Talk:Maternal deprivation

message: THIS IS THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR 'MATERNAL DEPRIVATION'. If you go to my video clips on YouTube you will see that I have a video clip about this theory made famous by John Bowlby called;-
The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOjWDz9df4E
Contributing to Wik I have noticed that this theory dominated the pages on attachment and bonding without mentioning the fact that fathers can be equally as important to children as mothers.
I have made a video clip based on this at;-
Wikipedia Mistake:A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spc2WxtPYkU
(PLease note I have subsequently added a section on Maternal Deprivation to the page on John Bowlby and edited other pages to include references to fathers)
TO SHOW READERS THAT Wik is still wedded to this concept I should like to draw readers to the following discussion below between myself and one of the 'sub-editors' (sic) known as 'Fainities'
Many thanks
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I don't think its right to say Bowlby developed his theory further because of a 'body of criticism', particularly when much of the 'body of criticism' you cite postdates his main works. Secondly I think you do the likes of Bowlby a disservice by assuming they behave as if their theories are set in stone, that they have to get absolutely everything right all at once and that any subsequent development somehow proves them wrong. This is not how science works. You have also missed out the rather important stuff about the hierearchy of attachments which seems to indicate that although infants can develop a number of attachments (precise number unknown) they tend to have a primary, preferred one - and then others in a descending hierarchy. Where you are on the hierarchy would depend not on whether you had a willy or not but on the extent to which you were the primary carer. Fainites barley 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, First Contribution

message: Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:
*"In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."
Heres another bit:
* "It is evident that whom a child selects as his principal attachment figure and to how many other figures he becomes attached, turn in large part on who cares for him and on the composition of the household in which he is living. As a matter of empirical fact there can be no doubt that in virtually every culture the people in question are most likely to be his natural mother, father, older siblings, and perhaps grandparents, and that it is from amongst these figures that a child is most likely to select both his principal attachment-figure and his subsidiary figures."
He then discusses two (then) recent studies, one in Scotlad and one in Ganda. He points out that in both studies, only children living with their natural mother had been selected and therefore "it is not surprising that in an overwhelming proportion of cases a child's principal attachment figure was his natural mother." He then makes a point of pointing out that even then, there were instances in both studies where childrens principal attachment figure was their father, and that in a number of others the father came to share the role of principal attachment figure in the second year even though the mother had been the principal figure in the first year. It is obvious that he is highlighting this to illustrate his point that anybody can be a principal attachment figure.
I don't think trying to pin Bowlby down solely to the 1952 publication of maternal deprivation and the subsequent misrepresentation of his views for political purposes in the '50's and by the media thereafter is really providing comprehensive Wiki articles. Pointing out that he used 'mother' and 'mother-figure' throughout isn't enough. He also uses 'he' for the infant throughout. Are we to assume from that that attachment behaviours only emanate from male infants? As for the media - I think there may be a whole article on just how out-of-date the media and/or popular beliefs generally are. I reckon there is about a 50 year time lag. Fainites barley 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, Second Contribution

message: It's certainly true that Bowlby used the term "mother" in a generic way, to mean a caregiving person, and in this he followed long usage: to "mother" someone means to care for them, to "father" means to impregnate a woman. However much we may dislike this, it is the case. 
Actually, if Bowlby had thought only women could be "mothers", he would not have referred to Harlow's work, in which baby monkeys treated a soft monkey-like figure as a surrogate mother. If terrycloth can be a "mother", surely a man can too.
The most important point of Bowlby's work is not who can be mother, but the fact that attachment is not based on feeding (cf. S. Freud), but on social interaction. This view, following that of Ian Suttie, in fact "frees" men to be the mothering person, by making breastfeeding irrelevant.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Mercer, First Contribution

message: I do not know what you are saying about Bowlby? That he did not write 'Maternal Care and Mental Health'? That he did not make his reputation based on the theory of 'maternal deprivation'? That the World Health Organisation, never produced 'Deprivation of Maternal Care; A Reassessment of its Effects'? That Rutter never wrote 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'? That this is what he is not still famous (infamous) for? That his theory of 'maternal deprivation'is not being constantly quoted?
Which bit do you disagree with, cause even your own expert Jean Mercer does not dispute these points.
Do you think the people who signed my petition do not know what they are talking about?
Are you on a mission to recast Bowlby's reputation? Bowlby would like people think he invented the 'attachment theory' but he did not!
If you do not want to make the changes necessary to Wik, fine. But don't attack me for trying to give the facts to people.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainites - Address the points!, kip comment

