Rarely has there been a more startling demonstration of how biases and interests of media people can distort a discussion than the current childcare debate, writes John Waters
Listening in, one would have gathered that Irish parents are demanding more subsidised childcare places in the interests of "choice" and "equality" in the workplace. Together with a crude argument about the interests of the economy, this proposition is employed to bludgeon the public mind into an acceptance of an ideological agenda that regards the nuclear family with contempt. For some time, this agenda has been protected by the chauvinist insistence that childcare is a "women's issue" and that, above all, nothing should be said to make mothers feel guilty.
Professor Jay Belsky, formerly of Penn State University and now a professor of psychology at Birkbeck College in London, has become notorious among social scientists for his rigorous interpretations of childcare research data. Initially a proponent of childcare, he has for some time been drawing attention to the ominous findings of the longitudinal survey conducted since the early 1990s by the US National Institute of Child Health and Development. Already, this survey has established clear correlations between extensive childcare and aggressive and anti-social behaviour among young children, and may shortly expose connections between extra-domiciliary childcare and delinquency, drug-taking and teenage pregnancy.
Belsky maintains that his own field of developmental psychology has been monopolised by women with a "liberal progressive feminist" bias, whose chief concern is "to not make mothers feel bad". In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal of July 16th, 2003, he outlined the likely consequence of science being dethroned by ideology in this way. "What," he asked, "if kids experiencing long hours in day care are more likely to use drugs, are less ambitious and have trouble with relationships? Parents will say, 'How come no one warned me?' It is our scientific responsibility to tell people what they may not want to know." His analysis could equally be applied to the media, now offering perhaps the most "equal" of workplace environments. Or, putting it another way, you might observe that media organisations and perhaps a majority of their employees have a vested interest in the childcare discussion following a certain course. Or you could simply note that a tiny minority of working women, possibly anxious to avoid "guilt", are, with the blessing of their employers, able to steer the public discussion on an issue of critical importance to society and themselves. But occasionally the truth breaks through, as it did last week in the Irish Examiner's National Childcare Opinion Poll.
The surface presentation followed the usual pattern, however, with Thursday's Examiner carrying the astonishing front page headline: "Children bad for career, say working mothers." The lead story followed a similar line, bemoaning that "only" a quarter of mothers return to work full-time.
But an analysis by political editor Harry McGee unearthed the true pattern.
"The stark evidence from the poll," he noted, "is that the race to make more private childcare places available may be misplaced (a paltry 3 per cent regarding a creche as ideal is hardly redolent of a massive desire or demand)". The poll revealed that the vast majority of Irish parents want their children cared for by themselves or a close family member. More than half of families currently dedicate one parent to full-time childcare; one in five have extended family members playing an active role; and most are motivated by factors other than cost. Only one in five families use extra-domiciliary childcare, and most of these do not regard it as a beneficial "choice". What families want, the poll confirmed, is more family-friendly initiatives: parental leave, more flexible working arrangements and financial support for both working and stay-at-home parents. The Examiner's editorial on the subject in Wednesday's paper focused on the implications of the lack of "affordable childcare" for women's role in the workplace. The high numbers of women who choose to remain at home minding their children, the leader-writer warned, is resulting in a "massive loss to the labour force", which "could have devastating long-term consequences for the national economy".
In fact, leaving aside - as it seems we must - the needs of children, the long-term interests of the economy are best served by a policy that would allow every family to dedicate one parent to full-time childminding. The declining national fertility rate, resulting directly from the economic pressure on families, is priming a timer-detonated crisis for the middle of the century, when the numbers of pensioners will become roughly equal to the numbers of people in work.
The economic message from the childcare issue, therefore, is that the neglect of real family needs means that future economic stability is being sacrificed to an obsession with current growth figures.