many of the writers and editors there automatically put in front of the word “mother.” The frequency of its use, and the way it was routinely used essentially made it a meaningless word. Every celebrity mom is a “devoted mother”–who somehow manages to have the time and freedom to make movie after movie, jet-set around the world, show up at every fashion show imaginable and pose for numerous magazine spreads and covers. (Both real life moms who work outside the home and those who stay home might appreciate knowing exactly how these fabulous stars who are so devoted to their children manage to have it all.) But People magazine aside, we do live in a society where men can have their work and careers and no mention need be made of whether or not they are a father, or a devoted father. (As many fathers are not devoted fathers, describing a man as a “devoted father” might actually have more meaning than the blanket “devoted mother.”) Women who have children are largely defined by their status as mothers. While I’ll agree with Judith Warner that “working moms” face vile discrimination, those gals aren’t the only ones being judged and demeaned. I’m currently a “Stay-at-Home mother” in the midst of writing a book about Stay-at-Home motherhood. (To be published by Seal Press next spring.) The women I’m interviewing feel under attack for having left their careers to be the full-time, hands-on caregivers of their children. Think “Get to Work” by Linda Hirshman, “The Feminine Mistake” by Leslie Bennetts, “The Mommy Wars” by Leslie Morgan Steiner. Plenty of folks have lots of opinions about the behavior of women who have children. (Or, for that matter, the behavior of all women of child-bearing age.) Motherhood is too often treated as a spectator sport.
— Posted by Melissa Stanton
6.
May 25th,
2007
1:01 am
Bless you for pointing out the denigration that working parents face. That said, I can’t fathom the gulf that has emerged between working and SAH parents and the media is simply obsessed with these questions. Did Barak Obama’s wife quit work to be on the mommy track, as the headlines in a recent NYT article suggested, or is she just doing the same thing ever candidate’s spouse has done for the past 30 years? My other beef: why are these criticisms and trade-offs so frequently discussed relative to women? Isn’t work-life balance and work-parenting trade-offs an issue that all parents, communities and our society at large should face together?
— Posted by Laura M
7.
May 25th,
2007
1:10 am
“. . . a mixture of empathy, despair and blame (by some) . . . ”
These parents left a three year old child alone in a room with two younger siblings to go enjoy a romantic dinner at a resort.
Assume there had been a fire, instead of an abduction, or if one of the children had become suddenly and seriously ill. What would the response be in such a case? Worldwide outwelling of support? I don’t think so.
Ms. McCann’s working or nonworking status is of no interest to me. What is significant is the stupendous neglect these parents displayed. In the United States, we have removed children from their parents care for less, and even begun criminal prosecutions. While no one is suggesting the like for the McCanns, perhaps a more critical eye to their behavior is due.
— Posted by Catherine
8.
May 25th,
2007
3:59 am
In the larger world context, America’s disdain for working mothers seems ridiculously self-indulgent. Economic reality in much of the world is that an average family simply can’t survive on only one salary – mothers MUST work, regardless of any perceived or real ill effects on their children.
Italy is justly famous for its cultural emphasis on the importance of families and, above all, mothers. Yet many Italian mothers return to work as soon as fully-paid maternity leave ends (when the child is six months old) and put their child into a state-run and -subsidized (but not free) daycare without a qualm. Those who live close to their extended families often use grandparents instead, in part because they’re cheaper!
Though many mothers do manage to stay home for their child’s first two years, it is rare for an Italian child NOT to begin preschool (again, state-run, and FREE) at age 3. No one thinks of this as “turning your child over to strangers,” though it is not obligatory to do so (compulsory schooling starts at age six). Preschool is even considered an important socializing experience for the children. My daughter, now 17, still has friends from preschool!
— Posted by Deirdré Straughan
9.
May 25th,
2007
4:46 am
I appreciate the insightful commentary on this situation, and wholeheartedly agree with your concerns about the way women are often disparaged for trying to balance work and family. However, as an American living in Britain, I must say that I find this kind of sentiment to be even worse here in the UK than it is in the US. There seems to be a cultural expectation that women WILL stay home full-time once they have children. This is often presented as an unquestionable fact, not as a subject for debate. I recognize that this probably partly unique to my socioeconomic position (my husband and I are also “solidly middle class” and could get by on a single income), but I find this assumption to be pervasive not only among the expectations of family and friends, but also in discussions among political elites (”mothering” is the key word – “parenting” is a term which is almost never used), as well as in radio and television messages (ads, casual discussions, shows, etc.). As someone who has worked very hard for an advanced degree (PhD), I find the assumption that I will walk away from that to be a full-time stay-at-home mom to be very, very disturbing, both on a personal level and as a observer of cultural trends. I don’t mean to suggest that the situation in the US is acceptable, but there is something to be said for the fact that people are at least discussing their concerns – in Britain, the conversation hasn’t even started.
— Posted by Jessica
10.
May 25th,
2007
4:50 am
No, it was People Magazine, not America, that intoduced the “drivel”. I think there is a lot of people that would say that the British press produces its fair share of drivel as well.
But, as you point out from your research, they did at least kept their sympathies straight and not introduce her poor-mom part time work status into the story. People Magazine did that. But it was this column that pointed out the parents (not just mums) choice of skipping the baby sitter. Sounds like the pot and the kettle to me.
— Posted by David NYC
11.
May 25th,
2007
6:47 am
Great column, but I wish you had ended it two paragraphs earlier — before you surmised how this might have turned out. No one can possibly know how things might have gone, and — although you certainly didn’t mean it that way –that kind of speculation rubs salt into the wound. And what a wound it is.
— Posted by Anne B.
12.
May 25th,
2007
6:52 am
A very well-expressed opinion! If only we Americans could separate our knee-jerk emotions from our reasoning we’d be much better off.
— Posted by Mark Gottsegen
13.
May 25th,
2007
7:03 am
I read this having fed the baby at 5:00 a.m., been at my desk at work by 6:15, leaving my husband to “do the morning” with our two children in an effort to have 2 of the 3 days of the upcoming holiday weekend remain work-free, and having just foreclosed a job possibility yesterday that may have lead to a less interesting, but less demanding job that would have required fewer hours and being reasonably certain that the sum of this makes me a bad mom. I am also reasonably certain that the working mom = bad mom equation is so firmly ingrained in our culture that it will not go away — in large part, because it fed by an other tedious phenomena in the media which is to wrire each compelling story of individual tragedy as one not just of individual tragedy, but of a systemic fault with our society or government that requires a new way of thinking or a systemic solution. Sometimes a tragic story is just a tragic story, and a hard-working, but sometimes absent mom is just a person making the best of a difficult situation. The push to draw a society-wide, sweeping lesson from every tragic event makes everything so fraught, that we become exhausted trying to come up with the fixes for all of these supposed systemic problems. Now, back to work.
— Posted by beth mitchell
14.
May 25th,
2007
7:18 am
I just returned from a 2-week stay in Britain. I spent time with several women like me – mid-30s with one or more small children. Every single one of them worked 1 or 2 days per week. They described how easy, and also how inevitable, it was to go to part-time once they were mothers (there are all kinds of systems in place in Britain to help facilitate part-time work for women which we do not have in the US). So they aren’t so conflicted about work (full time career) vs. stay home – they aren’t expected to do either. I am sure that if this mother had continued to work 5 days per week the British press and people would have talked about it, probably just in the way that we in the US would have.
— Posted by meg
15.
May 25th,
2007
7:24 am
As a working mother with 4 children, I confess, I missed this story the first time around.
Amazing, the outpouring of support for a family that left a three year old unattended. Where I live, working parents that leave their children unattended are often sent to jail, not coddled after their child is harmed.
— Posted by Colleen
16.
May 25th,
2007
7:38 am
Ummmm, their jobs aside, didn’t anyone tell these people NOT to leave three toddlers alone? They didn’t run out for a minute, they went out to dinner! That is bad parenting, regardless of how much mommy works.
A mom who worked as a waitress and left three small children alone in these circumstances would be pilloried in the press for negligence.
My heart goes out to the family, but this was a bad choice on the parent’s part.
— Posted by Dee
17.
May 25th,
2007
7:43 am
Warner writes, “These aspects of the McCanns’ life were evoked to spur sympathy and identification; to identify the McCanns as good, solid, striving Everypeople. Nowhere did I find Kate McCann’s Mommy Track work status exploited as a sign of personal virtue. Only in America can you count on such drivel.”
In fact, while there’s plenty of drivel in the U.S., I would argue that the discrepancy Warner notes is due in large part to an underlying difference in the way work is viewed in the U.S. versus Britain. My view on this is purely anecdotal (I’ve lived in both countries for significant periods of time). Until fairly recently, British society did not feature a great deal of social mobility. Conversely, social mobility (and perceived social mobility) has been a hallmark of American society (this is changing, unfortunately). The upper class in Britain didn’t really “work,” at least, not to support themselves. In the U.S., work has always been the factor in determining a person’s social status.
Thus, I believe the tendency remains in Britain to ignore work as a major feature of a person’s life (at least, rhetorically, as in these news reports about the Drs. McCann). Giving up work does not have the same meaning in our two countries.
This is why one sees such an emphasis on holidays in England. People actually go away on holiday. They do not stay at home to catch up on work or do the lawn or oversee construction projects. That is what Americans do, because here, doing so results in improved social status over time (or the perception thereof). While this may be starting to be true in Britain, historically, it wasn’t so. Thus, in general, less is invested in the work life in Britain than in the U.S.
— Posted by Chioggia
18.
May 25th,
2007
7:44 am
Thank you for your insightful comments. There is such a strong backlash against “working mothers!”
Madeline’s abduction is truly heart-rending and I would never leave such small children alone for any reason. However, relating any of this tragedy to the mother’s employment status is mean and sneering. It’s as if the American media wants to say, “See? This is what happens when those women’s libbers get their way!” Why don’t we hear about the father’s status as a cardiologist? Please!
— Posted by Mary Small
19.
May 25th,
2007
8:12 am
I love your column, but you got it all wrong here:
“They reportedly left their children in an apartment unattended, even though their resort offered both drop-in child care and babysitting. The reason: they didn’t want to hand their children over to “strangers.”
They did not HAVE to go out to dinner, this was not some sort of either/or situation –leave them with a stranger OR leave them alone. There was a third option: stay home with your three young children.
— Posted by Ann
20.
May 25th,
2007
8:15 am
“Lots of folks have lots of opinions about the behavior of women who have children. (Or, for that matter, the behavior of all women of child-bearing age.)”–#5, Melissa Stanton
This is very true. Patriarchy seems to have an interest in controlling the bodies and the reproduction of women of child-bearing age. When you are that age, it seems that everybody around you not only has an opinion about how you should behave, especially vis a vis your reproduction, but wants to control how and when and why you reproduce. Maybe it’s because reproduction is so important to the continuance of the species, and, well, women of child-bearing age are the only ones who can do it.
I recently left this age group. It is liberating to be less the focus of everybody’s obsession. Nobody tries to get me pregnant, or tries to keep me from getting pregnant, or tells me how I really should be raising my child, etc, because I can’t get pregnant and my child is grown up! Hurray!
But, being an old lady is not completely hassle-free. Now it’s the young adults who hassle me and criticize me and judge me and try to control me. Not sure why. They seem to have very rigid ideas about how an old lady should behave. So, I guess a woman in our culture is never entirely free of the judgment of her society. But take heart: it does get a little easier once you can’t bear children any more.
— Posted by shannon
21.
May 25th,
2007
8:16 am
I very much appreciate the aspect of the American reporting that you are shining your light on. However, I am still completely bewildered and depressed by the parts you gloss over. My daughters (18, 15 & 12) idolize JK Rowling and we are all at a loss to comprehend the amount of money and attention she is throwing at this in light of everything else going on in the world and the incredibly incompetent parenting of two exceptionally well-educated adults. We pray for the miracle of Madeleine’s safe return to her family, certainly. But if the media does not focus attention on the fact that those children were too young to be left alone (and in America it would be illegal to do so) we are endangering additional children.
— Posted by suzy
22.
May 25th,
2007
8:17 am
I think the discussion in this country as to whether it is appropriate to try and raise children with two working parents and no extended family is entirely healthy. I also think that American parents often are narcissistic and self involved, and that their children suffer because of it. Beyond that, I am not so sure that the vocal criticism of working mothers comes from any kind of misogyny as much as it comes from a sense that somehow men are devoid of parental feelings and are supposed to be content with spending 60 hours a week in a cubicle if it means they can have a six figure salary, but that we expect more from women.
I have respect couples who choose to forgo the finer things so that they can have one parent at home all the time (which sex that is being irrelevant to me – I would love to have a bread-winner wife.) I have a different kind of respect for “professional” couples who want to cut a fine social figure and choose not to have children so that they can drive nicer cars and vacation at the good spots. I have great sympathy for couples who are condemned to two incomes to be able to just get by. -but- I have nothing but contempt for families that choose to have both parents work so that they can have an upper middle class existence over a middle class one — and I condemn both greedy selfish partners equally.
— Posted by James D. Newman
23.
May 25th,
2007
8:17 am
Who cares who was working full time and who wasn’t? This story is about leaving small children untended (which always translates as “in danger”). How many nights had these parents chosen this course of action? If they didn’t fear stranger abduction, did they not consider the possibility of fire? In my view, they are lucky their criminal negligence didn’t result in the loss of all three of their children.
— Posted by Jane Shipley
24.
May 25th,
2007
8:21 am
Dear Ms. Warner,
My wife and I both find your writings to be unflagging distillations of the experiences and perspectives of so many people in America. It is entirely refreshing to see the issues that you present discussed as forces acting on the lives of both men and women. I, in particular have developed an immense regard for your intellectual and emotional honesty and lack of female chauvanism.
— Posted by Michael H. Weinstein
25.
May 25th,
2007
8:23 am
What these folks did leaving children unattended can be prosecuted in California as felony child abuse.
— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.
26.
May 25th,
2007
8:28 am
What about working fathers and their need for time with their children, and the children’s need for a father, which is as great as need for a mother?
We are really tired of the gender bias in domestic, family, child, and fertility issues. Mothers can have equal rights in the workplace. Fathers demand equal rights and equal respect in family issues.
— Posted by Clarence Maloney
27.
May 25th,
2007
8:36 am
As a stay at home mom I would argue the backlash goes both ways. Witness the recent spate of books with titles such as “Get to Work” and “The Feminine Mistake”. I don’t understand why both sides feel the need to vilify the other. Wasn’t the point of feminism to allow women to have choices? Why now do we turn on each other for making the choices we have made?
You are right–her working status has no relation to the story and should have been left out, and I agree that the implication she’s a better mom because she only works part-time is undeserved. However, your speaking only to the backlash against working moms while not mentioning the equivilent furor over women who stay at home makes your article one-sided and a disservice to a large segment of the population. I think we need to stop examining our differences and start appreciating our commonalities.
Regarding the story itself I wish more mention would be made of the fact that they made a horrible judgement by leaving 3 children under the age of 4 alone. Even without the threat of abduction there are all kinds of things that could happen: fire, one of them falling and hurting themselves, swallowing something and choking, etc. As someone else mentioned, had any of these happened instead of the kidnapping I think the reaction would have been very different.
— Posted by Holly
28.
May 25th,
2007
8:46 am
While I agree with everything you said about Americans’ unfair distaste for and judgment of working mothers (which I think compares to America’s unfair distaste for and judgment of stay-at-home mothers, and mothers who work part-time, and single mothers and lesbian mothers … get my point?), I think you are horribly mistaken in glossing over the fact that THESE parents left their very young children alone in a hotel. Who’s to say that the girl was abducted at all? She could have wandered off. Kids do that. That’s why you should never leave them alone. If you are afraid of strange babysitters (a possibly legitimate concern) you don’t go out to dinner. Period. Imagine the fear of a small child being left alone in a strange place. Imagine the confusion. Imagine the selfishness of TWO parents (not just the mother) who decided that their need for a dinner out was more important than their children’s safety. That’s an issue on which parents deserve to be judged.
— Posted by Lisa
29.
May 25th,
2007
8:59 am
Excellent report Mrs. Warner. Keep it up!!
