Foreign mothers Vs British mothers (nature V nurture)

[Condescendingtwats]

Looking for an interesting discussion on this as I’ve been pondering it for years! More so since becoming a mother myself. I don’t want to ask anyone in RL as don’t want to offend.

So in the UK and maybe other western countries we don’t tend to leave our babies with family and move away. In fact society in general can even be judgey about a mother going on nights out/holidays and leaving their babies with others.

A lot of mothers in the UK would say they couldn’t physically leave their child, it would make them ill/depressed and it unthinkable. A lot say it’s an instinctual thing and babies/children need their parents. They need their babies bear them.

But then, over my adult years I’ve met many mothers from all over the world due to work as well as travel.

In Thailand I met baby mothers who’s small children were still being raised by grandparents in their home village whilst they worked in the city to provide. Under stable and no choice due to poverty.

Then at work I met about 5 mothers over the past decade from Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Ghana who have children in their home country with family as well as other children here in the UK. They are doctors/nurses so not poor and no visa issues. Ann example is one mother who has a kids 8,5, 3 and a baby. The 8 year old and 1 year old baby in the UK with her but the 5 and 3 Year old are in Nigeria.

Then I met a Romanian mother at my baby class a few months back who has a child who’s 4 years old and living in Greece with relatives (same dad and both good jobs). Her youngest baby is here with her.

So it’s not always poverty related but seems to be ‘the norm’ in their cultures.

But there doesn’t appear to be any devastation of not being their their small kids or an urgency to see/send for them. They sound perfectly happy.

So that makes me wonder is what we (British mums) feel about being apart from our babies/children is more societal condition as opposed to a biological/instinctual need to be near our kids?

Does anyone have any experience of this and can explain it more clearly to me?

Im not judging by the way, just interested in the differences.

Also before anyone says it.. in regards to dads, well they seem to be able to walk away from their children all over the world so not really surprised at that.

My dad's parent's left him with his grandmother and aunt when he was 2 months old. This was in the UK in the 1930s, they lived in the North West and went to London to find work. They stayed there for 3 years. This seriously affected my dad and he was never close to his parents once they returned and he never got over his abandonment issues.

I grew up with my parents in the same house but they were gone from 9 am to 11 pm everyday. My grandparents raised me and i also went to daycare when my sister was born. Only saw them during weekends.

My Dad moved to the UK to work, but Ireland was always his home.

His culture, his roots and his heritage were massively important to him but England was only ever a place to work and to save up enough to move home and build a house mortgage free. As soon as he could afford it, he brought us home. And though we were born in England, he considered us to be Irish to the extent he taught us the Irish language. We felt Irish too. We did occasionally run into some xenophobia, and anti-Irish sentiment - but then it was the 70s and it was the height of the Troubles. (and then when we did move our accents were too English for some people in Ireland!)

I think if Dad faced into a lifetime of working abroad rather than his own 10 year plan then I think he would have considered sending us home to our grandparents to raise us. It was fairly common for many Irish Dads in the late 70s and early 80s to work in UK construction and leave the wife and kids in Ireland where they had a support network. Ireland in those days had really high unemployment so they had no choice.

that DC with working mothers have better outcomes than those who have SAHMs (when you account for other factors eg poverty).

I'm not sure I understand this - of course if the choice is living in abject poverty with a sahm or living comfortably with a wohm, then the latter is preferable.
But all things being equal (socioeconomic factors of families), I don't think there would be any difference between outcomes in children of sah or wohm. Both presumably would have bonded with their primary caregivers as babies and once bonds are established, going to daycare isn't going to affect those bonds.

Going to nursery everyday isn't comparable to being raised in a different country to one's parents - presumably kids being raised by granny in another country, have a closer bond to her than to mum. Completely understandable to make that choice if it means getting your family out of poverty, but I can't see what's in it for women, (since pregnancy and birth are hard ) if they don't get the pleasure of raising their own dc.

In countries like Denmark, yes it's the norm to use nurseries but maternity leave is decent, as are working hours and general work/life balance in their culture. Nurseries are subsidised. These factors are different across varying nations so hard to compare like for like.

Nature designed new mothers to breastfeed. If the bond wasn't important, then surely nature would have designed us so that all people could feed all babies at anytime?

People from such cultures traditionally have children due to lack of a pension system. In China, in the aftermath of the sichuan earthquake where there were people who lost their children, it was said that the newly bereaved parents were often ostracized by their neighbours as their neighbours feared that they would ask them for money in old age. A lot of care homes in China would refuse to take you if you had no children as it is expected you may have issues paying. This is probably the case in many poor countries.

Pensions were invented by Bismarck to motivate the German working class to work harder in expectation of a few years of leisure at the end of their lives. for most of our history, older members of the tribe would rely on younger members.

Attachment theory was invented by a British man (Bowlby) who was raised by nannies then sent to boarding school and who blamed his mother for abandoning him and causing emotional distress. A lot of UK post WW2 social/family policy was based on his ideas of society providing for mothers to have time to spend with young children.
But it was only a theory...

