There's No Substitute For Mom?

Guest Author 

I was listening to Dr. Laura (Schlesinger, a psychologist with a call-in show) on Sirius radio, who related that she had been on talk shows during which she conducted impromptu audience polls in response to attack questions by hosts.

Hosts would object to her traditional views on raising children with a full-time mother in the home, and on parents remaining in otherwise failing relationships until the kids are grown.

She would respond to these attacks with a question to the audience (which I will relate imperfectly): 

All of you suddenly die today. The next thing you know you are back in the world as a small child. In which circumstance would you rather find yourself (and she would direct the audience to stand for their preferred choice): cared for by (1) a day care center; (2) a baby sitter; (3) a nanny; (4) a non-working mother who stays home for you?

Each time NO one chose anything other than the stay-at-home mother, even though the audiences had a wide age range from young to old and surely included many committed "feminists."  Dr. Laura concludes that despite all the rhetoric about women "having it all", everyone knows in their hearts that there is no substitute for a mother's love and constant presence in raising children.

Obviously she is a controversial figure because of these views. But it is hard to argue with her when families increasingly break down, and when women find that "having it all" is often an illusion. Someone or something important is often left behind: a broken marriage, a lost child or children.

And according to Dr. Laura, most people know this in their hearts, whether they admit It or not.

(Now I duck my head for incoming bottles and bombs)