message: I have addressed your points and provided some quotations from Bowlby in support. I don't think Bowlby's primarily famous for Maternal Deprivation. I don't think he's infamous at all. I haven't noticed Maternal Deprivation being constantly quoted - though some of the media might, they generally being pretty out of date. I don't agree that maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous or generally seen as synonymous as you say on your video. Its not a term generally used in social work, psychology or the law and hasn't been for years whereas attachment theory is pretty much mainstream. Jean Mercer is not 'my expert'. She's been on Wiki longer than I and stands on her own two feet. Bowlby doesn't need anybody to 'recast his reputation'. His theories will either stand the test of scientific research over time or they won't. So far they're doing pretty well. This doesn't mean he was correct in every particular. 
I'm not attacking you Kip. I'm disagreeing with you about attachment theory. Thats normal on Wiki. You are the one getting personal. Lets not go there. We can amicably agree to differ surely. I don't have a particular 'mission' now. I suppose it was to clean up the attachment related articles after the depredations of the old attachment therapy sock army. Fainites barley 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, Third Contribution

message: Nope. I don't need to apologise for disagreeing with you. If I have misunderstood something you have said it would be unwittingly. I do recall you saying something along the lines of maternal deprivation and attachment theory as coming to be seen as synonymous in your video. I'll listen again to find the exact quote when I have a moment in case I misheard it. I also feel you have misunderstood what I have said but I do not attribute any malicious intent to that! Just as an example of how misunderstandings arise - I take JeanMercers comments above as agreeing with my position whereas you take them as agreeing with yours! Who knows what JM thinks of that. As I say - disagrement about theoretical matters is normal on Wiki. You shouldn't take disagreement personally. We've always worked perfectly well together before. Lets carry on that way shall we? Fainites barley 11:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainites comment

message: I have now checked your videos again. In "The Work of Dr.John Bowlby; Reassessed" you say "the theory of attachment has become synonymous with the theory of maternal deprivation". I have not therefore misquoted you. Fainites barley 12:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kip - quotation found, Fainites comment

message: I do not say the "maternal deprivation and attachment theory are synonymous". I say the opposite on the video clip and as shown by the Wikipedia page. 
The real meaning could not be clearer.
You have tried to make it sound as though I said they are the same and this is supported by most people when I have said the opposite. You are guilty of taking the phrase out of context to deliberately misrepresent my point of view.
You cannot claim that this is an accident or that you did not mean to do so because you went back to find the quote and the real meaning must be clear.
You do not have anything to criticize me for so you have made things up!
KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, You are guilty of taking the phrase out of context to deliberately misrepresent my point of view, kip comment

message: You attribute to Bowlby above. This is what you say,
Here is a quote from "Attachment and Loss", the first volume of Attachment which he started in 1956:
* "In this discussion so far it has been implied that a child directs his attachment behavior towards one particular figure, referred to either as his mother figure or even simply as his mother. This usage, which for the sake of brevity is unavoidable, has nonetheless given rise on occasion to misunderstanding. For example, it has sometimes been alleged that I have expressed the view that mothering should always be provided by a childs natural mother, and also that mothering 'cannot be safely distributed among several figures' (Mead 1962). No such views have been expressed by me..........almost from the first many children have more than one attachment figure towards whom they direct attachment behaviour; these figures are not treated alike; the role of the child's principal attachment figure can be filled by others than the natural mother."
But how can Bowlby in 1956 quote from Mead writing in 1962 as you claim?
I have got to say that wherever you got the quote from it seems to be supporting the same point of view I describe in the video clip. Are you not arguing against yourself and just adjusted the date so it fits in better with your own criticism of me?
What is the full quote? From whom? When?
Does it not go to justify what I have been saying from the beginning?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, Where has this quote come from? kip comment

