This has made me so angry..working mums, we are the devils work

[sh1t]

I read this, and wish I hadn't

paid strangers to look after our kids

I sort of get the sentiment behind it, but the tone of smuggery just irks me, and the post is so skewed to mums, what about dads. The author claims she is a feminist, but I can't see it.

Milli is a Drama therapist working with adults and children who have suffered abuse.

I still don't think it is in any way right to compare daycare with abuse whatever your qualification.

autumn

dont feel any need to defend yourself!

Please,please,please

I FUCKING HATE the way both parties feel a need to explain their decision

It really makes me upset

BOTH ARE VALID LIFE CHOICES

ugh!

I didn't say that my family would be disadvantaged if I went to work though, did I? Why are you being defensive? I had two choices and I made the choice that sat best with ME. I don't really need to justify that.

People who work did what they thought was best for them and their families and the same goes for people who didn't.

porcamiseria I agree. One is not better than the other. It's like comparing apples and organges.

My exact point was that people do what is best for them and that they can be capable of doing that without feeling negatively towards those who did different.

As if there were ABSOLUTELY NO children of SAHMs in therapy.

None, not the one. FFS.

The more I think about this, the more I cannot get over it.

Nick Clegg suggests affordable childcare for all those parents who have been campaigning for it for years and this is a bad thing?

He then goes on to say that if you are on a low income you will still be subsidised to SAH for two whole years. After that, you will be asked to work two (short) days in order to receive your subsidy to SAH for the other five.

Are people really saying that the state should subsidise parents to care for their DC full time for an indefinite period? What? Till 4? Till 11? Till 18? At which point does childcare and lack of full time carer stop being so damaging?

Since the vast majority of parents, both men and women, work in the UK, are people really saying that all those kids are damaged? I mean, really?

I have been at home for 10 years, I have three children and you know what, I don't give a fuck what anybody thinks.

You think I'm dull, good for you for making wild assumptions about my character.

You think I'm not setting a good example, well aint you a peach.

I would NEVER look at a working mum and judge, you know why..... because it's her valid decision, just like it is my valid decision to stay home.

I have a degree, I have just returned home after five years living abroad.......my life is very full, I have been places and done things.......believe me........and one day I will go back to work, I am lucky that I have a choice.

iggle no ones saying you shouldn't enjoy or continue being a SAHP, but are you asking to be paid to do it?
Are you saying that to not do it, will result in damaged DC?

I agree autumn!

I love SAHMs
I love WOHMs

I dont however have much love for fucking TWATS that write blogs and books that make people feel shit about their perfectly valid life choices

IGGLE, peace and love baby! noone said you were dull! noone dissed you!

You know what I don't understand - why people pit the needs of mothers and children against each other. As in, 'it's for the mother's benefit, not the child's'.

What happened to families?

When I have a child, I will go back to work after about 6 mos. This is because my wage accounts for about 65/70% of our household income. We could live off DP's salary but would probably not own our own home or live in a popular area with good schools like we do now.

DP could leave work more easily in financial terms. But then he has a history of severe depression when he was unemployed in his 20s and work is one thing which really makes him feel valued and buoyant. I don't think it would be good for his MH to give up or even cut down substantially.

And I believe our child will benefit from us being able to afford to live in the catchment areas of two very good schools, in a safe quiet area near the countryside, with balanced, happy parents. These things are only possible for our family if we both work. So we will.

If she's such a devoted full-time mother, why is she blogging about it? I had a blog before my son was born (now 6 mths) and I barely get time to even look at it these days, let alone post.

She's your classic 'sanctimommy', all talk about how attachment parenting is so important and children need the full and undivided attention of their mother for the first 5 years of their life to ever function as a normal human being - but then blogging and writing and talking about it all the time to the point where you have to wonder, did she make her choice for her children or for her own ego and public validation? And who the heck is taking care of her babies while she's doing all this writing? Hopefully not a stranger [shudders]

If you believe taking care of your children full-time at home is the right choice for you, fine. Don't go bothering the entire world looking for someone to pat you on the back about it and sneering at women who WOH. Just get on with it like every other mother does.

As a FT WOHM I feel very lucky to have not received any comments about mine and DHs decision that we would both work FT with DCs still quite young EXCEPT from other women.

Supportive family, even my parents who are very old fashioned, supportive child care providers from nursery to childminders as have used both. Supportive work siutations (I know I am very lucky to have found this).

The only negativity I get is from female acquaintances and it is always always about me working, never DH.

I join all of you who have already so eloquently said that each family need only be accountable to themselves and do what is right for them and their children at any given time.

The idea that me working full time damages my children but that DH working full time has no effect on them whatsoever is frankly ludicrous.