Joe Torra
San Juan, PR
— Posted by Joe Torra
30.
May 25th,
2007
9:02 am
Were we to move towrd a true partnership society (ala Riane Eisler’s, Chalice and the Blade model)perhaps we’d stand more of a chance of allowing men to embrace and express their mothering instinct in a healthy way (less kidnappings?) and women to do the same with their more ‘masculine’ drive to work outside the home (a stay at home mother is a working mother, too, no?). More importantly, some women’s innate inclination to LEAD and hold influential ‘power’ postions (roles now associated with masculinity) would be encouraged, nurtured, and supported. We are in desperate need of women in ethical, compassionate leadership roles. The parent’s choice in this particular case is unfathomable to me. How do you leave three children under the age of four alone and unattended. However I keep thinking of the maid’s words in the film Babel: “I’m not a bad person, I just did something REALLY stupid.”
— Posted by Michelle Riu
31.
May 25th,
2007
9:05 am
Lots of good comments here. Overall it seems our mainstream media culture judges women no matter what they do. People get so heated- it’s akin to road rage- when women’s personal choices are made fodder for public discourse. Scott’s comment above nails it.
Also, there are many cultures within our culture- subcultures that are largely going about daily living outside the life described in mainstream media. We’re all affected by the policies, or lack thereof, our lawmakers enact. But we still do have the choice to not opt in so much with the consumer, competitive way of life. Judith mentions this in part in her great book. I think some other countries seems less stressful to live in for families (for everyone) because the whole culture, people on up to government (and who influences whom I can’t say for sure) has a different set of priorities.
— Posted by Lesley
32.
May 25th,
2007
9:20 am
Two thoughts:
1. When I was a child, my parents frequently went to a privately owned resort in the Bahamas. Every night, the adults went up to the big house to party while my brother and I were left alone in our guest house, supposedly asleep. I was 4, he was 6. That was in the 1950’s.
2. Less than 1/2 hr ago, I found out that my 6 yr old grandson may need surgery. One of my first thoughts was wondering if this would be an issue for his mother at her job. She shouldn’t have to worry about her job when her child is facing surgery, and in Britain (I have lived there) she wouldn’t, but this is where we are here.
— Posted by roooth
33.
May 25th,
2007
9:25 am
I agree with Jessica who posted above on the situation in the UK. It’s certainly not any better compared to the USA, in fact I think it’s worse. I live in Scotland and here too there is an assumption that any mother with the financial means to choose will stay at home with her children to be a “full-time mother” (anyone every heard of a part-time mother?). There is a stark choice between independent career woman with no children and married woman who is home-focused. There are few role models in between.
I even hear women that I work with complaining that they don’t have enough household income to pack in their careers completely so they can stay at home. They seem to view it as their right as a woman to be able to just opt out of the hard stuff. It’s not that they crave more time for children and home life: they are just bored with workplace and financial responsibility. These are educated women with PhDs in science, I might add.
I wish I didn’t have to disappoint Judith and my fellow feminists in the USA but Britain is sadly no further along than the USA in these matters.
— Posted by M Brodie
34.
May 25th,
2007
9:33 am
Why can’t anyone see past the nose on their face? Can’t you see that the problem isn’t that “working mothers” are vilified in America? The problem is that we have, as a society, become so enamored with name calling. Americans fear anything that is different and rather than try to understand it with compassion, they try to destroy it through devaluation.
There is no “better” type of mothering (or fathering, for that matter) because each and every decision that a parent makes must be their own decision, based solely on what is best for the child. Unfortunately, that decision is often not made in the interest of the child, but instead is made for the convenience of the parents (note the plural here – fathers share in the tremendous responsibility also.) and so the best interests of the child are not taken into account.
Perenting is hard, hard work. Often the most difficult thing is that the tedium is so overwhelming. Children are relentless in their need. But they didn’t ask to be born. The parents decided that they would have children. And from that point on life as they knew it ceases to exist. If decisions are not made with the child’s well-being as the primary consideration then they will ultimately be poor decisions with disasterous results.
But the framing of this argument is not to say that children always need a mother around and, therefore, that working mothers are evil. A child needs a parent around. Not a pre-school teacher or nanny or au-pair, etc. You can’t pay someone minimum wage and expect them to care for your child as you would. They can’t (and trust me, they wont) love your child as you do. But the child needs a parent – not just a mother. If the economic situation that parents find themselves in is such that both parents must work then every effort must be made to sacrifice on the part of both parents to ensure that the child has a parent to care for them almost all the time. And if it is a single parent environment then everything that the parent wants that will not make the child’s quality of life better while balancing their need to be physically with that parent must be cast aside. There is no alternative. The child must come first.
Children don’t need quality time. They need quantity time. They need to feel that they are safe. And they don’t have the capacity, nor should they, to reason and understand that they are safe. They can only feel it if they know, from their parent’s actions, that they are safe. And this can only happen when parents sacrifice and make their children the top priority in their life regardless of the need to earn a living. And there are a multitude of times in a parent’s life that they will need to balance work and child-rearing to earn a living. There’s nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with putting a career or job (and this goes for fathers, too) ahead of the welfare of their children. That’s where the sacrifice comes in.
And these are great sacrifices. But which would you rather have: a flat-screen T.V. in every room and a luxury car or a child who knows that you love them when they go to sleep at night? Because when you grow old and grey those T.V.s and cars wont be there to care for you or return your love – but that child will.
— Posted by Brian Morgan
35.
May 25th,
2007
9:42 am
The parents must be kicking themselves. It’s not a good practice to leave kids unattended, but don’t forge the cultural context: to the McCanns, everyone does it. This resort caters to Brits, and a lot of them leave the children and check up later. Care is offered, but it’s not abnormal. We stayed in Edinburgh when our boys were 1 and 3, and we hired chambermaids through the hotel to go out. But one night, the hotel offered a service where we could go down to the bar, leave the phone in the room off the hook, and the switchboard lady would “listen in,” and know where to find us if one of the boys started fussing. We thought it was genius.
Probablly wouldn’t do it now. But my parents packed 5 kids in a station wagon when seatbelts were barely around, and the baby was in a basket or my mother’s arms. Times change.
Shannon, #25, on JK Rowling: As others have mentioned, all of Britain fell in love with this little girl, a la Diana, and the parents have been savvy about building support and keeping attention on Madeleine, because they believe she’s alive and will be found if people are aware. In any event, as part of the outpouring, celebrities have made PSAs and donations. For example, Christiano Ronaldo, who stars for Manchester United and is Portuguese, made a televised appeal. JK Rowling’s first husband and the father of her eldest daughter is Portuguese, and she lived there for a time, so I think she feels a deeper connection to the case. And she has the money, so why not?
— Posted by kathleen
36.
May 25th,
2007
9:43 am
The real message of feminism should have been that gender doesn’t dictate destiny, and that no family should be judged from the outside on how its members choose to structure work and leisure as long as the plan works for them.
The problem is, in this unbelievably hectic world, very few plans seem to actually work for anyone anymore. Overscheduled, stressed out, and unable to extend the day past twenty-four hours, even the most loving parents occasionally view their children as burdens or even pests. Constantly tugged in many different directions,few parents are able to live in the moment–to experience the joy of being with children, of moving at their pace, of seeing the world through their eyes. Deprived of that joy, they crave time alone and become what others see as “self-absorbed” or “negligent.”
So what to do?
It seems incredibly old-fashioned and unrealistic to talk about “homemaking” in this day and age. But maybe we can begin to address the problem of families by admitting we still need homemaking. It is within homes where responsible adults acknowledge the need to make sacrifices so there is time to really be with each other, that families flourish.
There are a lot of political reasons why it so so difficult to “make a home” these days. But contrinuting to the problem is a misreading of feminism as some pie-in-the-sky liberation of women enabling them to have it all. What Judith Warner calls working-mother-hate may actually be a misplaced anger at having been sold a bill of goods that we can have material success with perfect children as our acessories.
Raising children in real homes–not houses– is work, but if freely and realistically chosen, it is a labor of love–as fulfilling as any other “career.” Parenthood should be chosen with at least as much thought and preparation as any other life path.
— Posted by Elizabeth Fuller
37.
May 25th,
2007
9:50 am
Your comments are well taken. But I wonder why everyone appears to be jumping on the paranoid conclusion that the child was abducted. Is it not much more likely that the child awoke in a strange place and paniced and ran out into the night ‘looking for mommy’? Weren’t they at a seaside resort. The ocean claims many victims.
— Posted by Linda Pearson
38.
May 25th,
2007
9:52 am
I would like to respond to James D. Newman’s comment. While I agree that if you have children, then you should be willing to make sacrifices in order to raise them properly. However, I think that saying that one person should give up work and stay home is not workable. My mother did that; she stayed at home after I was born, and hasn’t worked since then. About a year ago, my parents got divorced, and now she is not in a position to support herself. She got a settlement, but at this point in her life, she has no work experience and very few relevant work skills. Even if she went to work, she would not be able to support herself. When I have children, I would like to be available to them as much as possible, but I never plan on staying home full time. I do not want to be in a position where if I got divorced, I would be unable to support myself or my children adequately. I admire my mother for being a stay at home mother. She did a great job. But, the position that she is in at the moment terrifies me. I never want to be there. I would like to work part time or flexible schedules as a working mother, but I never intend to leave the work force entirely. Work doesn’t just provide you money in the short term; work provides you with skills and experience to be able to support yourself in unexpected situations.
— Posted by Jane
39.
May 25th,
2007
9:53 am
This is a very sad affair for this family, amid many, many other tragedies going on at the same time in our world. Can we just let the mommy discussion go for awhile and focus on what’s really important? Scott said it well (above): the people who are most defensive about their choices are usually the ones that are most insecure about them. Moms, choose what’s best for you and love it. Then let’s focus on the families that don’t have the luxury of choice.
— Posted by Mary L
40.
May 25th,
2007
9:54 am
I certainly understand the pressures of financial necessity, the desire to live the professional life you have trained for, all of the arguments that fuel the Mommy Wars.
But what I ultimately come back to are very basic questions: who is the best person to raise a child? if the bulk of a child’s day is spent with people who are not the parents, who is really raising the child? and if a parent says “I just can’t stay at home, I need to have my career” then why did they have children?
I have a hard time believing that the patience and energy and love that it takes to raise a child well can be transferred over to an hourly worker.
And please know that I did use childcare – center, nanny – and finally ended up working part time. But when I look back on it I wish I had stayed home. Of course this is me speaking as a nostalgic mom about to send her only to college . . .
— Posted by Tish
41.
May 25th,
2007
9:55 am
why is this article about anything other than the crime of leaving a three-year-old alone with two infants?
— Posted by jenny
42.
May 25th,
2007
9:57 am
You probably should have noted that the outdoor restaurant was just outside their room, not even 30 yards away, with the parents checking in every so often. Think resort bungalows surrounding a central terrace. While it won’t appease the fanatics, it should attenuate some of the negligence-crying. Dinner doesn’t start until 9 or 10pm in Portugal, so it makes sense to put the little ones in bed. In such a tragic situation we all want to have someone to blame, to reassure ourselves it couldn’t happen to us (”They were bad, so bad things happened”). But we could put the kids in bed and have dinner in our backyard and have the same thing happen.
— Posted by Sam
43.
May 25th,
2007
10:01 am
So much for this one child; while other children suffer? The answer is very simple:
People have a greater response when the focus is on one child rather than a grouping of children. Recent studies have shown this reaction. Researchers are still working on why this occurs; they have their theories.
As far as the backlash, people always attempt to put a blame somewhere…it’s called “finger-pointing”.
— Posted by tom heuer
44.
May 25th,
2007
10:19 am
I’m sorry – I just don’t see how the comment made by the People reporter is offensive enough to spark another devisive debate about the virtues of women working outside the home in a career or choosing to make their life’s work raising their children. Call me obtuse, but I failed to see that one descriptive phrase, (”devoted mother”) is an attack on working mothers or an implication that this mother did not deserve to have her child taken when some other mothers may deserve such a fate.
I am a working mother in a neighborhood of stay at home moms. I don’t apologize for it anymore than I feel superior or inferior to the stay at home moms that many of my working mom colleagues seem to take great delight in poking fun at.
Frankly, I do what works for me and my family and I don’t really care what others think about the choices my husband and I make concerning the rearing of my son. When those choices no longer work for us, we will adjust our lifestyle as necessary.
I wish women felt comfortable enough to turn a deaf ear to attacks on the intensely personal decision on how to handle child rearing. When we engage in these debates we give people who are trying to judge women’s choices more credibility than they deserve. I long for a world where all women will support each other in their decisions, be they childless, stay at home moms, or employed moms.
And if indeed the writer of the text that fueled this debate was passing judgement on working mothers in general, this whole debate has just given that writer more satisfaction than they deserve, if indeed to offend or judge was their intent.
— Posted by Karla Williams
45.
May 25th,
2007
10:24 am
The girl is missing, most likely because she went to look for her mother, and met some misfortune.
The parents are guilty of child abuse for leaving three very young children alone. The two surviving children should be removed from their custody. Then they can dine out and work all they want without having to give one thought to the consequences.
The only sympathy here belongs with the children.
— Posted by James
46.
May 25th,
2007
10:26 am
I don’t understand why everyone–including and perhaps especially women–assumes that stay-at-home motherhood automatically means you become a stupid, unengaged zombie. I mean, of course I know that motherhood makes you feel stupid, unengaged, and zombie-like at times because a mother has to tap into unparalleled reserves of mental and emotional energy just to get through the day with young kids. It’s incredibly hard, no question. But why do we think a woman can’t possibly have a fulfilling intellectual and social life if she’s at home with kids? Just because I’m a mother doesn’t mean I’ve lost the ability to read and think, for pete’s sake. I do manage to keep up with world events and even–gasp!–have interests outside of my kids.
This is not to say that I think mothers shouldn’t work outside the home or even inside the home (I have a home-based business), or that those who do deserve the scorn they receive. Just that I’ve had enough of everybody assuming women necessarily have to lose their brains with their placentas.
— Posted by Nancy Dziedzic
47.
May 25th,
2007
10:29 am
I’ve been reading this column since it began because I find it interesting, but it also is like reading missives from another planet entirely. I have never understood why women think they can have both motherhood and career. It’s always been obvious to me that when you choose to be a mother, you’re choosing to forgo any sort of societally valued accomplishments until the kids are grown. And when you’re done, all you have to show for yourself is the kids you raised, which aren’t even yours anyway, they’re separate human beings with lives of their own, and you chose to give up your life as an individual to bring them to adulthood. There is a lot of joy to be had in such an existence if you just accept that you are probably not going to have any accomplishments that are at all valued by society at large. It is a relinquishment of that materialistic gratification. I knew I was too selfish and needed too much ego-stroking from external accomplishments myself to be a good mother, so I did the career thing. When you get old, you’ll have the children you raised and I won’t. I’ll have a big 401(k)and hopefully some friends and some sort of community.
— Posted by Deborah K
48.
May 25th,
2007
10:36 am
I understand and agree with your reaction, as a working mother, to the tone of the People Magazine article. However, what you are describing is the tip of the iceburg.
Virtually every tragedy that occurs first gets reported, then gets “explained”. Journalists seem to regard a story as unfinished until it can be put in a broader context – who was really at fault, who really “asked for it” or desrved it, who didn’t deserve it, etc.
The public is even worse. Not content to leave it as “that’s terrible”, they usually have to blame the victim or settle the issue in some theological way: why did God do this? or we can’t understand God’s plan for us, or (when it turns out okay) it was a miracle! The implication is that some people deserve tragedy from God, while others deserve miracles. The reality is that “- happens”.
— Posted by Max Wolfe
49.
May 25th,
2007
10:37 am
As a daily online reader of the British press, I was of course aware of the Madeleine case. I wonder if the press there as here would have been so sympathetic and unblaming of the clearly feckless parents if, instead of doctors, the parents had been of the laboring class, or unemployed.
I am surprised that no readers have challened Ms. Warner’s declaration that working mother’s face discrimination. Clearly stay-at-home Moms are the scapegoat du jour.
