My Annoying Neighbor

by Mizin P. Kawasaki, M.D.

I have a neighbor who decided to adopt my son as her grandson when he was about one year old.  Unfortunately, I was not flattered by her adoption.

My neighbor likes to believe that she is always right.  Thus, over the past six years, she has offered me far too many of her unsolicited thoughts on child-rearing. 

Whenever she sees me, she immediately starts her discourse on whatever subject she chooses.  I listen courteously.  If I try to voice my opinions, it is to no avail because she is incapable of listening to others.  Evidently, she enjoys hearing only her own voice. 

Sadly for me, her monologues often infuriate me.  She speaks authoritatively, as if she knows exactly how every mother should rear her child, and yet she understands so little about children.  For instance, she speaks and detains me endlessly in the hallway while my young children wait patiently for her to finish speaking.

The comments my neighbor makes are probably similar to remarks many other mothers hear from family members, friends, neighbors, or strangers.  Almost all new mothers are inundated with unsolicited child-rearing advice.  The assumption is that a mother does not know how to rear a child any longer.

In a sense, it is true that mothers may feel ill-prepared for the work of mothering.  So much of what a mother does is a matter of intuition and responding to her child’s varying needs.  In other words, a mother gains experience and confidence as she interacts with her child daily. 

Mothering is not instinctive because human beings, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu clarified repeatedly, lost their instincts and gained educability, the ability to learn.  It is critical for parents to learn sound information about child-rearing.     

Child-rearing advice is easily available since every parent has his or her share of experiences to relay.  It is important, however, for new parents to discern good advice from poor advice.  Parents have the capability to learn the right way or the wrong way of child-rearing. 

Learning unsound information will merely perpetuate inhumane parenting practices.  Any advice, for example, that attempts to deliberately separate a young child from his mother is unhelpful and perhaps detrimental.  Unforeseen circumstances, of course, may result in early mother-child separation.  The vast majority of youngsters, however, should be able to stay close to their mothers for at least the first five to six years of life. 

There is no relationship more important in human life than that between mother and child, yet it is woefully underestimated and undervalued.  A healthy child is one who can trust and depend upon his mother to be available.  With time, the child gradually learns to become independent. 

Attempts to push young infants toward early independence are cruel and inhumane.  Regrettably, it seems that so much of child-rearing advice revolves around separating mothers from their children at increasingly younger ages.  Contrary to popular assumptions, children belong with their mothers for at least the first five to six years of life, and a healthy mother-child relationship revolves around breastfeeding. 

As mentioned earlier, my neighbor has opinions about everything.  Thus, she offered me an interesting comment when she learned that I was breastfeeding my nearly two-year-old daughter and that I breastfed my son for nearly three years.  She was from South Africa, and she told me that I reminded her of African women who carried their children and nursed them for years on end.  Her comment was not meant as a compliment.

My neighbor acknowledges the existence of cultures in which mothers breastfeed their children for prolonged periods of time.  Her implication is, nevertheless, that civilized people in the modern era approach breastfeeding in a different light, as did she.  My neighbor went on to tell me that she had nursed her children for four months each, after which time they promptly slept in their own cribs through the night. 

My neighbor’s children were fortunate to have nursed for four months, but the idea that a mother can arbitrarily decide when her young infant should cease to nurse is ludicrous.  There is nothing scientific about breastfeeding an infant for fixed periods of time, be it six weeks, four months, twelve months, or any other defined period of time.  Young children should be given the opportunity to breastfeed freely for as long as they wish.

Weaning a baby off the breast is a culturally determined phenomenon.  In American culture today, mothers learn that breastfeeding is an option.  Few physicians and nurses advocate the importance of breastfeeding.  Instead, a mother’s freedom to choose a form of infant feeding is accorded more importance than a newborn’s right to receive the benefits of breastfeeding. 

Many mothers assume that the existence of a choice of infant feeding implies that infant formula is just as good as breast milk.  This is completely wrong because breastfeeding is far superior to infant formula in every conceivable way.  The fact is that there should be no choice between breastfeeding and bottle feeding a newborn unless the rare situation demands the existence of such a choice.

