Mother as a primary caregiver debate (24 marker)
Firstly, one reason as to why it is argued that mothers are to take the role of
the primary caregiver is due to the fact that females are innately adapted to feed
their children. This is due to the fact that women have oestrogen and other
hormones, which men do not have that are essential for a child’s healthy
development. For example the NHS stated that babies should be exclusively breastfed
for the first 6months of their lives as it provides them with a healthier start and
protects them from infections and diseases. Therefore, this explains why maternity
leave it crucial for the mother and the child to emotionally and physically bond in
the early stages of the infants life. Furthermore the NHS also claims that it can
build a ‘strong physical and emotional bond between mother and baby’; which is
important in emotional development. This is because children need to be fed every
2-3 hours and so it is thought to be more beneficial if the mother is the primary
caregiver. This is reinforced through the use of a 2015 longitudinal Brazilian
study, in which 6,000 babies were studied and those who were breastfed were more
intelligent, spent longer in education and learnt more. Therefore, this is
refreshing to suggest that men are incapable of this feeding style as they do not
have the appropriate body functions such as the ability to express milk. As well as
this, men are not psychologically equipped for this intense emotional relationship
due to numerous biological and social factors. Ultimately, this shows that the
mother as the primary care giver is practical and essential for the infants
survival. Meaning that the father can only offer limited support.
However, one reason to suggest the mother doesn’t need to be the primary care giver
of an infant is because behaviourists promoted the view that infants were
classically conditioned to associate their mothers with a sense of pleasure such as
food- reinforcing freuds idea of cupboard love(whereby children manipulate their
parents in return for food). However, Harlow (1959) highlighted that ‘contact
comfort’ is more important for a child’s emotional development and showed that food
doesn’t equal love. He placed infant monkeys with 2 wired mothers, one had a
feeding bottle attached and the other had a soft cloth over it. The monkeys spent
most of their time on the cloth mother when frightened. Therefore, this shows that
food doesn’t create an emotional bond- the soft cloth does. Harlow proposed that
this can also be generalised for humans as well. Also, a study by Emerson suggested
that primary attachments weren’t formed with the person who fed or spent more time
with the infant. It was the one that responded to their signals the quickest and
offered the most interaction. Ultimately suggesting that the maternal figure isn’t
always the most beneficial figure in the family unit due to relative family
circumstances. It may be the case that wider family members play a key feature in
the child lives as they provide comfort and safety for the child such as
grandparents. Meaning the paternal figure and other family members can be just as
integral in a child’s development and so paternity leave is just as important for
the infant in the early stages of their lives to create an emotional bond with
their father.
Another reason why the mother needs to be the primary caregiver is due to a sense
of maternal deprivation damage in the family unit. Numerous studies of young
children who have not formed attachment to their mothers have suggested that the
child’s psychological development is badly affected and has had long lasting
detrimental effects. It has be identified that such early separations are likely to
lead to an affectionless character, someone who lacks the ability to feel normal
affection, shame or responsibly. Such a character may struggle forming alliances,
building relationships with others or in the case of Bowlbys study turning to
deviant behaviour such as stealing. Bowlbys findings highlights this as out of the
44 juvenile thieves, 14 children were diagnosed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’ and
12 of those had prolonged separations with their mothers. Therefore indicating the
Firstly, one reason as to why it is argued that mothers are to take the role of
the primary caregiver is due to the fact that females are innately adapted to feed
their children. This is due to the fact that women have oestrogen and other
hormones, which men do not have that are essential for a child’s healthy
development. For example the NHS stated that babies should be exclusively breastfed
for the first 6months of their lives as it provides them with a healthier start and
protects them from infections and diseases. Therefore, this explains why maternity
leave it crucial for the mother and the child to emotionally and physically bond in
the early stages of the infants life. Furthermore the NHS also claims that it can
build a ‘strong physical and emotional bond between mother and baby’; which is
important in emotional development. This is because children need to be fed every
2-3 hours and so it is thought to be more beneficial if the mother is the primary
caregiver. This is reinforced through the use of a 2015 longitudinal Brazilian
study, in which 6,000 babies were studied and those who were breastfed were more
intelligent, spent longer in education and learnt more. Therefore, this is
refreshing to suggest that men are incapable of this feeding style as they do not
have the appropriate body functions such as the ability to express milk. As well as
this, men are not psychologically equipped for this intense emotional relationship
due to numerous biological and social factors. Ultimately, this shows that the
mother as the primary care giver is practical and essential for the infants
survival. Meaning that the father can only offer limited support.
However, one reason to suggest the mother doesn’t need to be the primary care giver
of an infant is because behaviourists promoted the view that infants were
classically conditioned to associate their mothers with a sense of pleasure such as
food- reinforcing freuds idea of cupboard love(whereby children manipulate their
parents in return for food). However, Harlow (1959) highlighted that ‘contact
comfort’ is more important for a child’s emotional development and showed that food
doesn’t equal love. He placed infant monkeys with 2 wired mothers, one had a
feeding bottle attached and the other had a soft cloth over it. The monkeys spent
most of their time on the cloth mother when frightened. Therefore, this shows that
food doesn’t create an emotional bond- the soft cloth does. Harlow proposed that
this can also be generalised for humans as well. Also, a study by Emerson suggested
that primary attachments weren’t formed with the person who fed or spent more time
with the infant. It was the one that responded to their signals the quickest and
offered the most interaction. Ultimately suggesting that the maternal figure isn’t
always the most beneficial figure in the family unit due to relative family
circumstances. It may be the case that wider family members play a key feature in
the child lives as they provide comfort and safety for the child such as
grandparents. Meaning the paternal figure and other family members can be just as
integral in a child’s development and so paternity leave is just as important for
the infant in the early stages of their lives to create an emotional bond with
their father.
Another reason why the mother needs to be the primary caregiver is due to a sense
of maternal deprivation damage in the family unit. Numerous studies of young
children who have not formed attachment to their mothers have suggested that the
child’s psychological development is badly affected and has had long lasting
detrimental effects. It has be identified that such early separations are likely to
lead to an affectionless character, someone who lacks the ability to feel normal
affection, shame or responsibly. Such a character may struggle forming alliances,
building relationships with others or in the case of Bowlbys study turning to
deviant behaviour such as stealing. Bowlbys findings highlights this as out of the
44 juvenile thieves, 14 children were diagnosed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’ and
12 of those had prolonged separations with their mothers. Therefore indicating the
