Mums are better than dads...

[nooka]

Following on from the Ruby Wax thread, which included some discussion of whether mothers were inherantly better than fathers at childcare, I found this article, which might interest those who were asking for (but failed to get) any evidence based answers as to why there was such a strong belief that mothers were best.

It's quite long and technical, but shows that fathers give different care than mothers, although interestingly not in babyhood.

www.bristol.ac.uk/cmpo/workingpapers/wp175.pdf

There's also a more readable summary here:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/newsandcomment/speakerscorner/Pages/Progressiveparenting.aspx

[inthegutter]

Interesting reading, but I think many of us believe quite simply that it's not about who is 'best', it's about both parents loving their children enormously and wanting to be equally involved in their upbringing.

[blueshoes]

Nooka, thanks for posting this.

I have to admit I have only read the summary.

I find it significant that the study seemed to say that it makes no difference whether or not the mother or father provides primary care during the first year of a baby's life:

"I found no differences in children?s academic or social skills [at the time they start school] at all according to the amount of paternal childcare they experienced in the first year of life. This is perhaps surprising. Developmental experts have argued that mothers have a uniquely important role to play in this early formative period, both because of the health benefits of breast-feeding and the importance of mother-infant bonding in providing emotional security. Yet my research suggests that, on average, fathers are equally as able as mothers in providing early infant care."

This would support a longer paternity leave and/or allowing parents to swap maternity/paternity leave, depending on whether it suits that family for the mother or father to remain at home for the first year.

[nooka]

It was for you really blueshoes! You didn't manage to get any answers on that other thread, so when I found this at work (I was looking for information on what to assess a clinic for when considering the needs of disabled people, so why this popped up I don't know!) I immediatley thought, must post, although the other thread had long moved on...

inthegutter I absolutely agree. I just don't like it when mothers insist that they alone have a special bond, which no one else can possibly have in a similar way. As a mum whose bond has grown and grown (from a fairly weak start - I was relieved to go back to work having found a great nanny for my two) I always wonder when people insist that they are the only people who can care for their child when young, but that this need declines as children get older - I have found the opposite. My two are now much more interested in my company, and wanting my support now they are at school (and their dad's attention and support too I should add)

[blueshoes]

why thank you, nooka! It is a very surprising result for a study, especially when mothers breastfeed and have that hormonal advantage in bonding.

Surely if the father can provide equally good care in infancy, then theoretically, that care could also be provided by an equally attentive nanny or childminder or dare I say, nursery carer! I say theoretically, because the study does not test a scenario outside of paternal care in infancy. But as the study does not find that boobs and hormones as a condition of good infant care, the potential to extrapolate is there.

[blueshoes]

The first finding of the study is that there is no real difference in the outcome for children whether it was the mother or father who cared primarily for the baby in its first year, after the first year.

What is also interesting is the other finding that after the first year, when environmental influences are stronger, that children primarily cared for by the mother infancy do better if some limited (between 5 and 15 hours a week) childcare time is transferred from the mother to the father.

The one exception where this beneficial outcome is not observed is where boys are left alone as toddlers with their fathers for longer than 15 hours a week - they performed worse on academic assessments when they began school than other boys. But this deletrious effect is diluted if the boy also spent some time being looked after outside their own home, such as in a nursery or with a childminder.

So what is it that men do with their toddler and pre-schooler sons that is not good for their cognitive development?

[inthegutter]

'I always wonder when people insist that they are the only people who can care for their child when young, but that this need declines as children get older'-
nooka - you've taken the words right out of my mouth! I absolutely agree. I find it really offensive the way some mothers think that they are the be-all and end-all of their child's life, and that no one else, not even the father, can do such a perfect job of parenting. Every child deserves to have parents who are loving, involved and interested. I also think there is a tendency in our society for children to become more and more sidelined as they become less 'cutesy'. It's relatively easy to give your time and attention to a newborn baby or a cute and cheeky toddler; far more demanding (but just as necessary) to give time and attention to a stroppy and emotional adolescent.