I am also stealing as my own the phrase "opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one"!!!!!

What I find so odd about it all, is that the blogger doesn't even mention all those millions of parents who have to work to pay their bills, to save for their DC's teritiary education, and to make sure they have provision for their old age.

Not luxuries. Just basics.

Are their DC damaged? Or is it only the DC of those women who choose to work?
Is it more damaging to be in childcare or to be poor?

wordfactory they are working class and therefore of no interest to anyone. Plus they will be so damaged by their alkie, tv-addict parents that a bit of full-time childcare will hardly matter.

Middle class children are the ones that matter. Do keep up, dear!

I also think that this is a British discussion and a middle class one at that.

When we lived in Canada there was a mix of very successful women who's nannies dropped the children at school and very successful women who gave it all up to stay at home....... in my five years there I never heard about or felt any divide.

I used to help out a friend with her son, she worked in the financial district in Toronto, always looked fabulous and was very good at what she did and loved her job...should she have to give all that up because she gave birth, hell no......but I never looked ar her and wanted what she had, just because we are women doesn't mean we all want the same thing.

"The only negativity I get is from female acquaintances and it is always always about me working, never DH."

this is the thing isn't it. I was reading 'wife work' yesterday and it is never the father who has to reduce his hours, never the woman who gets praised for making time for her kids. I had one female colleague (Who works part time) who was very shocked to hear I was back in work full time yet not a word about a male colleague who's wife had a baby a month after me - he's back full time and no one bats an eyelid!

Revolting Peasant - in my experience most parents justify their life choices by insisting that what's good FOR THEM is good for everyone in the family. This argument is very persuasive in particular when money comes into the equation.

But new research seems to show that tiny children (those under 3) in group childcare have consistently higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol than children cared for in home like settings by a parent.

Of course you can argue that it probably doesn't harm children to experience high levels of stress in infancy, but the truth is that none of us really know.

I'm speaking as someone who went back to work three days a week when my first child was 5 weeks old. I have also used nurseries as well as every single other form of childcare you can think of. For me this isn't about adult egos and adult guilt. My primary interest is in the emotional welfare of this age group - and that's because I think that the emotional experiences you have at this time in your life can have profound I consequences in adulthood.

I do appreciate though that for some babies home is not the best environment. Not all parents are able or willing to provide optimal care, and in this instance good quality childcare is a better option.

Baking is hard IMHO.

She's become a little isolated I would guess and as so her opinions have lost their rightful place in the world and become fact to her.

article about the research into levels of cortisol.

interesting reading.

By the way - have you noticed that almost all the posts in defence of the choice to work or not to work are focused primarily of the feelings, ambitions and economic preferences/needs of adults. There's very, very little discussion of the needs of babies, or any interest in what the experience of childcare or of being at home with a parent is like from a baby's point of view. I suspect everyone thinks that it doesn't bother babies how they're looked after, or who does the looking after, and that an absence of crying or any expression of pleasure is clear evidence that a baby is happy and secure.

And as usual the stoopid polarising arguments: 'you think all mothers should stay at home and work, even if it means losing their home and having to live in the gutter', or 'working mothers are seen as the devils handmaidens'. No acknowledgement that a child's needs change over the first five years - that what's suitable for a 3 or 4 year old may not meet the emotional needs of a 6 month old baby.

Seriously - how can you have an intelligent conversation about the best way to care for tiny children if you're not willing to even discuss what their needs are?

Being a SAHM is great as long as you appreciate that when DH buggers off with another woman you're well and truly up the creek without a paddle. So many assume it'll never happen to them...like I did.

Shagmund - can you link to the new research?

I found the unscientific opinion piece on this but is there newer more scientific based research out there about raised cortisol?

Dueling - that is one article of THOUSANDS which have been written on this subject. I think it's funny that the reporter actually confesses that she's checked the validity of his research by 'having a quick google'. So that makes for an authoritative assessment of his claims then. Not.

There are many other respectable researchers who have also raised concerns about this issue. Actually there's a MASS of research into this issue.

And any sensible person will acknowledge two things: that there are many, many things we don't understand about how experiences in early infancy shape the adult brain. And that children are resilient.

It doesn't justify dismissing this research because we want to free families to put their children in group childcare without having to worry about what impact it might be having on them.

The first three years of life ARE crucial in shaping the adult brain. We know that. And in the context of an adult's life they are short years. I just feel very strongly that what we ought to have at the centre of our agenda is the question: how can we as a society provide OPTIMAL care for this age group? Not, 'how can we make things as easy as possible for adults to do whatever they want without their children getting in the way of their economic or career ambitions?'