And I have personally experienced and witnessed far more discrimination practiced, than recieved by the (majority) parent class of employers and colleagues than the reverse. A little balance in reporting on the voiceless, marginalized minority is well in order. Childless people, whether by choice or not, are judged so much more harshly than parents in almost every life situation. If a child had disappeared under the eye of a single, childless babysitter, the papers would be baying for her blood.
— Posted by Christina Gombar
50.
May 25th,
2007
10:39 am
let’s see, how many children across the globe will die today from disease and starvation? how many will be stolen and turned into working slaves or be turned over to perverts?
children are on the streets of Manila every eveing, running in between cars selling flowers at 10 pm on traffic filled smog choked streets, multiplied in a hundred cities across the globe.
where’s the outcry, the letters, the accusations, the money? where’s jk and branson for those children?
— Posted by daphne
51.
May 25th,
2007
10:47 am
Your article is ridiculous because you are trying to garner sympathy for people who have the means to provide childcare for their children — to leave two three year olds alone is unnacceptable and irresponsible especially when the parents had options. Here in the States I would imagine that that behavior would constitute child abuse. Food for thought: why wouldn’t they take the kids out to dinner with them?
— Posted by Nilsa
52.
May 25th,
2007
10:51 am
Judith,
I ordinarily love your columns, but this time you missed the boat. Mixing working versus stay-at-home motherhood with parental negligence is fuzzy thinking at best. There are many separate threads in this story, including the class issue that Dee brought up. You touched on one early on in your column — it is disgraceful that all of this time, attention, and MONEY is being thrown at this one little girl when there are literally thousands of little girls (and boys) being abducted, raped, and murdered every day, completely off the radar. Not that this one girl is not important, because she is. But so are all the others.
— Posted by Janet
53.
May 25th,
2007
11:08 am
From 1968-1985, I raised three children by myself. I held full-time jobs, went to school, was politically involved. I had no partner. My husband had departed in a cloud of delusion.
I had to work. I am steadily angry at the on-going rhetoric that pushes The Mommy Obsession. I had no choice. And, the pathetic whining of married mommies raising one or two kids that they “have no time” is ludicrous.
And what, I might ask, is true financial necessity.
I am a writer. I’ve watched publishing and the media on its downhill slide into mediocrity, shallowness and marketing polarization. What Mommy War? Whose Mommy War? It is highly profitable for the powers that be to set up division between women again. Yes, I know “pathetic whining” are not words conducive to connection, but how much of that whining comes out of corporate brainwashing…you can be perfect if only you buy more, obsess more, do more?
And, in all of this, where are the Elders? Where are the voices of the older women? Imagine a huge corpo-publishing company releasing a book by an older woman who addresses this. Dream on!
— Posted by Mary S.
54.
May 25th,
2007
11:16 am
A few points:
People magazine? Let’s hope the pulse of America is not completely judged by the trash contained in that rag.
That said, why is there no mention of the duties of the father? Are we to assume that the full responsibility for the safety of children is with the mother? That wasn’t my father’s view.
Also, why is there no mention of the reprehensible actions of the kidnapper, statistically likely to be male? We have venom for the mother, but not for the criminal?
Our anger is misplaced.
— Posted by Michael
55.
May 25th,
2007
11:23 am
I’d find different poster parents for your arguments here. An unfortunate column in response to appalling behavior. The rationale offered by the McCann’s regarding not wanting to hand their children over to “strangers” is intellectually dishonest at best.
— Posted by Margaret
56.
May 25th,
2007
11:26 am
Parents do not have much choice in this country. They can barely afford to raise children, much less take a leisurely vacation. Usually vacations are charged to credit cards, or home equity loans. How very remarkable that a family of 5 with one full time worker, like the McCann’s could fly to another country, stay in hotel by the ocean and eat out. How many families of 5 could afford this in the United States? Parents here cannot relate to this tale, it is a fantasy to them, so it gets no play here. It is too far removed from their reality.
— Posted by sue
57.
May 25th,
2007
11:27 am
While normally insightful, this time you are wrong,
The media in both Europe and the US have one thing in common: They want to be as dramatic as possible – the more heart wrenching the better. It keeps people watching the news and brings in revenue.
The difference in this case is in America, taking a part time job is seen as a great sacrifice. People magazine included this excerpt in their story because, to an American reader, it presents an image of a woman who has sacrificed her career for her children only to have one of them taken away.
In Britain, it would not have the same resonance because, as one reader already noted, the opportunities for part time work for working parents are much more abundant. It would not make the story any more dramatic because it is not seen as sacrificing your career.
The point of the excerpt for People Magazine is not to say “unlike some mothers, she did not deserve this.” The point of the excerpt is to say to the American reader, “this is even more tragic than you thought, keep reading, and buy next week’s magazine while you’re at it.”
From a feminist point of view (yes, that’s right, a man can be a feminist), this description of Kate’s career recognizes the importance of a woman’s career, is not judging her or the women who do not make the same choice, but instead is playing off American images of a “part time job” as an unusual sacrifice to make the story more dramatic.
There are many examples of subtle chauvinism and subtle jabs at working mothers in both the American media and in Britain (As you note, the Matthew Eappen story is a good example – although both sides of the pond engaged in such subtle commentary during that fiasco). However, this is not one of those examples.
— Posted by Joe
58.
May 25th,
2007
11:36 am
Thank you (again!), Judith.
— Posted by Sheila Mc7
59.
May 25th,
2007
11:38 am
There are a lot of pervasive assumptions about parenting in the media. I cringe every-time I hear Oprah say “motherhood is the hardest job in the world”. And she says it a lot. (Or so I hear. Cough, cough.)
The working vs non-working mom debate is never going to be settled until people stop treating fathers as second class parents. The real root of the problem is that many people are still very sexist when it comes to parenting.
— Posted by Stephen de las Heras
60.
May 25th,
2007
11:39 am
I had young children and was a stay at home mom at the beginning of the women’s movement in the early 70’s. And believe it or not there was a time when the media portrayed the issue exactly opposite of how you describe things now. It was the working mother that was championed and the stay at home mom portrayed as lazy and not very bright. I remember a tv news show from Philadelphia that compared two moms–the working one had a carefree life and the stay at home mom’s story was actually filmed in black and white to look even more dreary.
— Posted by Sharilyn Radinsky
61.
May 25th,
2007
11:42 am
Those parents should be put in jail. I am more suprised that the kids were not found floating in the resort swimming pool. As for having dinner in the backyard, my backyard is not in a foreign country. I know my neighborhood. Who goes to another country and leaves a 3-year old and two 2-year olds unattended? Negligent parents. If the girl had been killed in a car accident without a seat belt, the parents would be to blame. It is a sign of the times when highly educated parents take “Calculated Risks” with their own children.
— Posted by lisa bauersachs
62.
May 25th,
2007
11:42 am
I agree with you, Judith, about how inappropriate and barely concealed the contempt for working mothers is. Would that we as a society could attach the same intensity of judgment – positively, supportively – to the concept of “working father” that we attach negatively to the concept of “working mother”.
That said, I am shocked that the McCanns left 3 very young children alone in an apartment while they went to dinner.
— Posted by Ilene
63.
May 25th,
2007
11:43 am
I agree that society’s focus on “good moms” vs. “bad moms” is annoying and unfair, although I’m not sure that it’s a clear cut as you make it sound. It seems to me that society loves rich moms who stay home, but hates poor moms who do the same. It seems to me that society loves educated women (the more educated the better) who give up their careers to be full-time moms, but disparages women who leave high-school with no greater ambition than to marry and reproduce. Our culture is incredibly conflicted, and even at times schizophrenic, over what to do about women in general — at home or in the workplace.
However, none of this should changes the fact that both of Madeleine’s parents, doctors or not, wealthy or not, bright or not, educated or not left three toddlers unattended for reasons no more important than convenience and selfishness.
The price that they have been required to pay is way too high, but they are at least partially responsible for the loss of their child through their own negligence. I’m not going to put either of them in the category of “good parent,” at least not on that particular night in that particular place at that particular time. I know that this sounds harsh and judgmental, and that’s because, well, their conduct deserves that judgment. They do not deserve what happened (whatever it was), Madeleine does not deserve what happened, but her parents are partially responsible for it, and in their hearts they know it.
— Posted by Christine
64.
May 25th,
2007
11:45 am
Excellent article Judith. To those (Such as James D. Newman (#22)) who try to make a distinction between poor/lower middle class two income households and upper middle selfish wealthy ones: I have heard this often. I make a good salary and between the two of us we do well. My salary buys nice clothes, toys and a private school education for my daughter. But it also buys groceries. It also provides a cushion so that if the sole breadwinner loses a job we’re not on the streets. Barely scraping by on one salary (even if we could do so and I’m not sure that’s possible) may be the right decision for you but weighing the risks involved it is not the right one for me and not from my experience a responsible one for us to make.
— Posted by B
65.
May 25th,
2007
11:48 am
Judith,
I strongly recommend you read (if you haven’t already) “I don’t know how she does it : the life of Kate Reddy, working mother” by Allison Pearson.
Why do we feel the need of always dichotomizing: working vs. stay at home moms, good vs. bad parents? I think it’s because we are having a hard time accepting the diversity among us and that people make different decisions. It is easier to blame than try to understand.
— Posted by Angie
66.
May 25th,
2007
11:54 am
I’m a mother who also works as a lawyer full time, and I’m sensitive to the way mothers who work are treated by the media and in society. But I agree with Karla Williams in this case — while the column is insightful on that issue, I think the read of the People magazine remark way overstates what was actually said.
— Posted by momesq
67.
May 25th,
2007
11:57 am
Honestly, who leaves small children unattended in a hotel room? If they were so afraid of babysitters, why go out? Why not order dinner in? Why not take them with you? As a mother, it just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Go on vacation, and leave your children alone in a hotel room? Seriously? How is this not criminal behavior? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the professional situation of the parents, whether they are working outside or inside the home. These parents may indeed be loving and caring, but they engaged in child endangerment and neglect, and unfortunately, that little girl has paid the very dear price for it.
— Posted by Joan
68.
May 25th,
2007
11:59 am
Never have I read anything so wrongheaded. Ms. Warner completely misses the point. I can only conclude she is either hopelessly naive or totally disingenuous. I think the latter: while there’s undoubtedly cause to rail against the “foul poison of working-mother-hate” that pervades the American media, this story isn’t cause for that, and to argue otherwise is pure hypocrisy.
Does she expect us to believe, and to be convinced that she believes, that this is about the McCanns having “fallen victim to fear of babysitters”? I think not. Surely Ms. Warner would not hesitate to fire a nanny who left three children under the age of 3 alone, for virtually any amount of time–not least a nanny who left them alone while she went out to dinner!
This incident is about a horrific lack of parental judgment, primarily, and secondarily, it is about class. As an earlier post points out, if the McCanns were not upper-middle-class doctors–if Ms. McCann were a waitress and her husband were a truck driver, the two would have already seen their remaining children taken from them by the state. Luckily for them, they’re physicians, and so the world mourns instead of (rightly) condemning them for their negligence. I mourn for their little girl, but not for them. They feared hotel-sponsored child care, but not leaving the three children alone? This was not an either/or choice, and for Ms. Warner to imply otherwise is utterly false. Perhaps the McCanns should have called room service that night.
— Posted by KLF
69.
May 25th,
2007
12:04 pm
You make a point that working mothers are condemned in this country. But you know what? So are stay-at-home Moms. It’s either “you’re letting your child be reared by strangers?!?” or “you’re leaving a career to wipe spit-up?!?”. I will soon be a SAHM, at least for 6 months or so, and have become a keen detector of those who say nice things about my choice and mean it and those who say nice things but privately think I’m a moron. And of course there are loads of people who assume I’m an incompetent business person because I’m staying at home. There is no way to win the battle of public opinion.
Personally, I think the bias is against MOTHERS, and if not that, against parents in general. This country hates, and I mean hates, parents. If it didn’t, we’d have work-leave policies similar to Canada and Europe. And, more than likely, the SAHM vs. working Mom comments would die down. If ALL Moms and/or Dads could take 6 months off, paid, for a new child, that would greatly reduce the stress and strain in new parents’ lives, and reduce the bitterness over the decision. But a parent forced to leave a crying 3-month-old baby to go to work and make money, or a parent scared to go to work because of an unpredictable and fragile 3-month-old baby, both face a great deal of anguish over what to do, and naturally become defensive about their choices.
A lot of that would fade away with 6 months of paid leave FOR EVERYONE.
— Posted by Crystal
70.
May 25th,
2007
12:06 pm
At the beginning of her column, Ms. Warner asks “about the degree of attention she has inspired while children in Darfur and Iraq – or in Britain’s public housing – die or disappear unnoticed”. See this link- http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=2917131&page=1 for a discussion.
— Posted by David
71.
May 25th,
2007
12:07 pm
For all the endless talk about “family values” in the last few years, it has not provided policies which strengthened families. Several years ago I did a study on maternal and child well being. We came in 17th in industrialized nations in indexes which measured maternal and child well being. Countries which came in ahead of us had programs in place which valued child rearing and enabled a parent (father or mother) to stay home and raise their children. The best country in which to be a mother or child was Italy with it’s “traditional” family patterns. The second best was Sweden with an “unconventional” pattern of families which was defined as a woman and her children regardless of husband or father’s involvement. Those women had societal support to be able to be available to raise their children with options for the fathers to stay home as well.
The problem with the feminist movement in this country is that we have only pursued half a goal. Women should be free to work at whatever their God given talents suit them for and be respected for it no differently than men. But bearing children, raising them, and by so doing perpetuating the species and working to improve civilization should be equally valued. So far it isn’t. One of our problems in addressing things like the “mommy wars” is that a “traditional” woman’s role was not and is not valued. If we valued our children in America, we would not have any starving or going without medical care. If we valued parenting there would be supports in place to encourage good parenting…sick days available to a parent not just to care for themselves when they are ill, but to care for children when they are, medical care for parents to ensure as much as possible that they will be there to raise their children, quality child care available when parents are unable to be with their children.
The study I did was in the late 90’s. Whatever support we did have at the time which rendered us in such a low position among industrialized nations has since been severely eroded by those in power. Needless to say it is logically impossible to think improvement of our mother’s or children’s lives has been the result.
We are in need of change of attitude where valuing families isn’t just sanctimonious lip service, but a heartfelt and practical value of parents and children and a willingness to build social structures which support them. Or we can continue to choose to support programs that ensure the rich get richer. The question is “What do we really value?”
— Posted by Nikka
72.
May 25th,
2007
12:17 pm
Judith, I agree with your point about the endless debate over working vs. stay at home moms. I have an 8 month old daughter, as does my sister. She works part time — she has family close by who take care of my neice. I stay home, but have just hired a sitter (no family close by) for one day a week so I can resume my writing career. We’re supportive of each other’s choices, but also somewhat jealous, I think; I have more financial resources, she has more help. I don’t think you can ever have it all!
I agree with most of the other readers that the big issue here is leaving the children alone. I wonder if it’s more common in Europe to leave the kids asleep in their room while the parents go do something in the general vicinity. I have a friend who lives in California. One of the moms in her neighborhood was from Sweden. When they would have neighborhood events, she would leave her 2 year old home alone, in bed, while she went to an event 2, 3, 4, 6 houses away. The neighbors tried to convince her to get a sitter, but she said that was the way things were done in her country. My friend agonized over the dangers to the child, and worried about how should would feel if anything bad (fire, accident, etc.) should ever happen. Rather than continue to talk about it, she took action — she made an anonymous call to child services, and the parents were investigated. Extreme measure? Possibly. But they never left the child alone again. And the child is probably safer for it.
— Posted by Nora
73.
May 25th,
2007
12:27 pm
This article is titled “Words that Wound the Working Mother.”
It seems to me that this is the real problelm… Name calling should NOT ever have the power to hurt anyone. Why are women so sensitive to the differences between working and stay at home mothers?
We’re different from each other. We prioritize and value our own time differently. You can judge it or you can let it be. You can ignore the judgements or you can make friends despite the differences.
Only you can really know what is best for you. And when you live that choice confidently and without regrets… then nothing else matters and words won’t wound.
