Historically, did women ever devote themselves entirely to their children?

(56 Posts)
wanderingalbatross Mon 08-Oct-12 11:01:35

I was just reading this article on the Guardian about work-life balance of female Silicon Valley execs. I found it interesting as I have quite a flexible tech job. The flexible working pattern really suits me and I really hope it'll work around my kids in the future.

Then there are the usual comments, including the standard "why did you have kids if you don't want to look after them?" Which got me wondering, has there ever really been a time when women sacrificed work for their kids? I'd like to say people, but I suppose that men didn't do all that much of the child raising.

I admit that my historical knowledge is poor and mostly gained from fiction(!) but I get the impression that this 'golden age' when kids were looked after by a dedicated parent is a figment of our collective imagination. Sure, in the 50s plenty of women were SAHMs, but I imagine they spent a lot more time on housework than we do, and were't dedicating their days to broadening the minds of their little ones. And before then, I have heard said that most women just had to get on with work alongside raising their kids as they couldn't afford not to.

So where does this idea come from?

exoticfruits Wed 10-Oct-12 19:09:17

* I mean, nine years ago, who cared what kind of pram you had etc.*

I can't see why anyone would care now! I'm glad that I was before you had to bother-mine came from my neighbour -free.

summerflower Wed 10-Oct-12 12:12:39

>>I think the recent trend has got much worse over the last 5-10 years. Certainly when I had DS (almost 19) having children and raising them was just something you did, and you went back to work or didn't depending on the practicalities for your family (income, family around for childcare, etc). Nobody that I knew thought of it as a career - it was a break in your career, or a chance to stop work, or just one more thing to juggle with your working life.<<

I do wonder how much the internet and (whisper) parenting forums have to do with it, though. SAHPs on-line for large chunks of the day bigging up their choices must have something to do with it. (or maybe that is just my experience from a noxious, now defunct forum I used to be on)

On the other hand, I think that is a lazy explanation, because I can across the attitude from my ex-MIL when I was pregnant with DD (what is the point of having children if you are just going out to work, I mean never mind that her son buggered off when dd was a baby ) and at my first and last mother and baby group (9 years ago).

So, I wonder whether it is the case that women have access to education and until the point they have children, we fall for the idea that we have equality and can do everything a man can - only to discover that we have been sold a lie, and really, our careers come second to our primary biological purpose, so the pressure is there to turn that into a career replacement.

plus, motherhood is so much more commericalised. I mean, nine years ago, who cared what kind of pram you had etc.

Oh, it's a really nice book, do look it out, it's really easy to dip in and out of IMO.

But I get your point about time/toddlers/jobs!

I suppose 'why have them if you don't want to stay home' is possibly a post-contraceptive kind of sniping, as well. Though there's that bit in TS Eliot about why would you get married if you don't want sex, so possibly people always said that sort of thing.

wanderingalbatross Wed 10-Oct-12 11:25:16

I do realise that the 'choice' to stay at home or not is largely an illusion for many people. But what is interesting is the idea that women have always looked after the kids even if it's not historically accurate, and the attitude from some that we shouldn't be having them if we're not prepared to look after them ourselves. Strangely, you don't hear these sorts of attitudes about fathers! And I imagine that these attitudes don't really exist when women have to work to keep their families afloat.

Thanks for the book recommendation LRD, I'll see if I can get round to reading it sometime. Hard to find the time as I have a both a toddler whose mind needs broadening and a job ;)

exoticfruits Wed 10-Oct-12 09:57:25

I think the recent trend has got much worse over the last 5-10 years. Certainly when I had DS (almost 19) having children and raising them was just something you did, and you went back to work or didn't depending on the practicalities for your family (income, family around for childcare, etc). Nobody that I knew thought of it as a career - it was a break in your career, or a chance to stop work, or just one more thing to juggle with your working life.

I agree. If people take time off from a career they have to justify it by proving that their choices are best therefore you get all the new terms for age old things e.g. BLW and 'babywearing' where it doesn't really matter how you get your baby to eat a balanced diet or whether you carry your baby around-as long as it suits you and your baby.
Probably a similar thing after WW1 Bonsoir-women back in domesticity justifying it by getting their DS a good job and their DD a good marriage. I was talking more about later, when women didn't need to get married and there were plenty of jobs and birth control.