Breastfeeding provides not merely a source of oral nutrition but wholly nourishing life-to-life interaction between mother and child.  Yet breastfeeding is assessed primarily for its nutritional benefits.  This invariably discounts the bond that breastfeeding secures between mother and child.  In other words, breastfeeding is sorely misunderstood in today’s American culture.

My neighbor is well-educated, but her understanding of breastfeeding was defined by her needs, not her children’s needs.  Her opinion was that all mothers needed to work and pursue their careers.  She intimated that I needed to stop staying at home and return to work outside the home as a physician.  She assessed my full-time mothering endeavors to be a waste of my time.

When my neighbor was a mother of three young children, she pursued an academic career.  She also had an abundant assortment of housekeepers, nannies, and cooks to do most of the work that she would have been doing had she been a full-time homemaker. 

In any case, the idea that a mother should not bother to offer her young children maternal care is unfortunate and inhumane.  Young children need their mothers, and there is no doubt fulfillment of that need in the early years of their lives is absolutely crucial for their healthy development as human beings. 

There is ample scientific evidence that supports the indisputably important role of a mother in her child’s life.  Yet such proof is disregarded and downplayed.  Instead of recognizing the importance of the maternal role, nearly every occupation, from lawyer to physician to writer to saleswoman, is regarded more highly than the occupation of full-time mother. 

                                                        ***

Motherhood, however, is not a secondary occupation that can be accomplished on a part-time basis.  It is an unalterable fact of life that a child needs his mother, most specifically, during the early years of life.  Those early years will never return, neither for the child nor the mother. 

The extenuating circumstances that force some mothers to be unavailable for their young children may result in some youngsters realizing that their mothers had no choice in not being available.  The damage will be done and, if they are fortunate, the children may be able to understand and appreciate what their mothers were able to do for them. 

The sad reality today, though, is that as more and more mothers leave their young children in the hands of day care personnel and nannies, an increasing number of young children will have to experience the trauma of a mother’s repeated disappearance.  More and more women are seeking work outside the home and leaving the responsibility of child care to others.

What could be more important than taking care of one’s children?  Evidently, there are myriad things mothers can do other than the work of mothering.  My neighbor, for instance, authored textbooks, gardened, socialized, and did numerous activities other than mothering because she had paid help to care for her children and her household. 

The hiring of help is now no longer a luxury exclusively reserved for the wealthy.  Images of wealthy lifestyles are evident on television and in newspapers and magazines.  With the availability of low paid workers, a greater percentage of the general population has gained access to a more expensive lifestyle. 

This lifestyle costs money, and it may force both parents to work outside the home.  Ironically enough, all the material well-being provided by the dual income family fails to assure young children of the one person they need the most:  the child’s mother. 

Margaret Talbot depicts the availability of hired help who provide services that were once accomplished primarily by mothers.  [1] The hired help do varying things, such as waiting for a plumber to fix a clogged drain, finding a lost wallet, unpacking moving boxes, organizing a dinner party, or even searching for a new house. 

In the meantime, other services are also available.  A transportation service shuttles young children from school or pre-school to music lessons, gym classes, or any other activity, including therapy.  A chef comes into one’s home, cooks two weeks’ worth of gourmet meals, and freezes them with easy instructions for reheating. 

Ms. Talbot quotes the historian and social critic Christopher Lasch in his book The Revolt of the Elites as saying the following about money:  “… has a tendency to ‘seep across boundaries’ and to buy things that should not be for sale:  exemption from military service; love and friendship; political office.”  [2] 

Money should not be able to purchase love for a young child, but this is inevitably what occurs when a mother, by choice or not, is no longer available to take care of her own child.  Money is used to hire help to assist in providing meals, transportation, and home care for a young child. 

It is also hoped that the same money is also purchasing respect and love for the child of the paying parents.  Undoubtedly, a parent who pays a significant fee for any service, be it a shuttle service or full-time nanny, wants and expects his or her child to be respected and treated lovingly. 

Money enables a parent to purchase a commodity, love, that should never be up for sale, as Christopher Lasch notes.  The purchase of love, however, creates confusion not only for the child but for parents as well.  The child no longer knows upon whom he or she is to depend and love. 