— Posted by CKCCKC
74.
May 25th,
2007
12:29 pm
Thanks for bringing this bit of poison to my and your other readers’ attention. I wholeheartedly agree with your main point, and it’s particularly striking to see it in terms of the contrast between British and American responses.
A few months back I noticed a similar difference in the response of the British public and media to the murders of several “women” in Islington who had worked as prostitutes and the response of the American public and media to the murders of several “prostitutes” whose bodies were found near Atlantic City. In Britain, the press and public emphasized the humanity and individual life stories of the victims, while in America, except for one NYT profiles of each of the women, they were treated as faceless prostitutes and that was it, even though some of them were also mothers or had other jobs, and *all* of them were someone’s daughter.
I think you go too far with the last two paragraphs, though. You seem to want to *attribute* Madeleine’s disappearance in part to anti-working-mother bias and the sitter-phobia that goes with it, and you simply don’t have sufficient facts to make that causal connection. For one thing, if we assume for the moment that Madeleine was kidnapped, then even if the parents *had* hired a sitter — even if they had been home in another room — it’s entirely possible that the kidnapper might still have quietly entered the house or lured Madeleine outside. Even if they’d used a drop-in service, the kidnapper might have made that locatio his next stop. Much as anti-sitter phobia and anti-working-mom bias makes my blood boil, I still think it’s unfair to try to blame the kidnapping on this one factor.
I think you’re right when you admit that you may just be engaging wishful thinking. When horrifying things happen to other people, for most of us the first impulse is to find some reason why it happened to *them,* but would not happen to *us.* This desire to reassure ourselves in the face of a world that is almost entirely beyond our control (and in essence run a “safety check” on that small aspect we do control) is often what stands behind our unpleasant urge to “blame the victim.” Oh, he smoked in his youth. She shouldn’t have been jogging in that park after dark. He had been ingesting trans fats for years. She was speeding. They used a babysitter. They refused to use a babysitter. It’s an understandable human reaction, but I think we all should work to get past it.
— Posted by JMB
75.
May 25th,
2007
12:44 pm
Although Madeline’s disappearance is terrible and I empathize with the family’s grief, the amount of publicity the tragedy is garnering is out of proportion when compared to millions of childrens’ suffering worldwide. Because Madeline is blonde, blue eyed and telegenic, the mostly brown and black children who face hardships on an hourly basis will again be forced to the “back of the bus.”
— Posted by samar
76.
May 25th,
2007
12:54 pm
I agree with Crystal’s comment above that the bias (in both countries) is against MOTHERS. I’ve never had children and always known that I don’t want to, for a variety of reasons. However, one very strong reason for this, I’ve realised in retrospect, is the lose-lose situation mothers have been placed in throughout the time I was growing up as well as now. If they continue to work, they’re bad mothers, and if they stay at home, they’re wasting their education etc. I think I unconsciously absorbed a lot of those lose-lose messages while I was a teenager in the 80s, and that it helped to cement my own decision against motherhood, even if it wasn’t the only factor.
I should perhaps point out that I grew up in the UK, so I fear that the situation there isn’t in fact much better than it is in the US.
— Posted by Steph
77.
May 25th,
2007
12:58 pm
When I lived in married student housing in the 70s, many European parents left their children in the units (mostly row houses) alone at night. It was possible to explain to some of them that this was not the custom in the US and they should take advantage of the free babysitting coop. One night a French child of 4 woke up crying, the super was called, another family took him in until the parents came home and no American in the complex ever spoke to the family again. However, it is not clear from the stories why in the current case it is considered an abduction when it is more likely the child wandered off.
— Posted by Cambridge
78.
May 25th,
2007
1:00 pm
The one thing i take away from these comments is how culturally biased they are. I have lived in Europe for several years, and am married to an European, and i can assure you, it is quite normal to leave your child(ren) unattended in your hotel room while you are out eating 50 yards away (as did the McCanns). I was also shocked at this at first, but it is quite normal to see prams outside of supermarkets unattended with infants in them (germany, Denmark), and when we are on vacation with our friends, the ALL leave their children in their hotel rooms unattended while we eat dinner in the hotel’s dining room (Italy, Austria)! The hysteria of child abduction is just not that great there, and so, you cannot really blame the parents for doing what everyother parent in Europe did.
— Posted by miki
79.
May 25th,
2007
1:02 pm
It’s not just the name-calling that bothers me but also the institutionalism of one parent at home.
My son’s school (a highly rated public school) pushes vounteerism, which, I agree, is a good thing. But all the classroom slots are for an hour and 45 minutes weekly.
I mentioned to my neighbor, who’s very active in the school, that this made it hard for working parents to work a volunteering stint into a lunch hour. I suggested that it would be great if they could make them 45-minute or hour-long stints. She, in turn, mentioned it to the principal, who said, “That’s really good feedback.” The next year nothing had changed.
All the events–parent-teacher conferences; spring and winter concerts; book sales; and holiday potlucks–are during the day. I used up a whole week’s vacation on school events. (Shouldn’t my vacation be spent with my family?)
And here’s the really odd thing. I volunteered once on my lunch hour, and I realized that all but one of the other women (there were no men) were not citizens. (One was Canadian; another was Australian; and so forth.) So the main people who were volunteering were people who could not legally hold jobs in this country. And they were all complaining about how few people volunteered.
So in my little world, the system seems broken. The whole structure of the school is based on an antiquated view of society, and it makes me, a working mom who’s probably part of the majority, feel as if I don’t belong.
— Posted by Gwynne Young
80.
May 25th,
2007
1:06 pm
I have nothing to say except that this was an excellent article. Wow.
— Posted by Katen
81.
May 25th,
2007
1:08 pm
I really do not care if Mrs. McCann worked or not, whether or not she was a doctor and whether or not a magazine called her “devoted”.
I cannot think of one mother that I know who would have left three small children sleeping alone in a room at a resort in a foreign country. This is child negligence, plain and simple.
While what has happened to the McCann family should never happen to anyone, I wonder how two people who are well educated and appear to have made so many other wise decisions in their lives could have made such a poor decision where the safety of their children was concerned.
— Posted by BSG
82.
May 25th,
2007
1:13 pm
I follow the discussions around Ms. Warners commentaries with utter fascination. What I find most revealing is the overwhelming silence from those who desire to stay home and raise children. It almost feels as if, as a nation, we pine for the years we can send our children to daycare, pre-school, or full-time kindergarten so we can “get on with our lives.” I truly have to question the motivations and intentions of people who have children only to contract the responsibility of rearing to others. What then is the point?
I will ask that again simply for my own benefit. What is the point of making the conscious decision to have children if one is not going to be present with them.
Children are wiser that we give credit. The other day, I asked my three year old son what was important to him. Invariably and without prompting or previous exercise, he picked people as being important…not things. Let that be a lesson for me to remember.
— Posted by Ben
83.
May 25th,
2007
1:14 pm
The two cases quoted here are actually far apart: The one of the “child shaken to death by a British au pair girl” – has, actually never been really proven: the child’s head injuries were already in the process of healing, i.e. had originated from an earlier abuse (or accident! – remember: “in dubio …”!) which could have been from either parent or others. The British media, I think, hit out at the “foreigner = easy prey” attitude of prosecutors and parents alike. It was the “pre-trial media conviction” and the feeling of a cover-up, which brought the media pot to that unhealthy boil.
The new media-circus has a different background – maybe, you are right: a bit of a Diana Syndrome. Please, don’t mis-interpret this as an “I don’t care about the missing girl”. What I intend to say is much more: I wished these people cared instead of blowing so much hypocrisy into hot air. It is a strange thing in England (more than Scotland or Wales) to operate on a line that Siegmund Freud called “Displacement”.
Displacement is a form of self-defense. It can be helpful in removing one’s focus from the source of one’s pain. It can also be a sneaking away from justified guilt-feelings. A lot of people, and that is not only in UK but also – you know where, put a lot of attention and “Empathy” onto bandwagons they don’t even know – or only half-know. It is exactly that why I never use the word ”empathy”, because it is the typical fake of the person who is incapable of real Sympathy. So, they pretend to “move into the other person’s suffering” (en-pathein = suffer-in), which they cannot really do, simply because they ARE NOT that person.
— Posted by Joan Boost
84.
May 25th,
2007
1:14 pm
The “derision” I see is not aimed at working mothers. It’s aimed at stay-at-home moms.
— Posted by Mark R
85.
May 25th,
2007
1:18 pm
One consideration I always had bringing up two daughters was, if left alone, what would be the permanent psychological effect on the older child if something permanently or terminally bad happened to the younger. I am not expert enough in child psychology to know precisely to what degree a 3 year-old has a concept of responsibility (and a resulting sense of failure, if not guilt), but if, for example, one of the younger twins had been abducted, what would have been the potentially crippling effect on the 3 year-old? To not have thought of this (and to have been considering this every day) shows a negligence, for educated parents, almost beyond comprehension. But in any event, I am terribly sorry for what has happened. Parents are human.
— Posted by Rick
86.
May 25th,
2007
1:21 pm
But the fact remains – people of many nations do not value their children. The children were deliberately left alone for an insanely self-absorbed dinner. For want of a peaceful meal, a child was lost.
.
That said, some parents kill their children without much of a journalistic mention. See FamilyLawCourts.com/kids.html
— Posted by Bonnie
87.
May 25th,
2007
1:35 pm
I agree with many of those who realize that the main issue of the Madeliene McCann story is “Why did these parents leave their young children alone in a hotel room to get dinner when childcare options were available?” It doesn’t matter if the press reports that the mother works or not.
What I’d actually like to see is the press conduct a study – interview children (young and grown) who have/had working mothers. That will give an indication whether a child or family benefits from mother’s employment situation. As we all know, the issue of working mothers can not be simplified into right and wrong or good vs. bad. It’s situational. From a financial perspective, poorer women and families need and must work, wealthier ones have more options. From a personal fulfillment perspective, some women continue to work after having children because they have a passion for what they do, or earning money makes them feel good and gives them a sense of empowerment. Of course, there are many other reasons and explanations why women work. But, how a women’s work affects their families can only be determined when asking those families. Women will always work, for various reasons. We need to start asking the other people in their lives how they are or have been affected to understand the true impact.
— Posted by Ann Meredith
88.
May 25th,
2007
1:39 pm
The judgment of the McCanns was poor. They are very likely to suffer for it the rest of their lives; I can’t begin to imagine the guilt they will feel. Whether or not they thought at the time that it was okay to leave their children as they did, they shouldn’t have done so.
I don’t see what any of this has to do with Mrs. Dr. McCann’s employment status, or her job, or anything. They weren’t even at work. They were on vacation. This is a mistake anyone could have made. So their culture is different from ours as far as its support of working mothers- okay- exactly what does this have to do with a child who was kidnapped while the family was on holiday?
— Posted by Jim Rosenthal
89.
May 25th,
2007
1:46 pm
As a mother who worked full-time from the time my children were six and eight, I resent the attitude toward mothers who work. Some of us have to work. I have a husband. We live in an expensive area. We sent our children to public schools and have one semester left to pay off our daughter’s college tuition (hurray!). I don’t think I could have stayed home full time. My husband had a schedule where he worked nights, so he could be with the children when they were small. My husband and I were involved as much as we could with their activities. We also had family around who were a big help with the child care. I don’t think I would have worked full time if it meant throwing our money into child care.
As mother of two, I can remember when they were young having to take them places because we didn’t want to pay for a sitter or just not doing something. Any vacations with the kids, we never had dinner alone; they were always with us. My other thought is, I can understand wanting to be alone and who would think something would happen to a child like that. Anyway you should spend as much time with your children as possible, because they grow so quickly. My son is 23 and my daughter is 21. My husband keeps saying it seems like yesterday they were just going to nursery school.
— Posted by Barb
90.
May 25th,
2007
1:51 pm
The cultural comparison I find most interesting in this case is this one:
In this country, if you left kids that age (three of them, under 5) alone like that you would be arrested for neglect.
In contrast, I heard a British official explain, empathetically, that everyone needs a break now and then.
Yes, but that’s why there’s child care. Meanwhile, I remember a notorious case where a women was tried b/c she left her young kids at her apt. b/c she had to work a night shift at McDonald’s or lose her job. Her babysitter didn’t come through that night, she went to work and her kid died (a fire, I think, but I can’t recall). She gets criminalized, while if she lost her job, we’d demonize her too.
Meanwhile, this upper middle class lady, who could’ve got care, gets sympathy? Kind of odd, I think.
I do feel for her, b/c I couldn’t go on if I lost one of my kids. But it’s just how all the biases play out that I have a problem with.
Deborah
— Posted by Deborah
91.
May 25th,
2007
1:53 pm
Recently, while visiting my family in PA, we were discussing my nephew’s career path. His new wife was also present. My sister commented that her son needed a “good” job because his wife wanted to be able to stay home to “take care of her children”. My sister’s words felt like a slap in the face. I responded with indignation, “Are you implying that I did not ‘take care’ of my children because I work?” People need to be careful what they say and what they imply.
C. Barnhart, Salt Lake City
— Posted by C. Barnhart
92.
May 25th,
2007
1:58 pm
I just wanted to thank you for all of your columns. I recently went back to college for my 2 year reunion and to hear Gloria Steinem deliver the commencement address. As usual, she was thought provoking, but it is not everyday I get to hear her. So I’m thankful that you are here to provide thought-provoking columns on being a working mother and a woman in America today on a regular basis.
— Posted by EFG
93.
May 25th,
2007
1:59 pm
Ground floor, third floor–what does it matter, any more than whether one or both parents worked? Regrettably, the McCanns made a serious error in judgment by leaving their children unattended–whether at a resort or at home. As others have mentioned, this constitutes child endangerment and neglect. Had children’s protective services received a report of such behavior, it would have been grounds for intervention–at least in the US.
Few children are kidnapped in such situations; many more come to harm because of lack of supervision. The only real surprise here should be the parents’ level of education. My sympathies to them, with hope for a final good outcome.
— Posted by Jean Manly
94.
May 25th,
2007
2:00 pm
“The vile discrimination against working mothers in our country is now so ingrained and so poisonous and so taken for granted that it seeps, all but unnoticed, into the oddest of places…”
Most stay at home mothers would have explained the vile discrimination in this country as against them and their choice to care full time for their children; at least, from their professional peers. Clearly, it is time to stop criticizing a woman’s decision to prioritize profession or children-it is a personal decision based upon personal values. The angst associated with this choice is unavoidable because something of great value must be given up. Only the self-deluded will not feel this angst, and 1,000 “Super Mommy” articles cannot refute it. Ms. Warner and all women with this choice must confront the potential for great future regret as they look back at their decison and wonder what might have been.
— Posted by Greg Krause
95.
May 25th,
2007
2:19 pm
Enough of living lives in fear.
Having dinner within eyeshot of the hotel room seems to me an acceptable thing to do — as another poster said… What is different with that and having dinner outside at your own home with the kids in their beds.
That is not bad parenting that is just plain tragic. Sometimes really bad things happen. That is a fact that no amount of prevention will change.
Living your life in such fear takes away far more “life” than lives.
— Posted by CKCCKC
96.
May 25th,
2007
2:22 pm
I am grateful for this column, because I think there needs to be a lot more frank discussion in this country about the lack of support for mothers overall.
With luck, I will be delivering my first child in five weeks. After that, I will take a three-month maternity leave and then return to work. This decision has been agonizing, made more so by the scorn of some of the people around me. Not only is it audacious to some that I would dare to get pregnant, I have had men in my workplace tell me that I need to stay home with the baby — how ironic that they feel no “need” to stay at home with their children.
I never understood how bitterly divisive this issue was until I got pregnant. I think the pressure on moms is largely hidden, and that the country as a whole does not understand or sympathize with the lose-lose situation mothers are put in. Until we talk openly about childcare, flextime, maternity AND paternity leave for all, all mothers are going to feel inadequate.
— Posted by Jennifer
97.
May 25th,
2007
2:43 pm
All the debate on working mother/good mother/good father means nothing. The fact is that this child disappeared while her parents were “out”. I disliked leaving my children with strangers as well…but the option of leaving them alone never entered my mind. For one hour or a day, this is abandonment.