PostBellumBugsy Wed 10-Oct-12 09:41:38

Agree with AMumInScotland, however I think that this "career" motherhood is very limited to those who have the choice because of their partner's earning potential.
In our parents & grand-parents time (outside of wartime), women didn't really have so much of a choice. Women were supposed to stay at home & rear children while the men went out to work. If you were very poor or your husband was dead or very sick, then women often had no choice, they had to work but for large swathes of first world women, societal pressure meant they stayed at home.
With womens lib & the fight for equality, women gained more choice & could stay at work if they wanted. But now, there is alot less choice again. There are more single parent families & more famililes where both incomes are really needed - so the "choice" to be a "career mum" if such a thing exists is really only for a very small proportion of the population.

OddBoots Wed 10-Oct-12 09:36:31

I know both my grandmothers worked from home in the millinery trade when bringing up babies post-war. I also know that the books of the time encouraged putting the baby in a pram at the end of the garden for a few hours a day and I do wonder if part of this was to make time to work.

PostBellumBugsy Wed 10-Oct-12 09:33:04

For women from families of means, be they aristocratic or gentry, raising daughters to be marriageable was extremely important. Marriage was how families improved or maintained their social standing and mothers would have been very involved in ensuring that their daughter's were as well prepared as possible and made the best match.

I think the recent trend has got much worse over the last 5-10 years. Certainly when I had DS (almost 19) having children and raising them was just something you did, and you went back to work or didn't depending on the practicalities for your family (income, family around for childcare, etc). Nobody that I knew thought of it as a career - it was a break in your career, or a chance to stop work, or just one more thing to juggle with your working life.

I think it's become much more of a "media thing" in the last couple of years, probably because some very "driven" people have found themselves outside of paid work and have been determined to make it into a "positive choice" and something to "excel at" rather than it just being one more aspect of life to be dealt with as well or badly as any other.

I think that's pretty much it, wandering. Work has never, I think, been perfectly segregated along gender lines - there have always been jobs both men and women could do, and there have always been male-dominated jobs some women did, and vice versa.

It's not hard academia, but have you read the Stella Tillyard book 'Aristocrats'? It was made into a film, the book is a biography with enough footnotes to be reasonably useful if you want details - it is about four sisters in the late 18th-early 19th century, and provides a lot of quotations from their letters about how they raised their families. Emily Lennox certainly writes about it being an indulgence to be with her children - though she had, IIRC, about 22 of them, so it must have been a bit of a different experience! And her sister Caroline seems to have cared a lot about her children being successful. It's not the same as Oxbridge-mamma, but it's not a million miles away, I suppose.

I think there were medieval mothers who treated raising their children as a career, too. But it feels slightly different, because today the rhetoric is that you're raising your child so they can be successful, whereas then I think it's rather more openly obvious you expect to get financial security out of it.

I think probably things like pensions and the NHS make a difference to how people think about their childrens' futures, if that's not too cynical.

wanderingalbatross Wed 10-Oct-12 08:50:41

So, what I understand so far is that historically, poor women have always worked and have always almost had to work to keep things going. The rich have always been able to outsource the domestic work, including childcare, to the poor.

In medieval times, women typically worked in the home whilst keeping an eye (or not!) on their kids. Young children were expected to learn their trades and be useful much earlier than they are now. But, work was still segregated along gender lines, even though there was no moral objection to women working. Then, the industrial revolution came along and women still had to work, often while farming their kids out to others to look after. However, the legal situation, with women not being able to own land and being thought of as property means that things could never be equal. Did society think it was indulgent to spend time with your kids during these periods?

Then you had the wars, each with the effect of pushing women back into the home and to their families in the aftermath. Learning more about child development, including Bowlby's attachment theory, just added to the pressures to stay home. Now the post-ww2 period is seen as 'traditional', even though it was really an anomaly in the grand scheme of things.

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this!