Moreover, some parents may feel superfluous while a nanny cares for their child.  For instance, a friend relayed to me how useless her high-powered attorney friend felt when she decided to stay home with her four children.  A nanny knew the children’s temperaments and needs, schedules, and friends better than did the mother. 

In this case, the mother was gracious and acknowledged the importance of the nanny’s care.  Meanwhile, other mothers may feel competitive and outraged that their children are more attached to their nannies.  In brief, the abdication of the full-time maternal role and the hiring of surrogates often engender confusion for all involved. 

                                                        ***

Many mothers return to work outside the home without comprehending the harmful impact it may have upon child development.  In the meantime, they can cite the advice of child-rearing experts who claim that young children are resilient.  It seems that mothers must fulfill their right to work outside the home or any other activity they choose, and no one considers seriously how young children fare in the absence of maternal care. 

I live in Los Angeles, and there are innumerable nannies who visit the local public parks with their charges, some of whom are only a few months old.  The nannies are mostly non-English speaking caregivers who speak in their native languages. 

Very loving nannies, regardless of English language capability, may be excellent surrogate caregivers.  It is the rare nanny, however, who falls in love with a young child the way his or her mother should.  Nannies are paid workers who earn an income for the work they perform (or do not perform). 

It is the truly unfortunate child whose parents both work outside the home and whose care is overseen by an apathetic and unloving nanny.  I have seen many children such as these.  While their nannies are busy socializing with one another at the parks, they often ignore the youngsters who are supposed to be receiving their attention and care.

Nancy Rivera Brooks (Los Angeles Times, October 19, 1997) notes that a 1995 study by four universities of children in day care reveals that about 12% of children received care in “poor-quality centers that are detrimental to their development,” and 74% are in “mediocre programs that neither harm not promote development.”  In other words, only one in seven children in day care receives proper stimulation for healthy development. 

Ms. Brooks also mentions that a recent projection of childcare needs estimates that, within the next decade, “70% of American workers will have children in need of child care or after-school care.”  The understanding is that more and more mothers of young children will continue to enter the workforce, which necessitates placement of young children in some form of non-maternal care. 

According to Ms. Brooks, a coalition of 38 major corporations and foundations are supporting a nearly $12 million initiative to improve the training of day care personnel, including directors, and family child-care providers.  It is important to laud any effort to improve the quality of child care for young children, but the question of why mothers are entering the workforce in such great numbers remains unasked and unanswered. 

Mothers are not expendable, and they are not replaceable.  Yet society’s approach to child care treats mothers as replaceable persons whose roles can be filled by hired personnel.  This is the case despite the well known fact that the qualifications of childcare workers are minimal, and they are paid so abysmally that the turnover rate among personnel at day care centers is extraordinarily high. 

The one thing that a baby or young child needs is consistency in his life, which is best offered by the presence of a loving and caring mother.  Instead of receiving such care, an inordinate number of young children receive care from minimally educated child care workers who change jobs frequently.  The experience of being cared for by numerous caregivers is not conducive to healthy child development. 

It must be remembered that a young child ideally learns how to relate to other human beings primarily from the consistent and loving care he receives from a consistently available person.  Ideally, this is the child’s mother.

Perhaps mothers would not be so willing to abandon their young children to the care of others if they understood how profoundly their absence affects young child development.  Perhaps everyone involved in a child’s care, from spouse to in-laws to physician to friends, should be encouraging a mother to do her best to care directly for her child. 

Encouraging support of that kind would enable every mother to fulfill her responsibility to her child.  Full-time mothering should not be seen as a chore that places women at the lowest rung of the social ladder.  Motherhood is not a matter of mere childbearing.  It is a responsibility that lasts for a lifetime, and it is the most noble and responsible occupation any mother could undertake. 

The achievement of fame and success in one’s career can occur after the rudiments of basic child care are completed.  A decade, more or less, of one’s life comprises only a small fraction of a healthy woman’s life expectancy.  Women should not feel compelled to return to work outside the home when their children are still young and in need of their care and love.

