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.

I think your comment "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." is extremely unfair and sexist. It also sounds like you are projecting.

It sounds like you are suggesting they walk away from their children for other reasons than the reasons discussed on this thread which is a totally different topic altogether besides being an unfair generalisation to make.

I know many fantastic fathers who could not and would not leave their children or be able to "walk away from them".

I know many fantastic fathers who could not and would not leave their children or be able to "walk away from them".

So do I.

But I also know many single mothers as well who's kids barely see their dad.
I can't think of a single woman I've ever known who's walked out on her kids the same way though.

It is likely a brutal economics/poverty driven cycle. The countries you mention do not have effective State safety nets.

Where there is not the financial driving factor are British boarding schools, historically with appalling levels of sexual abuse and bullying.

My mother was brought up in a multi generational home where her mother and father did most of the hard physical labour associated running a small farm, and the older generation looked after the babies and children. My dad was brought up in a home where there were nursery maids and a governess. The babies and children were brought to see their mother every morning. Both were sent to boarding school. Boarding school was the only option for good quality secondary education outside of Dublin and other cities.

In the British case, boarding schools were very necessary for the legions of families living in the colonies. I think people forget how many British people lived abroad up to the 1950s, engaged in the Imperial mission.

@itsametalband fair point and I agree with what you've said. I just didn't think it fair to generalise like that, nor was it along the lines of what the OP was asking. So almost an unnecessary jab at men. But, happy to focus back on the actually topic :-)

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?

That's would be hugely wasteful of the scarce resources in everyone's bodies. It would never fly from an evolutionary standpoint. People weren't "designed" and the evolutionary pressures leading to our biology were determined by what made people most likely to survive, not what made their children feel happiest.

People seem to be bending over backwards to say that the only reason mums (always sex specific) leave their dcs is to escape absolute poverty.

This is balderdash!

As I said above in the uk we can't see the woods for the trees on this issue. There was so much propaganda after the war to get women out of work and confined to the home generations were brainwashed with attachment mythology that was used to justify haranguing mothers into never being apart from their dcs.

There is nothing morally superior to a mother living full time with her biological dc.

I've met children (and adults) who didn't live with their mothers. In fact I went to school with some at the end of the last century, and they had younger siblings. As teens and particularly adults in there 20s they investigated why their mothers walked out.

I'm not aware of evidence against attachment theory. I thought the evidence pretty robust and reading Holmes et al it's backed up by neuroscience.
Also that attachment theory is very clear that the attachment bond does not have to be with the biological mother, but with a caregiver and can be with a group of caregivers.

Attachment theory, as I understand it, also describes how separation from the caregiver is important. It's about having a secure base to explore the world from and a caregiver spending all their time with the children would be detrimental to those children's development.

My family is a mix of two of the countries you mention and it’s definitely not “the norm”. Most of the people who do that, including the doctors and nurses, do so because of immigration restrictions and the perception the they can offer their children a better life in the UK. The intention is (almost) always to bring them over too once they feel they’re in a position to do so.

Many from those cultures see these families as ‘greedy’, ‘overambitious’, etc. The expected perfect balance is for the father to travel, leaving the mother in charge of the children, until they can join him.

I do know a number of children in the position as the ones you describe and it’s not a pretty sight. Most of them are left neglected because although they might have every material thing they need/want, the emotional care and time investment is nowhere near what a parent can provide.

There’s no way I’d ever do that. No one is my wider circle from the countries you mention would do that either.
We’ve seen the impact of choices like this on our generation and we seek to make it different for those who come after us.

The way is see it is that no one is going to love my children as much as I (and their dad) do. Or be as careful to keep them safe. So when they are young, their place was with me. Grandparents are a close second, but that's it. Now obviously if we were in dire straits and I needed to be away from them in order that they were fed and housed, then that's what would have to happen. But there's no way I'd choose it.
I honestly don't understand the whole boarding school thing either. I can't see the point in having kids and then willingly be parted from them and live elsewhere, allowing other people to raise them.
Children need to know they are absolutely the priority of their parents and be emotionally nurtured - I can see that grandparents could do this but boarding schools, no.

There is actually a theory that grandparents, particularly grandmothers, are more attached to their grandchildren than their own children.

So while you think you love your children more than your own mother, she loves them more than you. So both your mother and MIL would let you and your husband be run over by that proverbial bus to save their grandchildren.

@RedWingBoots mil definitely would

In all seriousness I can't see that as being true with my mum - she totally adores her grandchildren and would do anything for them, but I'm not convinced she loves them more than she loves me and my brother. There's a level of objectivity between gp and gc. If she was raising them full time, I think it would be as you said and the bond would be even tighter - I guess that's how mature ensures children stay alive when they have yet to develop the knowledge to keep themselves alive and safe. And makes us still love our kids even when they turn into stroppy teens!