message: It says he started it in 1956. This is what Bowlby says in the preface to his book. If you had the book you wouldn't so blithely accuse others of bad faith by suggesting I have 'adjusted ' the date. The whole work in three volumes took over 10 years but his research anf developments continued thereafter. The quote is from Bowlby himself in volume one Attachment and Loss. What on earth do you mean "wherever you got the quote from". This is Bowlby's major work. I assume you have read Bowlby as you make such extreme comments about him. The point I am trying to make is that Bowlby's theory is not defined by maternal deprivation. He makes it very clear that attachment theory does not propose that only Mothers can be primary or other attachment figures. JM endorses this and she is an expert in the field. Anyway - if you want to see me as evilly motivated because I disagree with you then fine - thats your choice. I have attempted to suggest that a mere disagreement about a text need not prevent us working together, despite your easy assumptions of bad faith on the part of people who have the audacity to disagree with you. I still think that is the case. It is up to you as to whether or not you think everybody having to agree with your interpretation is a necessary requirement for editing articles. Why don't you check out Wiki policies on this point. Fainites barley 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fainities, Where has this quote come from? Fanities comment

message: I realise you have not contradicted anything I have stated and noted beforehand that you are pretty mainstream as a rule.
I should be very grateful if you would take a look at the Wik page called 'Human bonding' and tell me what you think?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Mercer and 'Human bonding', kip comment

message: I think I have contradicted the idea that Bowlby was committed to attachment as directed toward the mother alone-- at least, that's what i meant to do when I referred to that background material.
I looked at the "human bonding" page and am not exactly sure what you're asking me about. Parent-infant bonding is the only part i know much about. (The idea of physical adhesion in bonding is, I hope, metaphorical?) When I say bonding below, I mean parent-infant. 
There are a few issues I see about that part. First, there's no reference to Klaus and Kennell, and right or wrong as K and K may be, you really can't discuss the recent history or research evidence on this topic without them. They have a nice discussion of paternal engrossment that you'd probably enjoy. Second, I think the discussion of bonding would do well to take a page from the attachment discussion and deal with bonding BEHAVIOR--  how would we know from watching whether there was parental bonding to a baby, as we can infer from watching which adult a toddler prefers? Third-- and I don't know how this works with various Wiki rules-- I believe the average reader needs some clarification of differences and similarities between bonding and attachment. Fourth, I think the discussion would be more meaningful if the non-human research were separated from that based on humans--  for example, if we remember that rat maternal behavior means nest-building and retrieving pups who wander off, that helps clarify what human parental behavior does and does not share with that of other creatures (there's some nice old work by Harriet Rheingold on baboon mothers and the factors that determine when they refuse to carry their babies any more). Fifth, if there's to be a discussion of whether bonding begins during pregnancy, it would probably help to talk about stages like fetal embodiment and the way they help shape parental attitudes (and you're right if you say we don't know enough about fathers' thoughts on this). Sixth, and i hope I don't think of more, a related issue is post-partum psychosis and related child-killing-- how does this rare but tragic event fit with other things we know about bonding?
I think integrating some or all of these points into the topic would make the parent-infant part of "human bonding" more informative. Best regards, Jean Mercer (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC
:::::I don't actually see you disagreeing with me.KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Mercer and 'Human bonding', Jean Mercer second comment

message: Bowlby was not the first to stress the primacy of the relationship with the mother-- and indeed he emphasized the biological mother a good deal less than others like Freud and Klein had done.
In addition, Bowlby does not say that attachment develops in the first 6 months. There are important steps in social interactions during that time, but attachment behaviors and emotions are not generally apparent until 7 or 8 months.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "What is essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with his mother (or mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment." Fainites barley 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maternal deprivation-- errors

message: Let's keep in mind that Bowlby was working just before, during, and soon after the war years, when most fathers would have been working long hours, away fighting, or already killed or severely injured. This was a time during which most children had either maternal care or institutional care, and the latter would have involved female care providers. As a result of this situation, it makes perfect sense for Bowlby to have considered the caregiver as "she" and the work she was doing as "maternal." This does not imply that there is no advantage to having two loving parents--in fact, to question this would be like "Would you rather be rich and healthy or poor and sick?". But Bowlby's focus was on the necessity for at least one such person, and where there was one, that one was likely to be the mother.
At the same time, of course, the kibbutzniks were attempting to organize child care without a consistent caregiving adult, and what appears to have resulted is an unusual degree of attachment of children to other children rather than to adults.
In either case, these views were very different from the S. Freudian concern with attachment to the breastfeeding mother.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Please see my video clips) KingsleyMiller (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Maternal deprivation-- historical context

message: As you can see I wish to make an official complaint against Fainites|barley. You can see that he has used your comments to support his contribution and I wondered if you would like to make any further comment?
KingsleyMiller (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against Fainites|barley, Any comment Jean Mercer?