— Posted by Cheryl Cerbone
98.
May 25th,
2007
2:57 pm
With regard to the child abduction case, how can we come down with such judgment when we absolutely do not know all the facts? With regard to career versus stay-at-home mothering, in the end, we all must live with whatever our choices have been over our lives. There is no right or wrong answer here. It is a personal choice, based on an infinite number of reasons, and for women to scorn women – we who bear so much already – is mean spirited and hard-hearted.
— Posted by cate salenger
99.
May 25th,
2007
3:03 pm
Working mothers make up a class of the vilely discriminated-against in this country? Where does this come from? Isn’t it usually the stay at home mothers who are characterized as foolish unambitious unpaid servants? Why does the author need to turn a tragic event into a platform for her personal resentments, to shift the attention to herself?
By the way, the outpouring of concern for this one child is something that happens periodically in Britain when these tragedies occur. The feelings are mostly genuine and may explain why the murder rate in the UK is 20% of what it is here in the USA.
— Posted by Graham
100.
May 25th,
2007
3:05 pm
This story, on every level, is appalling. First, no children this age should ever be left alone. Period.
In response to the stay at home vs. working mom, I can only say that this isn’t just a problem for the women. My husband and I are both physicians for a large University. We have both experienced various permutations of what I call “parenthood” discrimination. Just recently, one of his male colleagues was in the emergency room all night and morning with his wife and infant. Their infant had developed severe abdominal pain and there was concern that he may need surgery. The wife was a stay at home mom. When he called in and asked for coverage so he could remain with his wife and child, coverage was granted, but there was open, vocal and not disguised anger from those covering him. The opinion was, if Mom didn’t have to go to work and could stay with the child, there was no reason for him to miss work.
By the same token, I have worked with parents who never want to work weekends, evenings, home call, holidays or anything else inconvenient because they have children. They simply expect that all of these responsibilities should be picked up by the single and/or childless – as if they don’t have family and friends to spend time with.
I have sadly realized that it doesn’t matter if you are Mom or Dad, stay at home, work full time, work part time, get a nanny, employ center day care, don’t have kids, don’t get married…someone, somewhere is going to use that decision against you in an effort to make themselves look smarter, more dedicated, or less selfish. Ultimately, the only thing you can rely on is personal reflection and carefully choosing those things that are both meaningful and possible in your life.
— Posted by Heather
101.
May 25th,
2007
3:05 pm
I don’t think that the issue of working mother is fueling negative feedback on this kidnapping tragedy as much as the fact that the children were left alone while the parents were in a restaurant.
Perhaps this is the custom in restaurants in that part of the world where entertainment is geared mostly to adults.
My school newspaper students were outraged that celebrities are giving huge amounts of money for this child. They wrote about the media and how it has brought this child’s story to the world in a full on blitz whereas, children are dying all over the over the world, especially in Africa and they felt that it was distasteful that the same kind of attention isn’t given to those children.
— Posted by Zoe
102.
May 25th,
2007
3:11 pm
I think Ms. Warner is grossly overthinking and mischaracterizing the “People” Mag quote. It’s just another detail about this one specific mother, and having read the quote three times to be sure, I simply could not find judgement in it toward working mothers. Maybe if you really really look. And it seems as though that is what Ms. Warner wants to find. Just because the magazine says Mrs. McCann stopped working full-time doesn’t mean that the editors think terrible things deserve to happen to working mothers. That’s a completely ridiculous, rather paranoid, leap in my opinion.
— Posted by yvonne
103.
May 25th,
2007
3:21 pm
I haven’t read the People magazine article, but maybe that gives me a different perspective. When you tell me the author wrote about the mother having cut her working hours, I don’t read that as “she didn’t even remotely deserve to have terrible things happen to her.” Instead, I read: (1) on a human interest level, the mother cut her hours and this terrible thing still happened; but (2) far more importantly: if this terrible thing can happen to someone who is able to reduce her hours, just think how vulnerable most of America’s working families (where parents do not have the luxury to simply reduce their hours) must be.
I understand what Judith Warner is saying, and I agree there are instances in which the media treats some people as “innocent victims,” thereby implying that the rest of the population must somehow be complicit in the fate that has befallen them (remember the “innocent victims” of AIDS?). However, I don’t think this is one of those instances.
— Posted by Michael Conley
104.
May 25th,
2007
3:32 pm
I would just like to point out, as others have done, although few people seem to have taken note, that while the McCann’s obviously displayed an error of judgement about the safety of their children in the apartment, they could see the apartment from where they were dining, and were checking on the children every half hour. I don’t understand why they didn’t take advantage of the fact that there was a sitting service available, but what they did is not the same as leaving the children entirely unattended.
Also, as a Brit, I am puzzled by the claims that in Britain mothers tend not to work. I have failed to think of a single example of a non-working mother who does not work, except for the very deprived unemployed mothers of children I used to work with who lived in social housing. However most mothers I know were able to work part-time while their children were young, which seems to be much easier over here than it is in the States.
However from what I have seen, motherhood in general seems to be less fetishized over here than it is in America.
— Posted by Sarah
105.
May 25th,
2007
3:59 pm
Um….how do we know the child was kidnapped?
— Posted by Anne
106.
May 25th,
2007
4:06 pm
Bad things happen to people in this world. But we always have to dissect the event, shoulda coulda, woulda. We’re fat and sleek and bad things seem so inconvenient. Surely, they would NEVER happen to us.
— Posted by Hal S.
107.
May 25th,
2007
4:11 pm
Why are we so amazed that “educated” people might make such an irrevocable error, as if it is a mistake more easily assigned to “uneducated” people. This mistake, from which the parents will certainly never recover, is not the result of lack of education or intelligence, nor should social class have bearing. It is a lack of good judgment. But what allows any of us to read articles, listen to the news, and then imagine we “know” the circumstances? What allows us to determine they are bad parents — are we there each day and night? Do we know what the children are fed, how they are treated?
It happened. It is horrible. It may have been their fault. Why not reach out to these surely broken and destroyed people and extend compassion? Why does it make us feel better to condemn them — its so easy to point fingers, take sides, get on a high horse about abuse, neglect, bad parenting.
Imagine, REALLY imagine for just one moment, what it is like to be them. They made a terrible mistake, took what must have felt like a small risk, and got the worst possible result. What good is your criticism actually doing except making you feel there is a large difference between your behavior and theirs?
It is much harder to suspend fear and to offer understanding. These are not murderers, these are two people whose child is perhaps taken from them forever, and even worse, it is a result of their own bad decision. Imagine that for a moment, learn from it, and concentrate on something you can change — like the millions of children in need.
— Posted by Carveth Martin
108.
May 25th,
2007
4:14 pm
I think that you should consider the source when discussing the People Magazine article and its simplistic portrayal of Mrs. McCann’s mothering skills and level of devotion. People Magazine is just that: simple, gossip-driven drivel and of course its writers are going to tap into the most base and ugliest human emotions — that’s how they garner readership and get the readers hooked.
Is it part of a larger epidemic of how parents are portrayed — probably, but who cares? As a working mother, I could care less how the media portrays me; I know that I’m doing the best job that I can and have come to grips with the fact that the media oftentimes has nothing to do with reality.
— Posted by Dora
109.
May 25th,
2007
4:16 pm
As very young parents my husband and I several times committed equally unthinking and selfish acts with respect to leaving our children unattended, of which I am of course now very ashamed. But at some point every parent has to face allowing his child to do something by himself that has potential danger. The crierion that I ended up using was: If the worst happened, would I be able to forgive myself?
— Posted by Kate
110.
May 25th,
2007
4:39 pm
I agree with Elizabeth in Comment #1. The issue here is that they left there three-year-olds alone. That was a serious and unfortunate mistake. I think we can all feel compassion for them, both for making such a mistake (hello, with all the parenting education resources available to us in this age, it is NOT okay to leave your three-year-olds unattended) and for the fear, loss (hopefully not lasting loss), and anxiety they now experience. I wonder if criticizing the media’s language and how it may have disrespected working mothers isn’t a little bit of a diversion.
The fact that one or both of the parents was taking time off work does indicate a tangible sacrifice he or she was making for the good of the children. It is a “mitigating factor” that anyone wishing to present the good qualities of the parents as a counterbalance to the harsh judgment they might received from the public would want to highlight.
— Posted by TimesReader
111.
May 25th,
2007
4:40 pm
The problem is that we are all judgemental and think we know what is best. It’s not just about mothers, parents, working or stay-at-home. We all think we know what is best. I’d say, we really only know (possibly) what is best for ourselves and our family.
The rest is just speculation. Everybody’s situation and children are absurdly different. You don’t know what another person’s experience has been.
“To even come close to understanding a single human life, you’ve got to understand the entire *universe*. Let me know when you get close.” -Adam Cadre
— Posted by Trish
112.
May 25th,
2007
4:44 pm
I appreciate and agree with most of Ms. Warner’s piece, but I strongly disagree with her comments regarding “this fear of babysitters – this grossly over-generalized terror.” In fact, there is good reason to be afraid of babysitters, as our family learned all too well. My wife and I went out for a rare “date night,” and our four year old son was sexually abused by his babysitter’s nephew. Ironically, this was a babysitter we knew well (she had formerly been our son’s nanny), and we rarely go out on date nights for fear of leaving our son with people outside of our immediate family. Perhaps this was a rare, unlucky incident, but I can tell you from first hand experience that it DOES happen, and our family is still dealing with the consequences.
— Posted by JC
113.
May 25th,
2007
5:02 pm
The criminal lapse of judgment on the part of the parents must not be ignored whilst the horror of the so-called abduction and the red herring of the prevailing attitudes about working mothers are both trotted out. There is criminal neglect here at the very least; but then, we don’t really know what happened to Madeleine, do we?
— Posted by Susan Cook
114.
May 25th,
2007
5:05 pm
The “vile discrimination” that working mothers may encounter is often equalled by the disdain with which many working mothers regard stay-at-home moms. I’ve witnessed countless times that working mothers have turned away from my wife in mid-sentence up learning that she is not an active member of the working sisterhood. I assure you, she doesn’t turn away from them.
— Posted by John
115.
May 25th,
2007
5:05 pm
I am now sending my oldest off to college. I have always worked and my children were well-taken care of in a variety of situations. My son, who is now 18, is wonderful, well-adjusted, smart and loving, as is my 16 year-old daughter. I am exhausted by this debate. We all make the best decisions we can about our children and unnecessary judgment is not helpful.
— Posted by Deborah
116.
May 25th,
2007
5:16 pm
I’m in no position to compare British and American attitudes toward working mothers, but as an American I think the point about American attitudes is well taken. I remember some years ago the case of the custody beattle between the biological father and adoptive mother non-biological mother, on the one hand, and the surrogate mother and the non-biological adoptive father on the other. The woman who was hired to conceive a baby with the father’s sperm and deliver it to term became too attached to the child to relinquish it, and won custody in court. I’m not taking issue with that, but I do remember the vicious abuse heaped on the woman who would have raised the child if the father had prevailed. She (a working professional) had been told that pregnancy and childbirth would worsen her multiple schlerosis, and so the couple took a different route. Had they simply adopted, who would have criticized her? Instead, she agreed to raise the biological chld of her husband and another woman. For not being a stay-at-home mom (albeit one willing at one point to bear offspring for a fee), and for not being willing to risk her health in order to be a mother, she was called every name in the book. It’s an extreme example, but I’ve never forgotten it.
— Posted by ducdebrabant
117.
May 25th,
2007
5:43 pm
In today’s world you cannot let your child out of your sight. A simply bike ride by themselves can wind up in abduction and tragdy. I had great freedom as a child. My friends and I wandered all over without fear. My children had this as youngsters but one day I realized that my young daughter should not be selling girl scout cookies or trick and treating without accompaniment. I would not allow my grandchildren to even go down to the mailbox without me. How sad that you can’t allow your children to go out in the yard to play along safely. I cannot ever imagine leaving such young children alone as this couple did for any reason on this earth. It is heartbreaking. JPace
— Posted by JPace
118.
May 25th,
2007
5:54 pm
i am the mother of a 2 and 4 yr old (and a working mom, for what that’s worth). i completely agree with the posters who emphasized the complete irresponsibility of the parents in this case. yes, we parents need to be less judgmental of other parents’ choices when it comes to ‘little’ things. but this was a colossal error in judgment (and yes, selfishness) that shouldn’t go ‘unjudged.’ even though my 4 yr old is smart, responsible, and careful, i would NEVER leave him alone in the house, let alone a hotel in a foreign country! as for the 2 yr old, i can’t even begin to consider leaving him alone in the house or anywhere for that matter. the number of things that could go wrong shouldn’t even need elaboration.
as for the media coverage, i think it was typical american media trying to be ‘balanced’/objective, by bringing in quotes about how the parents were decent, caring people and how mom reduced her work schedule to be home more with them, etc. nevertheless, the fundamentals remain: the parents were incredibly selfish and stupid, M.D.’s nonwithstanding… they could’ve each gone to the restaurant separately, leaving one parent with the kids and switching off. i don’t begrudge them their desire to relax, enjoy themselves, be kid-free for a while, but not at the expense of their kids’ safety! we’re not talking about a parent going into the kitchen to cook some chicken while a 2 yr old runs around the living room, or some other minor lapse in watching-your-kid-like-a-hawk.
so, while i think parents, especially moms, come in for a lot of undue and ridiculous criticism in this country, i also feel that this let’s-not-judge-other-people’s-choices thing is misapplied far too often. let’s call a spade a spade – the parents screwed up, big time, and it’s tragic for the child that is probably dead, and yes, even for the parents who were so stupid. but let’s not try to make excuses for them.
— Posted by beth
119.
May 25th,
2007
5:57 pm
I find it interesting that in all these comments, it is the Americans who are absolutely convinced that there is never a right time to leave children alone. My experience abroad is that things like seatbelts and leaving children alone are left to the discretion of parents, and that there is far more trust of the individual’s right to make decisions.
I think this only points an extremely overprotective society that overregulates every aspect of behavior until there are far fewer freedoms to choose lifestyle than before.
— Posted by kim
120.
May 25th,
2007
6:19 pm
When my daughter who is now 28 was two, I went to a dinner party at the home of friends. There was another couple present, both British academics. In order to come to the dinner party, they had put their own five year old and their own infant to sleep, and driven to the party. NO babysitter. They remarked that it was their standard procedure if they wished to go out. (I hasten to add that my child had a babysitter). I remember being dumbfounded that the couple had done such a thing. They seemed entirely confident that nothing bad could happen–indeed, they seemed not to have thought about it. I think a far more interesting question, if we are contrasting cultures, is the question of whether the McCann’s leaving the children alone is common among English parents.
— Posted by cheerfulray
121.
May 25th,
2007
6:29 pm
This is a fascinating thread -
As a child who was left at the age of 8 to babysit her brother of 2 years while my parents were out, while in Corsica, I find the whole thing scary now, but it was a common practice then.
I agree that we cannot judge what the parents chose to do, we were not in their environment -
As a working mother, I too feel that the “system” is not very helpful – To the people who characterize working parents as being 9-to-5 people who expect the slack to be picked up by the childless ones, I have enough examples of my working until the sun comes up to meet a deadline to believe this is a gross exaggeration. My kid’s dad has been working essentially 2 jobs because his company cannot find qualified staff. What makes it possible for us to do this and still take care and spend time with 2 little boys? telecommuting. They sleep while we work!
I am lucky, my company is definitely mommy-friendly. No issues there. They know I am committed to my job, they let me leave when I need to take care of my family.
Where I find discrimination? In the established system. (Note to Jennifer above, the bigger shock will come when your first child enters Kindergarten). My oldest gets out of school at 2:25pm – While he is doing better with the after school care now, it was difficult for him when he was only 5. Meanwhile, the youngest is still in daycare which is far more accommodating to a working schedule. How do single parents do it I wonder? For the record, I went to school from 8:30 in the morning until 4:30pm in the evening (with, had we needed it optional after school care until 6pm) – I liked it – we had 2 nice 1/2 hour recesses and a 2 hour lunch break.