Exactly how recent is this trend to treat raising kids as a career? Is it something that has just popped up in the past few years with the recession, or has it been going on longer? I have only noticed it since getting pg with DD, but that was just 2 years ago so I really wasn't paying attention to attitudes towards motherhood before then.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 08:21:01

exoticfruits - I can tell you for a fact that raising children as if it were a career was a popular middle-class occupation in the north of England after the First World War.

exoticfruits Wed 10-Oct-12 08:11:39

It is only a recent thing to treat raising DCs like a career - the idea seems to be that if you get your DC to Oxbridge or into the Olympics etc you have won the 'mummy stakes' - it proves you were the best mother!
In the days when they traditionally stayed at home it was benign neglect- more an Enid Blyton or Just William existence where they went off doing their own thing. The 11+ was just an exam that you took- not 3years of tutors and parental angst.
The well off had people look after them. Jane Austin was farmed out to a village family for her first 2 years. The poor had to work- even if it was just potato picking or similar. The children worked young and the elder children looked after the younger.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 07:55:37

Who is being touchy here, LRD wink. You linked to a page which was referring to the Florentine aristocracy. FYI, Florence is in a part of Europe which is now Italy, though it was a city state at the time.

I think you need to learn to read, don't you?

I never said the medieval aristocracy were all the same across Europe. England and France together do not constitute 'Europe', whatever you may think.

It is I who explained to you that you were conflating medieval times with the 18th and 19th centuries, so don't bounce your mistake back at me.

I think you have come here to try to stir things up because you're sore you got it wrong on another thread, so you're trying to pick a fight here. This is not very bright, and pretty rude when it's liable to derail the OP's interesting thread. So I am not going to participate in another tedious little demonstration of you trying to pretend you know what you're talking about.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 07:46:22

I've got quite a lot of books in my bookcase already on this subject smile. I think you need to distinguish between the medieval aristocracy (who were not all the same across Europe) and the bourgeoisie of the 18th and 19th centuries (who, again, were not all the same across Europe).

Oh, sorry, that was to brioche.

bonsoir - no, why would I think that? confused

I'm just distinguishing between two periods of history several hundred years apart. It would be foolish not to.

Have a look at my link, it looks like a cool book.

Really?! Crikey.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 07:40:52

I think you think that parents employed wet nurses directly - but they didn't. There was almost always a paid intermediary. Children typically spent several years with a wet nurse in the countryside (as this was how poor rural women earned a living) while their parents worked in town.

BriocheDoree Wed 10-Oct-12 07:40:21

I have read that wet-nursing is very much in vogue in China, particularly since the various formula milk scandals. I believe it is relatively well-paid. However, this is current rather than ancient history!
I believe that this idea of a woman's place being in the home with her kids is probably a 1950s construct. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing: I spent many happy years at home with my kids before going back to work part-time, but I do dislike people who claim that it is "traditional" or "right".

I don't think so, bonsoir - I think you just mean France in those centuries. Medieval France looks to be pretty similar to medieval England (which you'd expect, of course).

That's really sad. sad

There's that English stereotype of terrible wet-nurses drinking massive amounts of gin and crushing the babies they were looked after - though I just read apparently this might well simply have been SIDS, which wasn't understood back then.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 07:34:25

"But obviously, you're not going to hire a desparate and emaciated woman as a wet nurse."

In France parents didn't usually meet their child's wet nurse.

Bonsoir Wed 10-Oct-12 07:33:08

In France, wet nursing was a state-regulated profession in the 18th and 19th centuries. Women were supposed to be of good character etc. That didn't prevent them living in tiny rural cottages with terrible hygiene and letting their own children starve to death in order to feed the children they were being paid to wet nurse (and most of those died too).

Btw, I just googled for this, but it looks reputable and quite interesting, on the page that's shown: books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z4SL2X3uHEAC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=medieval+wet+nurse&source=bl&ots=kjn-KC5wFJ&sig=6gcGJmhkZZSXSj0593qLv3scjic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xxV1UPSYGfS20QXc0YHgDw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=medieval%20wet%20nurse&f=false

I suspect land grants from the king were not exactly normal, but still pretty impressive, if you think of other ways that woman could have earned money!

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now