Of course, a lot of post WW" social/family policy was also based on the premise of getting women back out of the workplace and espeically out of "men's jobs" now that the men wanted their jobs back. It's very intetesting to trace the correlation between the role of the woman in social policy and economic requirements in the labour force. When there isn't a labour shortage, children really really need SAHM's. When there is, collective childcare and working mothers is a much better familial model encouraging intelligence and independence in children.

But whilst poverty and economic migration accounts for some of this, it is too simple and answer. My mother was Irish and stayed in Ireland with her grandmother whilst her parents came to England. They weren't rich by any means, but poverty wasn't the reason my mum was left behind. Some of it was custom and culture, some of it was stability, some of it was leaving an elderly parent with adiitonal help around the house. It was a common pattern in Ireland within living memory.

In other cultures a strong(er) matrilinial culture can lead to children being left with elders or grandparents, preserving cultural transmission and ties.

One needs to be very careful about making assumptions based on what you think you know or observe. In particular, making assumptions that "British mothers" are actually different from "foreign mothers". Just that juxtaposition is cringe-worthy.

I remember a newspaper story a few years ago about a German couple who wanted their 6 year old to walk to school in the UK. People were outraged but it is normal in Germany!

It was normal in England in the 60s and 70s too. The Moors murders didn't have an impact, I'm not sure when things changed but it was certainly before the Soham murders.

Six is too young to have developed enough safety awareness to take themselves to school - 'fine' if a journey goes exactly as planned, without incident, but not if anything unexpected happens.
Sometimes there's a feeling on these types of comparative threads, that British people are doing life all wrong and that Europe/Scandinavia/Rest of World are doing it much better. Personally I think letting a six year old walk to school alone borders on neglect - different isn't always an improvement! Personally, I think it's good if children are raised by their own parents (with loving involvement from extended family) and that it's a good thing to escort kids to school until they are old enough to make sound judgements.

I wouldn't be willing to go through everything pregnancy and birth entails, to give the raising of my kids to my parents or in-laws. I get it from a poverty pov but once there's a choice I do believe it's best to be with mum or dad. Not least because it's knackering looking after kids and don't grandparents deserve a rest?

Just thinking, one of my siblings is a millionaire. Might send them the link to this thread and suggest pooling resources...

Please define "those" countries. I know many countries that would be considered "third world" with far superior education than many state schools in the UK.

ALL the parents from the Philippines I know who work(ed) abroad without their kids, plus some from other countries too, did it for money and providing better opportunities for their own children. And it's difficult to stop once they've started. Many end up staying abroad until their children graduate university, to ensure they can have higher education.

Most of those people are women, and most are heartbroken. They have to compartmentalise to some extreme degree. It's such an expression of love and loyalty. And for the women who work as nannies in order to send money to their kids, well, they have a kind of strength that hopefully we will never be in a position to properly understand.

I sometimes wonder if there is no NHS or state pensions in 10-20 years, such set ups might become more common. Parents go to big cities and work and as rent is too expensive, they share a studio or flat share with 12 others in a rental house. They send their money back 'home' where their parents are raising their kids and where it is cheaper. The grandparents are willing to do this as they can't afford the health insurance premiums without the support of their children and 'give back' in the form of free childcare. And the kind of jobs that most people of pension age can get aren't the kind of jobs where health insurance is included.

It wouldn't be as bad as the situations described here as the parents would see the children on weekends but I think that the north/south divide will continue to widen and if there is no welfare state, a lot of people would have to do this or face Dickensian levels of poverty. And this would also apply to southerners on lower incomes- they can move up north for lower costs but if you have to pay high health insurance premiums ( which would be the same all over the country), it would make sense to maximize earnings which would be higher in cities..mm

It's not always a poverty thing. It's also difference in concept of family. In some cultures, all blood aunties are actually called and considered mothers and uncles are fathers. A friend of mine is by no means poor but gave their day to his wife's sister because she has one child so why not. I know kids who prefer being raised by grandparents because, why not. And I know properly rich people from developing countries who are in Europe but left their children with relatives back home for several reasons (incl. they are too young for uk racism, they are afraid if cultural schism, the child prefers their home culture, or just because\why not)).

Saying it's always about poverty betrays the attitudes in this country that every immigrant is here because they are desperately poor. Everyone outside the uk or the west "is poorer that us"

I think the mothers you meet in the UK from other countries/cultures have a self-selection bias. Those that wouldn't dream of spliiting up their family or leaving children are not here! Or they united their family as quickly as possible. You are not comparing like with like.

There are plenry of British parents who have sent their children to boarding school through choice or necessity if they are in the armed forces or working abroad.

It's only in the last 100 years that children have been free to go to school past their mid teens in many western societies.

Hundreds of thousands of Irish teens used to be hired for farm work straight out of school at 12/13/14 and the same was true for young teens in mines and mills in industrial economies. Mass emigration to America and Australia and the UK from Ireland meant that remittances could be aent home to support families.