For the record, I don’t find stay at home mom to be anything but nice, helpful and understanding. So I have decided that the media is perpetrating this “mommy wars”, with some help from institutions that operates the way it did in the 50s.
But let’s face it: “Moms at home and moms working outside the home get along, respect and help each other” is not a very exciting headline, though I bet it is not so far fetched.
Frederique
— Posted by Frederique
122.
May 25th,
2007
6:31 pm
I cannot imagine the horror that these parents are going through, nor do I understand why people are focusing on the working mother issue, when the only issue in this case is the fact that a pediatrician left three very young children alone. Striving parents don’t seem to be able to give up the accoutrements of an upper middle class life style in order to take care of their children. Get it–having children changes everything, unless of course you are a star with a cadre of caretakers. Motherhood or fatherhood-they are both hard jobs because to be done well, these jobs involve sacrifice, thoughtfulness, frustration, and you don’t get to go home after hours. To reiterate Dr. Klein’s comment, in California, these parent’s would be prosecuted for child neglect and referred for counseling. The McCanns will need a lifetime of recovery, for the sake of one “romantic dinneer.”
— Posted by Lil Gluckstern, Marriage and Family Therapist
123.
May 25th,
2007
6:38 pm
self-absorbed dinner? See comment #86. I shall assume most of the comments were written by those who have never travelled to like resorts either in the USA or abroad. However I assume many or most have gone outside a cottage or next door to a neighbor’s yard while a child slept inside. Was this not a patio AND a ground floor room in full view? How can this possibly compare to a mother who goes to a job as someone commented ?How many yards were the parents from the room AND how many yards are the home lots of those writing to condemn!
— Posted by ruth
124.
May 25th,
2007
6:45 pm
Madeline is a pretty, little white girl.
The disappearance of white girls is always press-worthy. Remember Elizabeth Smart? And how many years have we obsessed over JonBenet?
This is isn’t about being a “working” mother —
factory secretary or Cabinet Secretary. This did not occur because Madeline’s mother chose a career beyond her own front door.
This occured due to parental neglect. Period.
Being a “working” mother should never exempt one from being a responsible parent. And any mother who leaves her child behind without compotent, adult supervision is simply a NEGLIGENT mother.
Poor sweet Madeline is to be pitied, but the kidnapping is only a portion of her ill-deserved fate.
— Posted by Confounded on the Coast
125.
May 25th,
2007
6:59 pm
I would like one fact to stay clear: all the reports I have read indicate that the restuarant was about 100 yards away from the hotel room. For perspective, that is the full length of an American football field. Not too many of us have backyards that large. And altho that may be within ‘eyesight’, it is certainly not a viewing distance which would enable the parents to know if something was going wrong in the room, nor to respond in time. As for the people who are questioning why people assume Madeleine was abducted, it was reported that her mother ran back to the restaurant shouting “They’ve taken her!”
I do not think that people who are criticizing the parents’ behavior are doing it to give themselves the false illusion of being ’safer’. I think they are remembering the many times they were faced with convenience, or enjoyment, over safety in their own everyday parenting and knew which choice they had to make.
— Posted by fran
126.
May 25th,
2007
7:12 pm
The discussion on mommy-bashing is fine, well put, and important, but this is a bad case for discussion. The parent’s choice to leave these small children unattended in a hotel trumps the rest, unfortunately.
— Posted by Laurie Balmuth
127.
May 25th,
2007
7:20 pm
Excuse me. What does this have to do with working vs. non-working mothers? Do stay-at-home (non-working-for -pay) moms NOT GO OUT TO DINNER? This is clearly the logic expressed. This is about parents who will forever regret their decision to leave young children alone in a strange place. This has NO more to do with the mother working than the father working. They WEREN’T WORKING! They were out to dinner. Bad idea.
— Posted by Alecia Stevens
128.
May 25th,
2007
7:52 pm
When I first read the article, I envisioned a 3 year-old and older twin siblings – maybe aged 6 or 7? Then I saw the family picture and realized the 3 year-old was the oldest! Ny head started to hurt at that moment. These twins were just babies! I’m a working mom of 2 young children who could spend hours writing about feelings and experiences around that issue. But my plight as a working mom seems sorely insignificant in light of the fact that these children were left alone so young. My head still hurts.
— Posted by Cate
129.
May 25th,
2007
8:07 pm
I have read this column several times, and I am starting to get very discouraged about how vitriolic the “mommy wars” have become. My own mother was a single mom who put herself through college to get off welfare after fleeing an abusive husband who threatened to kill her and being rejected by parents who were embarassed at the half-breed status of their mixed race grandchildren in the early ’70s. My own wife and I have worked hard to allow her the benefit of staying home with our three boys (8, 5 and 2 yrs. old) and homeschooling them, even though it has made our financial situation much more difficult. I am very grateful that such an intelligent, hardworking and upright woman has decided to do this rather than focusing on her career, at least not until the children are older and need less attention/childcare. However, for me to say that one woman was a good mother and the other not seems really crazy, and more or less a typically Western false dichotomy.
It seems to me that men and women do the best they can with the circumstances they find themselves in, and try to do what is right by their families, their moral values, and their very real financial, emotional and spritual needs. It seems that we all very often try to justify ourselves (whether or not that is necessary) by denigrating those who have made different choices (or found themselves in different circumstances). Very often in the comments to this column I see working moms insinuating that their stay-at-home contemporaries are lazy, while the mothers who are not working outside the home imply that those mothers who do work in the outside world care less about their children than they do. I think this is really silly and very disrespectful, since without knowing what someone else’s home life is like, we presume to justify ourselves by subtly (or not-so-subtly) attacking those who have made different choices. I hope that people will be gentler and less quick to assume they know the state of someone else’s home, but I am not optimistic at this point. Perhaps some calm and a dose of humility would really help the dialogue here…
— Posted by SP
130.
May 25th,
2007
9:33 pm
Ms. Warner makes some salient points about the different attitudes between the U.S. and the U.K regarding working mothers. However, given the fact that three young children were left alone by their parents who chose to have a romantic dinner together, Ms. Warner has entirely missed the mark about the most significant aspect of this tragedy.
Parents with fewer resources and far less education than two physicians have used better judgment in caring for their children. As a mother who worked at times but mostly stayed home to raise children, I know that children can get hurt even when they’re right under your nose. But leaving them unattended is unthinkable and grossly negligent.
This story reminds me of a time when I was in Hawaii. I was on the beach at night and ran into a woman whose pocketbook was stolen because she left it on a bench while she strolled the beach. I waited with her until the police arrived. The policewoman told me that when people come to Hawaii they think they’ve arrived in paradise and all reason goes out the window. She said they do things they would never do at home. I’m afraid the same thing holds true in this case. The McCanns thought they found paradise in this Portuguese resort. I seriously doubt they would have left their children unattended back home in the U.K.
The argument between working and non-working mothers will continue to rage on. Even though Ms. Warner tries valiantly to connect the dots back to this issue, in this case it really is of little or no importance.
— Posted by Beth
131.
May 25th,
2007
11:17 pm
“Cultural hysteria over working motherhood”? Each ceneration has it’s own cross to bear, I suppose. I was a ’stay-at-home mother’ beginning in the 1950s. Don’t you think I cringe from the frequent questions I hear: “what did you do?” “What did you retire from?” I choose from two answers depending on my mood; “I haven’t retired, I still have to do what I’ve always done” or “I never worked for money!”
I like your contributions, usually, but please be careful, avoid a narrow perspective.
— Posted by Virginia Cleary
132.
May 25th,
2007
11:23 pm
I am a working mother and the stay-at-home widowed mama of a teenaged child with cerebral palsy. Anyone who really wants to understand hatred-of-the-working-mother should talk to the mothers of handicapped children.
— Posted by Karen
133.
May 26th,
2007
12:32 am
These parents made a horrible decision that they will regret forever. From what I understand, they felt that leaving their children in the hotel room was no different then having dinner in their garden (something I’m sure many people do regularly ) because of their close proximity. Obviously, this was poor judgement but I am amazed at how cold hearted some of these responses are and it makes me wonder whether some of that mean spiritedness is class warfare itself. Just because this family had means does not mean they were immune to making a dumb decision or that they dont love there children as much as anyone else. It was stupid. They are suffering. They will suffer forever. Have some compassion and save the venom for whoever took this child.
As for the stay at home mom vs. working mom debate, I think people need to not make snap judgements across the board. I am a stay at home Mom who is lucky enough to have the financial security to make this an easy decision. What also makes the decision easy is that I enjoy it and get great satisfaction from it (although of course I have moments of envy when I see friends with nannies who actually get regular haircuts and even go out to dinner more then on just their birthday or anniversary!) I believe I am a great mom but it is not just because I stay home. Lets be honest, how many friends do we all have who were raised by stay at home Moms who “damaged” these children (now adults) in countless ways?
This stay at home vs. working debate elicits such a varied opinions. If you stay at home you are either being virtuous or you are a deluded loser giving up your identity. I have to say when I do ever feel a negetive reaction to my situation in real life (not just in the media)it is usually from a woking Mom who I beleieve is struggling with her own situation and resents what she percieves as my ease with the situation (of course, nothing is as easy as it seems). I am not all that virtuous nor am I a deluded loser, I made the decision that worked best for me at the time and I may choose to re-enter the work force at some time in the near or more distant future based on what I think works best for my family. I think whats important is that every family needs to make the decision that is best for their family as a whole- emotionally, spiritually and financially. We need to do less judging and more supporting of all mothers.
— Posted by brooklyn
134.
May 26th,
2007
12:42 am
I agree with Kim, #119, that we have grown extremely overprotective. JPace, #117, states that children can’t even go to the mailbox alone. This is the safest time in the history of the world to raise children, and yet we obsess about things such as stranger abduction, which is vanishingly rare.
It would be terrible if that happened to my kids — terrible. But the chances of it happening are slim. I’d rather take calculcated risks, and raise kids who are independent and not fearful that a bogeyman lurks behind every bush.
American attitudes toward childrearing have become frighteningly judgmental. Parents rightly fear making any small error — allowing their child any measure of independence — because they know that if they make the wrong choice, the court of public opinion will be very harsh indeed.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this attitude has arisen at a time during which most mothers work outside the home. It’s a way of instilling anxiety in mothers that nothing they do will ever be enough to protect their child, that nothing short of 100%, 24/7 vigilance, will be enough. That no one but a parent will ever be enough.
These parents made a horrible mistake, one they will pay for for the rest of their lives. I’ll bet that every parent on this board who is clutching her pearls at this story knows, if she is honest, that she has been guilty also of shocking lapses of judgment during her child’s life. I certainly have. Not proud of it, but I’m human. Luckily, it usually turns out OK. When it doesn’t turn out OK, we allow those parents to bear our collective guilt.
— Posted by Jen
135.
May 26th,
2007
12:50 am
Thank you to Carveth Martin (# 107) regarding the all-too-human need to condemn for any choice other than the one we would have made (work/stay at home; sympathy/lock them up). Despite the numerous statements from those who have lived in European countries who state that it is commonplace to leave small children for short periods of time, there is the inevitable avalanche of condemnation about the “criminal” neglect committed by these parents, warranting their other two children to be taken away. Life is full of danger, and undoubtedly many people who have followed that practice in Europe will think twice about it due to this single family’s terrible misfortune. They do not need to hear the abuse of the hysterical set to remind them of it.
— Posted by bgb
136.
May 26th,
2007
1:38 am
I suspect that the bad press for working mothers in the USA is part of the upsurge in right wing ‘family vlaues’ that, besides regulating what is good and not good for a woman and/or her body, also harks back to the time when most women spent time at home raising their kids. Educated, capable and career oriented women have always been tolerated to some degree – but all those working mothers who kept the family together through depression years and World War II have been relegated to the sidelines. Lets not stress the fact that women have always worked (and damn hard too!) whether at home or on the farm or in the factory or sweatshop – and have always contributed to their family’s well being. As to the McCann’s – leaving a 5 yr old to care for younger siblings: just bad judgment.
— Posted by R. Amit
137.
May 26th,
2007
1:39 am
I’m not sure how a tragic story of a little girl’s abduction has transformed itself into a meditation on the status of working-mothers in the US and UK. The one issue that should be stressed is the existence of rings or individuals that attempt to kidnap children. Surely part of our rage should be saved for them.
— Posted by John
138.
May 26th,
2007
5:23 am
I just read through all of the postings here, and I must agree: too much is claimed to be said against working mums. There has, I admit, been some criticism – simply because we had to come off the early feminist dream of the working world as the liberating paradise. It was like the birds fleeing the nest – but forgetting the reality of preying animals out there. And tar-brushing family, children, pregnancy, periods, and sex as inventions of male oppression brought motherhood and family sense into disrepute.
There is much more of that around than of the shaming of working mothers. Just think of Linda Hirshman and the majority of so-called “Women’s Magazines”. Whom are they praising? – The career and office ladies. And whom are they scolding? – The stay at home women. It’s not a “Mommies’ War” but one of “Ladies’ or Women’s Rights”.
I agree wholeheartedly in this with Deborah (#47) and Crystal (#69). And it is good some others wrote that we must make it clear there are two options – but not always a true choice: Mothers –as well as fathers- who work are not doing that generally because they both want to flee their home, but because they have to. The “liberation of the work force” has turned them both into wage and mortgage slaves – and yes: the children suffer. It’s not the mothers –nor the fathers- who need a real change: it is our system which has put us all “on the market” – as goods and chattels for sale and hire.
Our children suffer from our absence, and that should be avoided – even if it is just for a time: essential growth and perception time. And again: we can go the wrong way there. That is where I find Nikka’s (#71) Swedish model dangerous. If “Family” is defined in the reduction of only “a mother and her children”, that is the sure way to “the fatherless society”, which is not a good one. The single parent family is far from any ideal – it is again just a hate-dream of some bitter spinsters.
Children need mothers. And they need fathers, too. The Swedish model would only, very condescendingly, “allow” fathers a standing on some sideline, but nothing anywhere near equality. It is a dangerous line of policy which is actually anti-feminist, because it would lead to the total marginalization of our fathers, husbands, sons – basically to loneliness – for us, as much as for our children. Feminism is not Striving for Supremacy but for Equality and a fair life for all.
At least, it should be – and is what we fought for.
Dr. Joan Boost
— Posted by Dr. Joan Boost
139.
May 26th,
2007
9:23 am
One writer above mentioned the “fetishization” of motherhood in the United States–to which I would add the fetishization of childhood. Does anyone else remember the incident several years back when a European couple visiting Manhattan left their child in a stroller outside a restaurant while they dined? Americans behaved like bloodthirsty villagers chasing Frankenstein’s monster. Yet this was revealed to be common practice in the parents’ native country. They weren’t being negligent or abusive; they simply took it for granted that their child would be as safe–and the integrity of their family as respected–in the United States as at home. HA!
I have heard that in Iceland parents routinely bundle up their babies and place them outdoors to nap in their prams so that they get plenty of fresh air. Here anyone who did such a thing would be tossed in the slammer and pilloried by the press.
It seems we’re all too eager to glom on to “multicultural” childrearing when it suits us–attachment parenting, the family bed, etc. And notice that these practices, which many experts believe to be wholly unhealthy and potentially deadly, are all about keeping children physically and emotionally close at all costs. This is how paranoid we’ve become as a society. One writer above said she wouldn’t let her grandchildren walk to the mailbox alone. So we’re okay with the idea of maybe squashing the baby in our bed but not okay with having an eight-year-old fetch the mail? Look, there’s no question the world has its share of dangerous, up-to-no-good types. But at some point a parent, or a grandparent, has got to loosen up and allow a kid to take some risks. Walking to the mailbox seems like a good place to start.
Perhaps the real problem is that globalization has allowed us Americans to export our freaks and perverts around the world, forcing other parents to change the way they’ve–by all accounts successfully–done things for centuries.
— Posted by Nancy Dziedzic
140.