The work of mothering is arduous, but it has to be done.  Otherwise, the entire family unit will suffer.  The deprivation of maternal care has been amply studied, but it is woefully neglected by those who dispense child-rearing advice. 

The anthropologist and humanist Ashley Montagu discusses in his book The Elephant Man the critical developmental periods that occur in the life of every child.  During these critical development periods, a child “must receive certain kinds of stimulation if its potentialities for behavioral response are to develop.”  [3] In other words, every child needs specific types of stimulation that will enable him to learn how to behave in response to the challenges he will meet in life. 

The expectation that young children will automatically know how to behave properly and respectfully is terribly mistaken.  Young children need to learn everything from their caregivers.  Ashley Montagu specifically refers to the critical developmental periods as follows:

            1.         The period during which the infant is in the process of                            establishing an explicit cooperative relationship with a                           clearly defined person—the mother.  This commences

                        at birth and is normally firmly established by five or six

                        months of age.

            2.         The period during which the child needs the mother as                           the ever-present support and companion.  This normally                          continues to about the end of the third year.

            3.         The period during which the child is in the process of

                        becoming able to maintain a relationship with its mother

                        during her absence.  During the fourth and fifth years,                             under favorable conditions, such a relationship can be

                        maintained for a few days or even a few weeks; after

                        seven or eight years of age such a relationship can be

                        maintained for longer periods, thought not without some

                        strain.  [4]

Those who advocate any separation of mothers from their young children are not fully aware of the terrible suffering those youngsters will experience.  There are millions of unhappy children in society today, and childhood depression and the advent of other psychiatric disorders are on the rise.  Rather than search for the root cause of children’s behavioral and emotional illnesses, the emphasis is placed on finding a remedy to alleviate the symptoms. 

Maternal deprivation has profoundly negative and unhappy consequences for children.  One would believe that previous generations of mothers who have not mothered as well as they would have liked would have the courage to clarify for today’s mothers the true nature of young children’s needs. 

In contrast, some mothers do have the courage to advise others that young children need their mothers profoundly.  My sister’s in-laws have neighbors who were delighted to hear that I was staying home to care for my children.  The wife mentioned that she stayed home with her daughter until she entered school, and she felt that those years were irreplaceable.

Unfortunately, there other women, like my neighbor, who are completely blind to their own failings as mothers.  This is not to say that there is any such thing as a perfect mother, for there is no such being.  Every mother, however, is graced with just a small number of children, and it should be evident that every child deserves the best upbringing.  In most cases, a child is wholly dependent upon an ever-present and loving mother. 

My neighbor is unaware of the detrimental effects her own absence played in her children’s development.  Her son is a bigot who ignores his son and dotes on his daughter.  My neighbor’s daughter is a divorced woman who has a troubled personal life and channels her energy into the pursuit of fame and success in the entertainment industry. 

Granted, there is no way to predict how one’s children will eventually mature into adults.  Every child, however, should have the right to learn how to love and to be loved by others, and this can be learned only from the respectful and loving relationship between mother and child. 

To interfere on purpose with this relationship, especially by claiming that separation is good for both mother and child, is simply false and misleading.  Essentially, if I had chosen to follow any of my neighbor’s bad advice, I would have had to face the consequences of impairing my healthy relationship with my young children. 

It is absolutely clear, nevertheless, that my neighbor and all others who offer unsolicited advice on child-rearing will never take responsibility for giving faulty advice.  Moreover, one can see if there is any merit to a person’s views on child-rearing by simply observing the person’s children.  My neighbor, for example, had no capacity for self-reflection, and her children could not be role models for my own children. 

I learned eventually that I had to cut short my neighbor’s monologues.  I had to make it clear that I was uninterested in receiving her child-rearing advice.  We have cordial interactions when we meet in the hallways, and she has stopped dispensing child-rearing advice.  If anything, she is cognizant of the wonderful development of my two children into happy and courteous youngsters. 

It is not easy to stop listening to others, however genuine their concern may be.  As mothers, we must remember that we are fulfilling a very unique role in the early years of our children’s development.  No one with any compassion for the child will interfere with the healthy mother-child relationship.

Written in 1997 and revised on April 27, 2006

                                    Return to Topics of Interest