Patterns change - societies which are now prosperous werent always so. The basic motivation for any kind of work choice is usually the necessity of providing financially for family members, supporting older generations, paying for medical treatment or education, etc.

People leaving children behind with relatives are free to work long hours and get ahead in careers. They have confidence that their children are being cared for by people they know and trust, speaking a language they all understand, eating familiar foods, attending familiar schools, absorbing the familiar culture, and being truly loved. Dropping them off at nursery isn't the same thing at all.

Saying it's always about poverty betrays the attitudes in this country that every immigrant is here because they are desperately poor. Everyone outside the uk or the west "is poorer that us"
I agree. I think there are cultural aspects in some cases.

I lived in France and have French relatives. I was completely shocked at friends who would send their children - one as young 8 month baby who was this couple's first child, so no siblings - to grandparents for 3+ weeks. Why? They felt like a break. While he was away the parents enjoyed their pre-child social life and apparently didn't miss him at all. For them it was good to get a break, simple as that. In the summer holidays when he was older he'd go to them for 6 weeks. Loads of young primary aged kids I knew went to grandparents for 3+ weeks in the summer holidays. And these weren't grandparents living nearby. Some were a 6 hour high speed train ride, then a regular train ride.

There's no blanket reason why, at least between cultures/countries/socioeconomic groups etc.

All of your examples except for one are down to extreme poverty. I don’t believe any of those women would have wanted to leave their children behind.

The Romanian woman doesn’t represent the views or babaviours of an entire nation. There could be a number of reason why she wanted to, or was forced to, leave her child with family. She was likely putting on a brave face for a stranger.

I think we’re all far more alike than you seem to think.

To clarify the "shipping Italian children off to the grandparents" thing. It is very common in summer, but it's "shipping off WITH the grandparents" to the house the family (extended) probably owns in a seaside resort and returns to year after year. School holidays are from June 10th (give or take) till mid September and working parents will be off in August.
It's less to do with sending children away while parents work, and more sending them off with the people looking after them while the parents work who are still predominantly grandparents and who would be going off to the resort for 3 months in any case. The kids will have all their "summer" friends there and in all likelihood their cousins etc.

Whereas parents leaving children behind would be virtually unheard of. It's still, in many areas and in many families very rare for children even to go away for university, let alone be separated from their parents because their parents work away. Dad might. I do know several families including my BIL where the father is away Mon-Fri. My BIL has done it for 30 years and it always strikes me as strange that his wife didn't just go with him and they make a life in the city where he works. But that would have meant her leaving her parents and everything she knows and it would never happen.

I read all the bringing up baby/cultural things years back (Continuum Concept/Deborah Jackson etc ) but laugh a bit at my naval gazing and attempts/desires to be that perfect child bringer upper now.

The summer with the grandparents is surely not all that uncommon in the UK either? I can think of at least three British families I know in which the kids go to the grandparents for about a month of the summer holidays, and then have an overseas holiday with the parents for the remainder.
So, not entirely dissimilar from the Italian/French set up - and it makes good sense, doesn’t it? Kids are (hopefully) being doted on by grandparents, parents don’t have to scrabble around getting everyone booked into and delivered to their various expensive holiday clubs and grandparents can enjoy having their grandkids with them for an extended period.

@socialmedia23 - I met someone working in London with this kind of set up. She was a south East Asian woman (not sure exactly of ethnicity/family origin). She had an English husband and teenage daughter living in the north. She worked in London as a nanny during the week and travelled back north at the weekends to be with her family. It doesn’t sound like a bad set up but I suspect if given the choice to live at home and do the same job for same pay, she would have taken that.

i don’t think there is a right or wrong answer - just different things work for different families. Some mums find it v hard to be away from their kids for a couple of nights, some are fine provided they are happy with the person looking after them. Some have different parenting views from relatives so wouldn’t be comfortable leaving kids with them etc…

Exactly!
That's what my parents did in the summer with me. (UK) it's just that everyone does the "well, in Italy they..." when really, it's not quite the way it's presented.

Sending your dc for a few weeks to the grandparents is very different to moving away from them in the knowledge it could be a year or so until you see them again. Surely most immigrants go because of financial gain, whether that's a Nigerian nurse to London or a British diplomat to Nigeria?

Sometimes there's a feeling on these types of comparative threads, that British people are doing life all wrong and that Europe/Scandinavia/Rest of World are doing it much better

Yes, I've noticed that and it really irritates me!

@SaltyCrisp I feel the opposite, it's very grating when discussing other cultures/countries and posters come on to say that we're just slagging off the British way of life. It's perfectly plausible that others do things well too!

Sending your dc for a few weeks to the grandparents is very different to moving away from them in the knowledge it could be a year or so until you see them again.

Oh, I completely agree! I just felt as if sending kids to GPs for extended-ish periods was being discussed as something that doesn’t happen here in the UK.