May 26th,
2007
9:56 am
Sam, #42: The People magazine article (which I read while standing in line at the grocery store) said that the restaurant was actually 50 yards away. I remember that because at first I thought it was just right beside their hotel room. Nope. Fifty yards is pretty far. I would not have been comfortable leaving three tiny kids alone that far away for an hour at a time.
Once I was camping at a large campground in the Everglades with my son and some other adults. The kids were running around the campsite at night. Suddenly I couldn’t find my son. I looked for him frantically for a long time. Eventually he turned up with one of the other adults. It turned out he had walked down a highway to look for me, because somebody told him I had gone to a bar! A friend who was in the bar walked him back to the campground, luckily. He was about six or seven at the time, too young to be walking down a highway at night, going to a bar!
I wasn’t exactly negligent in this case, I don’t think, but it illustrates what a kid might do when he finds himself alone and goes to look for a parent.
— Posted by elizabeth
141.
May 26th,
2007
9:58 am
Comment #61:
“As for having dinner in the backyard, my backyard is not in a foreign country. I know my neighborhood. Who goes to another country and leaves a 3-year old and two 2-year olds unattended? Negligent parents.”
Oh, poof. For starters, any country is only foreign to those who are visiting. If kidnappings are not a feature of the culture in a country, parents visiting it should not plan for that contingency just because they are abroad. Depending on where they’re from, the foreign country might even be safer.
Perhaps the US really is as dangerous as many reader comments here indicate – like the lady who would not let her children walk to the mailbox alone. Most European countries certainly are not, and especially not nice resorts in European countries.
I’ve only followed this case with half an eye in Swedish media, but original reports speculated that the culprit was British (that is, not a “foreigner” to the McCanns in the xenophobic sense reflected in the quote above).
And as for the girl wandering off, I am confident no child, no matter break their level of distress, can break into its bedroom from the outside while still inside.
Should children this young be left unsupervised? I do not know. Probably not during the day. But the process of teaching children to feel safe without the presence of a parent is started earlier in Europe than in the US. If a parent checks in on a sleeping child every hour, doing so from the yard is no different from doing so from the other end of a largish house.
If a child awakes in the night, in a room where its siblings are sound asleep, this does not necessarily trigger panic. Some safe and confident children will go to sleep again on their own, without a fuss, without tears, without trauma. Only the McCanns know whether that was the case with theirs.
— Posted by Johanna
142.
May 26th,
2007
10:37 am
This debate reminds me of the Michael Moore movie, Bowling for Columbine. He discovers that Canadians have a lot of guns, but they don’t shoot each other as much as we do. Why? Because they are less fearful. They worry less about crime. They don’t lock their doors, etc.
In that movie this seemed like an attractive quality in Canadians. Maybe the British are a bit like this too, less likely to have paranoid thoughts about what might happen if they left their kids alone. In this case, as it turned out, paranoia would have been justified.
So who’s right? American parents worry constantly about what could happen to their children. We live in a more violent, crime-ridden culture, and some of our worries are justified. The British apparently worry less. Maybe it’s (mostly) perfectly safe to leave children unattended in England, where violent crime is not as common as it is here. I guess the lesson of the story is: when in a foreign country, assume nothing. Be paranoid, even, until you understand the culture better and what a reasonable risk might be.
— Posted by shannon
143.
May 26th,
2007
10:48 am
In an informal and small poll of female friends who have chosen different paths in motherhood (stay-at-home, part time and full time) none of them reported that they felt villified for choices in parenting. So I am confused by the tone of Ms Warner’s statements regarding the villification of working mothers. In our community this isn’t so. Anhyone else have the same experience. Also, with regarding to choosing between career and parenting….THERE ARE ALWAYS CHOICES!
As the primary (and male) caregiver for our two children (soon to be 3!) I made the decision to forego a science research field and focus on teaching in order to spend more time with my children. It was hard. It was a sacrifice. And it was met with mixed reviews and patronizing from colleagues and mentors. But aren’t our kids worth some sacrifice? I think it is better to have made career sacrifices rather then miss out on our kids’ lives.
— Posted by Matt Nyman
144.
May 26th,
2007
12:07 pm
As a mother of a 17 yr. old and a 22 yr. old I look back on those seemingly endless years of their early childhoods with relish. I chose to stay at home with them to offer them lot of myself and to know a lot about them. Conversly to Ms. Warner, I would feel elated when summer rolled around. I write this as a reminder that time flies and childhood is irretrievable. Protecting the fleeting innocence of it is hugely important.
— Posted by molly
145.
May 26th,
2007
12:15 pm
Why don’t you post my comments? I am very critical of the current column, but use language without profanity and similar to Warner’s. When Warner uses extreme language to condemn what I consider false perceptions (of the great majority) of people’s comments about working mothers, then she needs and deserves to be held accountable. It really seems that she needs psychological therapy, and should not be allowed to emote in a Times column. By the way, I raised my son by myself and he has turned out splendidly. I had to deny myself lots of freedom and pleasures, but hold no grudge like Warner.
— Posted by Thomas Hirsch
146.
May 26th,
2007
1:09 pm
The uproar over one missing child amazes me. This abduction is sad and very terribIe, but I wish that we could have the same outcry over some more pressing issues..women’s rights in africa for example. It is one middle class white child. People identify with the parents…. Which is why people are so enthralled. And this sells magazines and newspapers.
I think what we now consider ” the news” in general is far too concerned with what the people want. I think newspapers and television have a responsibility to inform us as to what is going on, and not only to cater to what the average joe wants to see. The fear is that may lose the audience and your advertising revenue. Of course you may also interest and educate the population… but that may be an overly optimistic.
— Posted by Jasper
147.
May 26th,
2007
3:56 pm
What struck me most about this email exchange is that about 20 of the female respondents signed their names all in lower case letters, while only 2 of the males did. What kind of meaning should I read into that behavior? That females don’t think enough of themselves to capitalize their names? That it’s ‘cute’ to write in only lower case? Is it just sloppy?
— Posted by Bonny
148.
May 26th,
2007
4:21 pm
Having lived overseas for most of the last 25 years, in Africa and in Europe, interacting with a diverse multi-cultural community, I have learned, as did ‘post 120′ that it is completely acceptable in many cultures to leave young or even very young children alone sleeping when the parents go out. It was never within my comfort level to do this – my main worry was fire, sudden illness or burglars (not the worry so much about kidnappers, but you never know) – but I realized that most people I have met simply do not worry as much as I do (about anything!), or expect the worst the way I do. So, of course, part of me feels that the McCanns were irresponsible, but another part of me realizes this was within the norm for their culture. But, it should be a wake up call to parents – there is simply too much risk in leaving young children alone (for example, in case of fire – a smoke alarm would do nothing for young children, they would have no idea how to react). What the McCanns must be going through is unimaginable, and they must surely be punishing themselves for this enough without the rest of us punishing them!
On the ‘working mother’ v. ‘non-working mother’ issue; I have lived in France for many years and have many women friends who are gainfully employed outside of their homes and many friends (like myself) who are employed at home (when I have to fill in ‘job description’ I put ‘domestic manager’). But, here, there is really no animosity between those two categories of women. But from what I hear in the US – and even from old friends or ours who are American – it seems like a never ending competition – who is more worthy, who has the harder job, etc. etc. What gives? What is the big deal? I think people should do and be what they want or need to be and that should be it! It would not have been my choice to have worked outside the home and leave my children in other people’s care, but I certainly don’t begrudge women for whom that is their choice or who did not have the luxury of that choice! Americans, calm down and accept each other!!!
— Posted by EM
149.
May 26th,
2007
4:53 pm
Ms. Warner’s comments about the general American attitude towards working mothers seem on target.
I would suggest the other side of the issue she is raising, largely undiscussed, is our culture’s views of stay-at-home fathers.
If working American mothers are somehow seen as less than what they should be (less attentive, less involved, less caring, more self-absorbed, failed women, etc.), stay-at-home American fathers are, in my experience, judged with equal severity (as flops in their former careers, soft, weak, “lost”, and to complete the parallel, failed men.)
The phenomenon Ms. Warner points out is real, but come on, it’s only half the problem.
— Posted by Athomewiththekids
150.
May 26th,
2007
4:56 pm
Yes, I met a British lady on vacation – we both had toddlers. I was positively shocked at her obliviousness. First the kid was splashing in the water, so I felt I needed to keep watching him because she wasn’t. Then some people were playing music on the beach. One of her little tykes was beating a rhythm to the music out of sync with the music. It was obviously annoying to the musicians, but she was fine with it. Probably is a cultural thing. Still, leaving young kids in a hotel room seems insane to me. But then, some parents probably regarded me as overly vigilant. If in fact children are left along more in England, it would be worth looking at accident rates. Maybe there isn’t a difference. There are many ways to raise kids, and we all think our own is right.
— Posted by Diahni
151.
May 26th,
2007
6:08 pm
I loved this article. I have an eleven month old son and I am a full time student. I am placing him in daycare for September. Even though I am only in my 20s, I am so embarassed for not having a grounded career yet and raising a child. I have an aunt who wouldn’t work for ten years “because she couldn’t understand how people could just leave their children with someone”. Childcare is a reality that we shouldn’t fear. My mother didn’t work and was very abusive………..I loved when a babysitter came. I believe a working mother is the only way to be a mom and still have a life of your own.
— Posted by Rita Latham
152.
May 26th,
2007
6:09 pm
Wow. How can so many people be so quick to judge, so harshly, other parents? So first. The kids probably went to sleep somewhere around 7pm, isn’t it? A couple of hours later (yes, dinner in Portugal doesn’t start before 9pm, so much about the comments about selfish parents who don’t want to take their kids with them to dinner – how do you take a 3 year-old to dinner at 9pm, exactly??), their kids deeply asleep, the parents went out to have dinner, they could see the room from their table, and went in every half hour to check on the kids. This turned out to be a terrible mistake, apparently one that no American would ever make. In Europe, as far as I know, it would simply be strange to hire a babysitter to sit in the livingroom, when the children are already asleep, and the parents are 50 meters away. It was in a foreign country, but also in a resort, i.e. a place where outsiders are not even allowed in. So a tragedy happened, and the parents surely deeply regret ever going to Portugal. But is it true that Americans would consider their behavior criminal???
As for the working vs. not working mom, I have been shocked by the American debate surrounding the issue. I am from a solid middle-class family, both parents working. I am 25 and I don’t have the impression that either of my parents EVER neglected me, my brother and my sister. And I have never met ANYBODY in France who had a stay at home parent (well, that is because I was not raised either in aristocratics nor very poor nor rural surroundings). The problem with the US seems to be that you are entrenched in an ideological debate about mothers, instead on focusing on ways to help parents, whatever their choices. My parents were probably lucky to live in France, where they had a lot of available daycare possibilities for small children, free preschooling starting at three (almost all kids are preschooled, even if schooling is compulsory only from age 6). And while my mother worked very long hours (my father had a 9-to-5 job), she could at least take her 5 weeks of paid vacation from work, enabling her to spend 3 to 4 weeks of the summer holidays with her children, full-time (next time you make fun about the paid vacation weeks in Europe, just ask yourself if it should not be normal that both parents are able to stay about a month in the year with their kids).
— Posted by from europe
153.
May 26th,
2007
6:20 pm
A few things become clear from reading the responses to this column:
Many are appalled by the somewhat common European practice of leaving very young children unattended.
Several feel the circumstances were mitigated by the parents’ proximity, or the frequency with which they checked in on the children.
Many people feel strongly enough to wiegh in on where their sympathies/philosophies line up.
I’d ask this: Why not devote a column to making clear why it is NEVER safe to leave toddlers and infants alone FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME WHATSOEVER? I’m reading talk of how things were in the 50’s and the 70’s, of life before seat belts. But we are living in the here and now. European habbits, in this regard, are foolhardy – and not simply because of the (admittedly) tiny risk of abduction. Children of 2, 3, 4 years of age have no judgement capabilities at all. They might get thirsty and drink laundry detergent, or worse. They might drown in a toilet. The fact that disaster is unlikely does not mean precautions are unnecessary. My wife is European. I adore the cultures and find them superior to ours in many way. This is not one of them. Those who don’t yet know that parents must NEVER leave infants and toddlers without adult supervision FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME need to be educated away from their cultural traditions. I’d be pleased to see your column devoted to that end.
— Posted by MisterE
154.
May 26th,
2007
6:36 pm
Enough already! Enough with the self-rightiousness. I, for one, think we here in America are insanely over-protective. I’d feel contempt but maybe pity is more in order for the poor sap above who maintains that it is NEVER OK to EVER let a child out of her sight! Craziness! Pray for the poor smothered child unlucky enough to have a mother like that.
Alright, maybe in this regard Europeans are too casual and laissez-faire. But let’s broaden the discussion a bit: Throughout most of Europe there just is no such thing as a homeless child. They don’t believe in it and don’t allow it. Here in the good-ol’ USA it’s a different story. And you know what they think is irresponsible and really amounts to child abuse? Not that a child go without a baby sitter for a few hours but that they go without health insurance for their whole life. What a concept!
So if we really cared so much about child welfare in this country maybe we should spend a little less money on crashproof helmets for 2-year old bigwheel riders and a little more on efforts to achieve health care for all the little children. And the big ones too!
— Posted by Robert in Chicago
155.
May 26th,
2007
7:20 pm
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I read enough to have to ask where on earth did the working mother aspect come into it? The McCann’s were on holiday. Whether or not they both work is irrelevant to what happened.
I don’t see much point in criticizing them now though; they’re suffering the consequences of their actions (and unfortunately, so is their daughter). I only hope that maybe other parents might learn from this mistake.
— Posted by Marian B
156.
May 26th,
2007
7:20 pm
The early BBC reports of this abduction didn’t even mention that the kids were left untended. Then, finally, a sentence was inserted to that effect. The parents are doctors? Why didn’t they bring a nanny or responsible family member with them from England? This case has everything to do with the parents’ lack of common sense and nothing to do with American vs British vs other countries’ working mother policies and benefits.
— Posted by Dana
157.
May 26th,
2007
7:46 pm
Wow. This reminds me of why I left the suburbs to live in New York City. There are a number of women who relish the chance to rush to judgment here. What on earth business is it of yours to be the mommy police? The US is a very mean society, harsh and judgmental. I’m no great fans of the Brits, but at least they have sense of nuance. You will not be a better mother; your life will not improve by attacking people about whom you know nothing and apparently about whose culture you remain ignorant. Perhaps this energy would be better spent worrying about the children in Darfur or Iraq.
Please lighten up.
— Posted by Anne
158.
May 26th,
2007
8:19 pm
The stunning aspect of Madaleine’s story is that her parents left her and two EVEN YOUNGER babies in the house alone. What is Judith Warner’s objective in leaving out this essential information? This was neglect – gross, criminal neglect and whether the children were killed, maimed or kidnapped it all stems from the fact that the parents were criminally negligent. Get over it, Judith. This is a story about neglect, not working mothers.
— Posted by Theresa
159.
May 26th,
2007
8:27 pm
I did not go out to dinner alone with my husband for ten YEARS because we could not afford a babysitter and it frankly was not that important. It is not essential to go out to dinner. Supervising babies is essential. And now we know why.
— Posted by Theresa
160.
May 26th,
2007
9:41 pm
Warner decries the criticism directed at the mother, but fails to note the double standard: the father, as usual, escapes criticism for the events. The People commentary reveals yet again that in our country, mothers are expected to care for children, while fathers are expected to work. Isn’t this – the double standard — the issue? Warner consistently ignores this sexist standard, which is why her columns generally infuriate feminists. And yet, Warner would protest that she is feminist. I beg to differ.
— Posted by hippolyta
161.
May 26th,
2007
11:31 pm
“Beyond that, I am not so sure that the vocal criticism of working mothers comes from any kind of misogyny as much as it comes from a sense that somehow men are devoid of parental feelings and are supposed to be content with spending 60 hours a week in a cubicle if it means they can have a six figure salary, but that we expect more from women.”
Expecting “more from women” is a form of misogyny.
— Posted by Abbi
162.