message: Fanities,
I have called a TRUCE and I would appreciate it if you stopped editing these pages in accordance with the TRUCE.
I feel the HEADINGS I provided for your contributions HIGHLIGHTED aspects of my complaint against you.
I should be very glad if you would restore the page before the TRUCE so that I may make this point in ARBITRATION.
If you have a COMPLAINT against me then you may use the same procedure.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TRUCE & ARBITRATION

message: You've put this in the intro. Kip. "The notion that fathers are necessarily less competent ...." Where does Bowlby say this? Fainitesbarley 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of article

message: The source is cited and the reference is given
Once again you have taken a phrase out of context and as an editor you are bringing Wik into disrepute.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content of article, Kip - this is silly, Faniities comment

message: You might also be interested in this bit from p 308: 
::"It is uncertain whether social behaviour begins to be directed towards discriminated subsidiary figures at the same time as it it first directed towards a principal attachment-figure or whetherit is directed towards subsidiary figures a little later. ......Schaffer and Emerson presen their findings as supporting the first view. Ainsworth, on the other hand, inclines to the belief that the direction of attachment behaviours towards subsidiary figures occurs a little later than it does to a principle figure......." 
::"...the infant who begins by showing an intense attachment to a principal figure is reported as significantly more likely to direct his social behaviour to other discriminated figures as well, whereas an infant who is weakly attached is more likely to confine all his socail behaviour to a single figure...."
::"..... it is a mistake to suppose that a young child diffuses his attachment over many figures in such a way that he gets along with no strong attachment to anyone, and consequently without any particular person when that person is away. In the contrary, both the older evidence and that more recently available (Rutter, 1981, Ainsworth, 1982) supports a hypothesis advanced in an earlier paper (Bowlby, 1958), namely that there is a strong bias for attachment behaviour to become directed towards one particular person..."
The cite to Rutter by the way is to the second edition of "Maternal deprivation reassessed". Fainites barley 11:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vol. 1

message: I propose to make some significant changes to this article as it currently misrepresents both Bowlby and Rutter. In particular the whole of the second section purports to define differences between maternal deprivation and attachment theory, whereas in fact the 4 elements set out in the 1995 paper cited are specifically developments in attachment theory between its first publication in 1969 and later developments - two of which Rutter specifically attributes to Bowlby.It also contains some unreferenced assertions.Fainites barley 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I've moved some of your material from the intro into a history section Jean. Hope thats OK. Feel free to move it back if you think it appropriate.Fainites barley 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: It is certainly the case that CAM psychotherapies stress the mother's influence and the consequences of separation, even today. I'll add some material referring to this.Jean Mercer (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CAM views

message: a) I read somewhere just recently that one of the main effects of the exaggeration of 'maternal deprivation' ideas was to make mothers feel guilty because anything wrong with the child/adult had to be entirely their fault! I can't find it now. Can you remember seeing it?
b) I also saw recently that one of the things that was new with Bowlby was statistical/mathematical analysis of research results in this kind of area. The quote said something along the lines of it seeming rudimentary now compared to modern day standards of research but it was pioneering at the time. Fainites barley 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing cites

message: Something about Spitz should probably go in here too. I've been forgetting that. But where there's the external link to the vido, I can't imagine why it says these are insecure attachments.Jean Mercer (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spitz

message: Should note 10 not refer to Wootton's paper in the "reassessment" volume? These are separate papers, and I don't think it's suitable to make this appear to refer to Ainsworth. I think the correct reference would be
Wootton, B. (1966). A social scientist's approach to maternal deprivation. In World Health Organization (Ed.), Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects (pp. 255-266). New York: Schocken. 
I haven't altered this, in case the editor involved had a different paper in mind. But I can't see that Ainsworth could have been the source.Jean Mercer (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its now note 13. Could you check I've done the right one? Fainites barley 22:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited source

message: Found that bit. It was van Dijken "Bowlby also differed from Winnicott by using statistics in his early psychoanalytic writings (see for example Bowlby, 1944, 1946a).  Although Bowlby’s use of statistics is by recent standards rather modest, he was a pioneer at that time.  Articles in the International Journal of Psycho-Analysis of that time hardly ever contained statistical or mathematical information.” " Fainites barley 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen that Casler thing mentioned somewhere. I'll see what I can find. Fainites barley 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rutter cites Casler 1968 as one of the people who rejected the notion that providing an ongoing warm relationship was as important a part of parenting as care, discipline and stimulation etc. Fainites barley 22:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistics

