Advanced search

ANOTHER way in which fulltime work hypothetically damages children....

(367 Posts)
justaboutautumn Tue 29-Sep-09 05:32:03

Message withdrawn

nooka Tue 29-Sep-09 05:38:21

If this was really just done on the basis of questionnaires then I can't see how it could come to this conclusion. Perhaps the working and non working mothers just report differently? I shall go and look at the research.

On another point I did so agree with the comment
"So what they're saying is that dad's don't matter?Or exist?"

Stupid reporting IMO.

nooka Tue 29-Sep-09 05:49:02

Well that's interesting. The link given to the Journal does not include any papers on the Millennium Cohort Study this month, nor does the Centre for longitudinal studies list any recently published papers on the Millenium Cohort. There is a study on physical activity in children, but that won't be published until 2011.

So I wonder what research the Times is talking about?

nooka Tue 29-Sep-09 05:58:05

Catherine Law is listed as a researcher at UCL, but her study was apparently called:
"Will policies for the early years reduce inequalities in health? A synthesis of evidence to inform policy development (Lead: Catherine Law, Institute of Child Health, UCL)" and won't be complete until next year.

My children are over five, so presumably OK, and they are both extremely active, even though they watch a fair bit of TV, and sometimes had two working parents!!

foxinsocks Tue 29-Sep-09 06:21:12

yes I like the research too nooka

one conclusion could be 'SAHM lie more about TV watching than WOHM' wink

surely if you are working, you don't know how much TV they are watching anyway (other than the hours you are home)?

all v strange and yes, evidence again that, of course, only mothers have any idea about what their children eat, watch and well basically function! Fathers, well they are too busy working of course arrrghhhhhhhhh!

tribpot Tue 29-Sep-09 07:11:09

I like Lucius Malfoy's comment on the article.

mumblechum Tue 29-Sep-09 07:25:48

On Today it said it applied to part time workers as well.

Oh well. Ds has only had 15 hours exercise/training this week. I really must improve my performance as a mother.

wahwah Tue 29-Sep-09 07:31:34

I'm not sure what is being said here, is it (once again) that working mothers are raising brats, only this time fat brats? Or that (once again) child care is rubbish and raises brats, new and special fat brats? Clearly we are all doomed.

FlamingoBingo Tue 29-Sep-09 07:36:23

I hate it that they blame the mothers angry.

If, and that's quite an important 'if', the research is accurate, then it's not the fact that the mothers work, it's the fact that there is not a full time SAHP. Why is it always the mothers that are blamed???

It's like when they talk about when mums go out for the evening, the dad is babysitting hmm.

GeekIsGood Tue 29-Sep-09 07:42:17

Oh FFS I hate this stuff and I don't even have DC yet. How can they justify no mention of how much the father works, or even if there is a father around?

Are we fish or something, the male deposits his sperm and responsibility ends there? You'd think so according to the papers.

Weegle Tue 29-Sep-09 07:43:58

well apart from the fundamental oversight that there are two parents responsible for the upbringing of children...

Before reading it I thought it would be about nursery aged children having higher incidents of colds, D&V, etc - that would kind of make sense, that children spending more time in nurseries (likely children of working parents) would pick up more bugs... but what they are saying just seems to be having a dig and isn't substantial in any way.

bradsmissus Tue 29-Sep-09 07:45:08

Oh great - another WOHM bashing in the media - just what we all need to brighten our day!

cory Tue 29-Sep-09 07:46:32

"Professor Law said that while the work did not prove a causative link between maternal work and child health, it showed a definitive association which needed to be considered by policymakers."

In that case, professor Law is being rather silly, isn't she? Surely if you cannot prove a causative link but see a definitive association, the people to call in are not the policymakers, but the researchers?

foxinsocks Tue 29-Sep-09 08:14:07

it can't be accurate if they just ASKED people though

they haven't measured anything

Northernlurker Tue 29-Sep-09 08:21:38

The absence of any reference to working fathers in this 'news' is one thing that gives me pause. I just don't see how they can conclude any causal relationship when they aren't looking at what's going on in the other hhalf of the family if a two parent one. Total woman hating bollocks imo.

I shall just look at my non overweight cycling or walking every day kids and console myself. They do watch a fair bit of a tv but they haven't yet grown a second head or held up a bank so I'm probably doing ok. They also seem to quite like me - poor deluded muffins grin

StewieGriffinsMom Tue 29-Sep-09 08:27:36

Message withdrawn

PrincessToadstool Tue 29-Sep-09 08:33:46

Hmm. 2+2=5?

My DS watches more TV now I'm a SAHM than when I worked! Funnily enough it hasn't made him obese or a hater of apples. Yet!

CuntWhacker Tue 29-Sep-09 08:34:08

Its the children of SAHM who watch TV more in my experience. Cos for 10 hours a day at nursery, there is no TV.

fishie Tue 29-Sep-09 08:34:29

i can't find the report or any reference to it other than the times article. and that doesn't make any connection between this catherine law person and the 'research'.

can someone do some better sleuthing?

TheBalladofGayTony Tue 29-Sep-09 08:35:52

yes when i go to work i lock dd in the larder with a fistful of fruitshoots and sausage rolls.

to paraphrase someone else on here, sits back and waits for the 'dumping with strangers' and 'precious moments' brigade

fishie Tue 29-Sep-09 08:39:41

and a telly gaytony, don't forget the full brainwashing experience.

it is a complete non-story, reminds me of that poor bloke who had his research into methods of publicising breastfeeding turned into anti-bf rant by the dm.

StillSquiffy Tue 29-Sep-09 08:44:33

<FFS emoticon>

"Working mums have the unhealthiest children, research finds" says the headline

"Maternal employment may have variable (my italics) effects on pre-school children’s health. Policies promoting parental employment should monitor and evaluate the effect on the health and wellbeing of all members of the family" concludes the survey itself, citing the fact that vaccination uptake better amongst children of working parents, and that weight problems may (my italics) be more prevalent, especially if long hours worked.

Research also notes that meta-analysis not possible (which basically means that there is not enough data to enable the academics to compare the research and come to a firm conclusion).

Research methods by the way included "relevant websites; retrieved article reference lists; consultation with experts" (not sure if that included Steve Biddulph or not...)

Here is the abstract of what was actually said. Am beginning to put the Times in same bracket as the DM these days.

AtheneNoctua Tue 29-Sep-09 08:46:05

The BBC article says the mums averaged 21 hours of work per week. So they WOH half of the time and SAH half of the time. How is this a study about working mums?

I work full time. 5 days a week. 40+ hours. And I am a freak about nutrition and competitive excersise/sports. We take dance, tennis and swimming. Maybe the government should take pity on my fat children and pay for our gym membership?

fishie Tue 29-Sep-09 08:47:09

well done squiffy. it seems as though prof law has been doing a little creative press release work....

nooka Tue 29-Sep-09 08:51:33

StillSquiffy that was published in May, and wasn't about the Millennium Cohort, so I really don't think it can be the research quoted. Which I can't find, despite looking at various web sites linked to the Millennium cohort, UCL and Catherine Law. I think that's really odd, to say the least. The links from the BBC, which is usually fairly reliable don't seem to go to the research either.

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