May 26th,
2007
11:46 pm
The number of people who have ignored the point of Ms. Warner’s article and chosen instead to condemn the parents for going out is telling. There’s something very ugly about how quick people are to judge and condemn, without stepping back to consider the circumstances. As other articles on this story have said, they had a view to the apartment and called every 30 minutes, and that it was similar to having dinner “in their garden [backyard].” Maybe it was irresponsible…and maybe it was a considered decision to not be anxious, paranoid, and obsessive about fears. (Too bad that the 1 in a million possibility happened.)
Let’s try to hold our judgment on other people…which is one of the points of the article.
— Posted by fitz88
163.
May 26th,
2007
11:49 pm
“You can’t pay someone minimum wage and expect them to care for your child as you would.”
Why do you Americans insist that only parents can lovingly care for children? So far, in my limited experience with my two children, I’ve found two extremely loving caregivers and one fantastic preschool that my daughter started at 3 full time till 4 (because she HATED coming home early at 1:30 with no other friends to play with).
— Posted by Abbi
164.
May 27th,
2007
2:09 am
“Vile discrimination” against working mothers? Surely it’s the other way around. In my experience, working mothers resent mothers who have a traditional arrangement with their husbands. They resent the fact that stay at home mother’s are doing the job that they are uniquely adapted to do. I repeat, women are uniquely adapted to nuture children, especially their own children.
My husband has thrown up a wall of security around me and our children. Inside this lovely family compound, I nuture the children. He does all he can, as time permits. I cook for them, read to them, teach them, explore the world with them.
As far as I know, Judith Warner has never understood the full scope of childrens’ needs. They needs much more than to be plugged into an acceptable nanny. They need someone to answer their question as they come up. Someone to teach them piano. Someone to love them, really love them, through their day.
If there is “discrimination” against working mothers, has anyone ever considered the fact that it might exist for a good reason?
— Posted by Abigail
165.
May 27th,
2007
3:32 am
Stories like Madeleine’s transfix me and freshen my pain at the deaths of my own and only children, who were and are – in memory anyway – the lights of my life. I spent years trying to come to grips with one, when I was blindsided by the other, although I should have seen it coming.
I read your column and many of the postings that followed and I had a sense of a lot of navel gazing, with the talk of scorn, even hate, aimed at both working mothers and stay-at-home mothers. Put the focus on the children. You’ve probably already guessed that I am a man. Women don’t often use terms like blindsided or navel gazing. One with my history has no right to criticize, so I won’t.
If one chooses to have a child, it shouldn’t be a sideline or a hobby. Creating a human life comes with obligations. And everyone who has a child chose to have it, unless the infant was the product of rape. I dreamed of having a dozen kids but had only two. Being a parent involves choices, millions of them in the life of a child, hundreds of them every day. Some are small, others enormous: life changing or maybe even life ending. The lucky ones escape the latter and are called good parents.
If a woman works because she needs to provide basic care for her child, no one dares call her a bad mother. A woman who works without monetary pressure but because as a mother she thinks the child will benefit culturally, educationally and psychologically from exposure to a milieu of intelligent high-achievers also should not be labeled a bad mother. A mother in either category can make mistakes and bad choices, as can a father. Lord knows I made mine and I have to live with them every day for the rest of my life. Nobody called me a bad father – except myself and my mother, of course. She delighted in it.
The reason Madeleine’s story is so compelling is because she is one little person and the horror surrounding her disappearance is something we can comprehend. Increase that number by thousands and it becomes an enigma we can grasp only superficially. That’s why agencies that raise funds for the hordes of children imperiled by famine or disease show us photographs of individuals. If we can feel for Madeleine we know we are not dead and we dig down in our pockets for the little faces in those other photographs. I know that I do. May I suggest that mothers stop worrying about how they are perceived or how they think they are perceived and try to be the best mothers they can be.
Just another old guy
— Posted by Wesley G Hughes
166.
May 27th,
2007
6:56 am
Er…why didn’t the parents eat in? It makes no sense to leave children that young alone in a hotel room.
— Posted by deering
167.
May 27th,
2007
1:15 pm
Re comment #112 about the surrogate mother case, the birth mother did not get custody of the child; the couple who’d hired her as a surrogate did. I was acquainted with the custodial mother for a few years – never discussed it with her, but the child was living with them and had periodic visits with the birth mother.
I can’t imagine that in any culture it’s actually safe to leave 3 kids still functionally in babyhood (but more mobile) alone, no matter how common it is or whether it’s 1950 or 2007. This has nothing to do with overprotectiveness or even fear of abduction. Kids that age can generate their own disasters in far less than half an hour.
— Posted by Lisa
168.
May 27th,
2007
1:29 pm
The comments some people are posting about how it is normal in Europe to leave small children alone reminds me of coverage I heard a few years back at the time the German government finally put a speed limit on the autobahn. There were a number of “man/woman on the street” styled interviews where people talked bitterly about how this was an “American mentality” of forcing rules and how they got along fine without speed limits and paternal ’safety regulations’ and this was a sad day for freedom in Germany. Then the reporter dug deeper and explained that this had been a very divisive issue and that when the microphone was off, many Germans privately told her they knew the limits made sense, but it went against their idea of freedom. She then explained that there had been a string of horrific crashes on the autobahn which had finally begun to turn the tide of public opinion toward supporting speed limits. The last crash melted the bodies of a mother and young child when a teenager plowed into them from behind at over 120 miles an hour.
If it makes people feel more sophisticated to believe that Americans are overprotective toward their children, have at it, but it won’t bring back Madeleine McCann and it will continue to leave other children at risk. The historical cultural practices we may hold dear, especially when convenient, mean nothing to a child left alone in our very modern world. Is it stating the obvious to say the world has changed?
— Posted by fran
169.
May 28th,
2007
5:25 am
*** I rewrote this for clarity. I submitted it earlier this evening.***
My husband and I lived in Germany until the fall of ‘06 with our three young children. We found the European attitudes toward children surprising. We liked the lack of stranger-danger attitudes, but were bewildered by others.
My son’s application for German kindergarten had a question on it: “If you are not here at dismissal time, do you want your child to walk home alone?” Considering he was just turning three, I checked “Nein!”
On a vacation in rural Normandy, France, we rented a house for a week in a walled former monastery turned bed-and-breakfast. The owner invited us to a special dinner on Friday evening. We normally would not have gone out to evening meals with the children in order not to disturb other diners. Since he knew we had children with no babysitter in tow, we brought them along. The toddler enjoyed the meal at the beginning, but quickly grew bored. We were fortunate that only other people dining in the restaurant were a friendly American couple who were happy to speak with an American ex-pat family. They understood why our children were with us and didn’t mind our son’s antics. The bed-and-breakfast owner, however, remarked that it was customary to put the children to bed and THEN come to dinner. He noted that he could lend us a child-listening-monitor so that we could do just that. He relaxed (somewhat) when the other couple chatted with the children, told him they were happy for our company, and enjoyed the evening. Since we seemed to be making him nervous, we finished our meal and quickly left.
The restaurant owner’s attitudes and ours were definitely an example of a cultural clash. We brought our children since he had invited us to an evening meal and knew we had children along; he didn’t expect us to bring them since it was an evening meal. Why shouldn’t we just leave them behind?
Most European resorts and hotels do have babysitting services and kids’ clubs that are fairly inexpensive. We miss them in the States. We also miss hopping in the minivan for a quick trip to France and the longer vacations, but those are other issues. When we vacationed in France at a resort on the Riviera, we did put the older children in day camps and the baby in the child care center. They all enjoyed it and we were able to spend time lingering in cafes and art museums. We also took the children to the museums and lunches, but there was no lingering when we were with the children.
Thus, that the British media did not even mention at first that the three children were left alone is not surprising. To me, it seems likely that the child woke up and wandered off to find her parents. She was in a strange place and was confused. Being near the water makes me scared that she went in.
It is also common for Europeans to leave their children unattended in prams. Lisa Braner, an American writer living in Germany, wrote an article about happening upon a child asleep in a stroller at her son’s kindergarten. She hesitated, wondering if she should wait for the mother to return. Her article about it, “In Search of Tranquility” appears on www.kidseuro.com. In light of this tragic case, however, the situation does not appear as tranquil.
As I’ve been writing these comments, my eight-year-old son came out of his bedroom crying that he did not feel good. He would’ve been upset to learn that we had gone down to a neighbor’s house for dinner and left him alone. Had he been a European child and not found his parents, he probably would have assumed that we had popped out somewhere else for a drink or dinner. He did appreciate finding me here at the computer.
Judith is right in that the situation in Portugal has nothing to do with being a stay-at-home mother or working mother.
— Posted by Beth Tudan
170.
May 28th,
2007
8:42 am
Whether or not I agree with Ms. Warner’s point in the column, she as wrong to omit the ages of the younger two children. Ms. Warner has an obligation to include all the relevant facts. She wrote, “…leaving Madeleine and her twin siblings alone in a ground-floor apartment,” which allowed the inference that the siblings were older. To me, this appears to be a deliberate omission because she didn’t want to deal with a messy fact.
By the way, I made this point on Friday but my comment does not appear above. I hope that is a technical glitch and not a decision to omit criticism.
— Posted by Abby
171.
May 28th,
2007
8:48 am
I have been very upset by this story ever since I accidentally saw the People magazine while waiting in line at the grocery store. Of course I had to read it, because the cover made me so anxious. I had to find out why such a terrible thing happened, so that I could prevent it from ever happening to a child that I love, or maybe any child. Of course this is an illusion, that we can ever make the world completely safe for a child.
Later I thought, why is it that when something like this happens, we blame the parents? Why not blame the *perpetrator*, that is, the kidnapper? (OK, in this case we don’t yet know for sure that the child was kidnapped, but in plenty of other similar cases, we do.) Why are there so many bad, violent men out there? The murderer at Virginia Tech is another example. I think we need to ask ourselves: why do we live in a society where these things happen at all? Is that normal and natural? Are there just a certain number of really perverted, cruel men who like to kidnap (and then usually rape and murder) little girls? And how do such monsters come into being?
Cho, the Virginia Tech murderer, was mentally ill and did not get any treatment. Nobody followed up to make sure he got the court-ordered treatment he was required to get. Violent media such as movies and games fed his mental illness with images of how he could gain “revenge” for insults to his dignity. Similarly, I imagine that men who kidnap little girls are also mentally ill, untreated, and nurtured on media such as child pornography.
I think it’s hard sometimes to face the reality that the violence of men is the world’s biggest problem. Sometimes it manifests itself as “legal” wars, such as the one in Iraq, and sometimes it manifests itself as smaller, but no less horrifying, crimes such as the kidnapping, rape and murder of little girls. I don’t know if women can ever do anything about this. Sometimes I feel very hopeless about it. I don’t think that men are “naturally” or biologically violent, but our culture seems to make men violent at a much higher rate than it makes women violent. It seems that if we could solve this one problem, our world would be so much better.
Once I saw a “Sylvia” cartoon where somebody asked Sylvia, “What would the world be like without men?” And she replied, “No crime, and lots of fat, happy women.”
— Posted by shannon
172.
May 28th,
2007
9:22 am
It’s really swell that all of you older parents can pat yourselves on the back because you did A, B, and C, rather than X, Y, and Z, and your kids turned out to be just perfect, and anybody who deviates from your method is criminally negligent. But in reality you can’t even begin to imagine the chronic, aching anxiety that goes along with having small children nowadays, starting with the moment you see the plus sign on the stick and you lie awake nights wondering what the hell you’re doing bringing babies into this lousy world.
Mercury, lead, DDTs, PCBs, chlorine, flouride, autism, e.coli, salmonella, peanut butter, West Nile Virus, Lyme disease, bird flu, kidnappers, molesters (sometimes in the family!), closed-head injuries, school shootings, road rage, terrorism, Paris and Britney, No Child Left Behind, endless war and violence…. “Duck and cover” seems like such a quaint little fear by comparison.
Should I work? Should I not work? Can we afford any kind of childcare? And for that matter, how are we going to pay for the vaccines that our insurance doesn’t cover? What if I ate feta cheese or took a sip of wine while pregnant and thirty years from now my kid commits a crime–is it my fault? What will I inadvertantly do today that could possibly ruin my kids’ lives?
Yep, the world has changed. Obviously. We all laugh about how in old family pictures there was always at least one pregnant woman holding a cigarette and a highball. And we all pine for the past, when what we didn’t know wouldn’t hurt us. No one is suggesting that it’s a great idea to leave babies alone in a hotel room; I sure wouldn’t. But anxiety feeds off itself, and before you know it you’ve moved way beyond Mother’s Little Helper and you begin to think what you really need is an extended stay in a nice sanitarium.
But the fact is the dangers to individual children are overstated, and consequently we all live in a state of constant overreaction. Another writer noted that this is in fact the safest time in history to be a child (at least in the Western world). If you read medieval death records you discover that two of the most common causes of death for small children were from accidentally being tipped out of their cradles into the hearth fire and being gored by the pigs who were brought into the house to help keep the family warm. Think about this for a minute: several hundred years ago your babies were highly likely to be burned or gored to death in your own home. In fact, think for a minute about what life is routinely like for the billion or so children right now whose families live in extreme poverty, defined as living on less than one dollar a day. Think about the kids who were sold into indentured servitude by their impoverished parents and were forced upon threat of death or having their eyes burned out with acid to work eighteen-hour days to make that nice rug you have in your house or the pretty clothes you put on your own kids or grandkids. And then try to justify your cruel judgment of parents who made one horrible mistake and lost their child forever.
Children today who are born in the developed world are among the luckiest human beings in history compared with those unfortunate enough to be born elsewhere. But accidents, tragedies, and crimes will always happen, no matter what we do to prevent them. Sooner or later we all have to let go and send our kids out there. Better to have them–and ourselves–prepared by instilling strength, resilience, and critical thinking skills than delude ourselves into believing we can always keep them safe.
— Posted by Nancy Dziedzic
173.
May 28th,
2007
3:38 pm
The real message of feminism should have been that gender doesn’t dictate destiny – Deborah Fuller
I have never understood why women think they can have both motherhood and career. – Deborah K.
Deborah K, I think you entirely missed Deborah Fuller’s point in her post. I commend you for knowing that having children was not right for you, and recognizing that in every choice there is something you gain, and something you give up. The problem is that women are tired of seeing men ‘have it all’. No-one questions if a man who is committed to his career has the right to have children.
I stayed home with my kids for 9 years, and during that time I gained the pleasure of many wonderful moments with my kids, as well as experiencing some frustration and tedium of what sah parenting brings.
For the last two years, I am a full time working mom. I have gained confidence, self-esteem, and personal satisfaction from my career. But now, I do miss out on some of the events in my kids’ lives. For each choice, you gain something or you lose something.
But I think it is ridiculous to suggest that hiring professional childcare amounts to a second-class life for the children. My kids love their school, the tutors that help them with their homework in after-care, and the summer camp they attend where they kayak, play sports, and take swimming lessons. Because their homework is completed when we come together at dinner time, our time with our kids can be more about discussing the day and hanging out together. My four-year loves all of the people that he spends time with while my husband and I work. He doesn’t mistake them for substitute parents, though, and neither do we. We are his parents, and we don’t take a laissez faire attitude toward the role just because we are not with him every moment of the day.
The point is that we are happy, and our children are happy. Why shouldn’t I have had this option to experience life this way? I experienced it as a SAHM, and that was great in many ways. I am experiencing it this way, and it not only is great as well, it feels more like ME.
I do not think either way is easy – being a SAHM was as much work as what I do now; – either way I am tired at the end of the day. No matter how you slice it, as a parent you will be tired, so why aren’t we all just too tired to criticize each other’s choices? I truly respect the reasons a mom OR dad chooses to stay home, or work out a flexible and creative option. I would like a few less sad, sympathetic looks from the SAH’s or teachers when I can’t volunteer to make the favors for the Valentine’s day party at school.
— Posted by Tara W
174.
May 28th,
2007
6:43 pm
I wonder if Judith imposes her “mommy wars” template onto everything. She really has to reach to turn this story to her favorite them — taking background in a People magazine story and making that a central theme. And People Magazine? Give me a break. Many previous postings say it well: that this is just a tragic story of parents making a bad choice for the circumstances.
— Posted by Marguerite