message: Flicking around on the net, what seems to come up most, apart from largely inaccurate students cheat essays, are scientific papers on research on rats and various e-encyclopaedias which talk of 'maternal deprivation syndrome' in the context of NOFTT. I wonder if we should have a section on this use in relation to NOFTT. It doesn't appear in ICD-10 though. Is it in DSM-IV-TR? Fainites barley 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: other uses

message: Bowlby made it clear that he was referring to mothers as females and this excluded fathers. This page confuses this important issue therefore I have added the tag.
Much of the other stuff is irrelevant and only confuses the reader.
KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: Jean, I've got a secondary source on feminist criticism of maternal deprivation. Worth a paragraph don't you think? Fainites barley 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fainites barley 11:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist criticism

message: I have removed the tag as there will now be no mediation to resolve these issues. Fainites barley 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: I've templated, isbn'd and pmid'd what there is - but much of it is too old for isbn/pmid classification. I've checked and corrected Kingsleys cite from Schaffer but haven't been able to check Berman and Parke yet. I'm putting it in for GA Fainites barley 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked Berman. Its rather old and there is more recent research on this topic. I found one recent study which showed that females showed more interest in infants (contrary to the original post) and another which showed the same interest but that the females were more responsive. We need to look at the research in the round to represent this aspect fairly - ie is there more recent research regarding your own infants as opposed to infants in general? I took Bernam out until we can look at this in more detail. Fainites barley 13:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts - its not really relevent to this article. Perhaps its more of a bonding thing - from the other side. Fainites barley 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Two nurses with baby in nursery at Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital, Toronto, ON.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: So much criticism of maternal deprivation experiments is based upon the cruelty of using nonhumans to model human maternal deprivation experiences.  Though still exploitative, some models merely test the neurological value of cage enrichment and then 'sacrifice' the NHPs (beheading) after the trial period (in the cage) to examine relative growth in brain tissues (in the 'subjects'). MaynardClark (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Models

message: I'm reading about Bowlby's attachment theory and the page talks about something called "affectionless psychopathy." Right now I am unable to check the primary sources to see if this is true or relevant. OrangeAipom (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Affectionless Psychopathy

message: Bowlby got his English language usage wrong. He incorrectly used the term deprivation - as does this article, thinking it meant privation. It does not. Privation - the insufficient supply of a requirement - is a risk factor. Deprivation - the gross absence of a requirement - is not. Deprivation causes profound harm. Unambiguously. Unequivocally. To wit, maternal REJECTION. It causes profound, life-long, psychologically devastating, utterly refractory ie untreatable psychic damage, annihilating the child's psyche, and destroying the ability to experience a human life. Maternal rejection is simply psychological infanticide. A topic the psychiatric profession has - with true irony - grossly neglected. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty Language 

message: 1. Reference is needed to the all-pervasive and virtually ubiquitous view that children did not deserve nor need respect (in Western cultures particularly, and notably especially in Anglophile cultures)), were innately insignificant, if not worthless, and likewise their views, experiences, and emotions were not properly matters of concern. Partly born of historically high rates of unwanted pregnancy, and infant mortality. Partly of puritanical religious and societal views. And of the caprice, injustice and brutalism so evident in everyday life. But mostly of prejudice, and condescension. This eased gradually post World War 2, but did not change greatly until the 1980s.
2. The focus on 'mother', 'maternal', indeed 'parent', is now recognised as an archetypal example of mindlessly blind prejudice, with no sound basis in reason. It is now accepted a child requires emotional nurture; the gender or familial role, or any other attribute of the nurturer is utterly immaterial. The issue is one of emotional development and deprivation. Other considerations, and terms such as 'mother', 'maternal' and 'parent', have no relevance to the topic per se.
3. Bowlby and his successors, for all their good work, altogether overlooked the worst category of emotional deprivation, namely abject deprivation (or privation), the physically present but emotionally absent nurturer [sic], doubtless because of the innate difficulties identifying and studying the type. Thus no account or exposition was given of the child given no emotional nurture, despite it very commonly occurring. Though less common today, it is nevertheless extant, and not unusual. And remains very little studied. The 'mother as madonna' myth is incredibly resistant to moderation. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring Omissions