to think there should be no such thing as a SAHM

[TalkinPeace2]

they might be an ex investment banker
or a part time nurse
or a part time teacher
or an active volunteer in the community
BUT
in these days where most women are educated at least to 18, very few did not work before kids
and very few will not work when their kids are older
so actually should define themselves by their personal achievements - currently undertaking a prolonged break
rather than some sort of domestic - which is what SAHM implies to me.

"Our results demonstrate a clear effect of timing of environmental enrichment on the brain electrical activity of children who experienced severe psychosocial neglect as infants and toddlers. In particular, the intervention had its greatest effect on the EEG in institutionalized children placed into foster care before 24 months"

under 24 months......any delay in having the child's needs met or any ambiguity about whether the need will be met...produces brain changes, over time this can not be mitigated against.

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011415

Yes, through income tax, redistribute wealth from men to women. 90% of the worlds wealth is held by men. Women make up 2/3rd of the worlds workforce.

And how on earth do you equate being with a childminder or nursery as a place of psychological neglect?

I've got an idea. Why doesn't anyone being paid by the state (and by therefore tax payers like me) to be sahms, offer to care for the 'psychologically neglected' children of career mums like me for free?

Then everyone's a winner ey Mini? There's free childcare, so the rest of us are getting some benefit from paying to fund their choice to stay home with their kids.

I haven't read the whole 16 pages. I thought the original question has been steered somewhat to something else.

In answer to op's original question - I agree - i had a baby and a job I couldn't feasibly go back to. And suddenly my whole identity was gone - all those years building up a career - and suddenly when I'm asked "what do i do" at a social event - I've been dismissed as uninteresting when I've said I'm at home looking after my baby.

This thread seems to have evolved into sahm vs working mums. For me, my mum stayed at home until I was 5. She was like a shadow whilst she was at home - i don't remember any happy times. Then she worked full time in a demanding job. And i don't remember any happy times from that period either.

So I was determined my dc wouldn't experience that. I stayed at home for a bit - and realised I was the same vacant depressed person my dm was. And I went back to work. And I thought I'm still vacant and not really very engaging. I now work part-time and I try to be the best of both worlds. But I do find it difficult. I don't know if that's because I never had a model of what I'm trying to achieve. My dh just seems to know how to do it. And I'm so grateful he's there for my dd. He just has the ability to play and laugh and not let life get on top of him. Something I find very difficult to achieve and I think it's because it was never in my life in the first place.

My point is - it doesn't matter how much time you spend with your dc - it's the quality of that time.

:-)

Clomum thanks for sharing that honest account. I'm sure you are a great mum.

That's my point exactly. It's not about this one choice but the home as a whole.

A lady I work with actually ended her maternity leave early because being at home full time with her sons was leaving her clinically depressed.
She was part time, then full time and is now dropping back down to part time.
Her DH works long hours full time. When she is working her kids are at a mixture of grandparents, nursery and school.
They do not seem to be suffering.

When I was little my Mum worked full time (no choice) - I was a latchkey kid from age 6. I've luckily had more choices than that for my children.

I work now so I am not advocating women give up work. There are always going to be deep contradictions in whatever we choose. Scottish is happy and I have no doubt her DC are happy. Mine are happy but who knows for sure what is ideal....if anything ever can be. Who is to say whether a happy working mother is better at emotionally supporting a child than a depressed stay at home. Maybe a happy stay at home is better than a stressed working mother torn between work and childcare, feeling guilty. I don't think the answers are as simple as Scottish would have us believe. We all do what we have to, some of us are able to make choices not available to others, some just blindly get swept up by whatever the mores are of the time and whatever economic attitude or material and political conditions exist. In a few years we will probably be bombarded with ads for 50's aprons and spotty food mixers....oh we already are! and the next minute some research that says children are best cared for at home....thus freeing up jobs for men in the economy.

If childcare is perfect and working is the ideal...why was that not the case before so much work become desk bound? When industry requires different skills we will either be called upon to have less children (oh, we already are) or even perhaps sent back to the kitchen to make the tea. How confusing, no wonder women attack each. We are after all only the surplus labour supply, never certain of whether we are still on probation or due for promotion

Incidentally some children, from some homes where parents are emotionally absent or incapable of meeting the child's needs are better off in day nursery !

What to do,

Having been both WOHM/SAHM I can see both 'sides'. I also am studying/researching some of the issues mentioned about attachment so it is interesting to read opinions on that too.

I think there are good nurseries (and childminders), although there are also bad and terrible ones. DD1 went to a fantastic one luckily. They didn't take very young babies (only took 12 months plus) and all staff were mature and had own children or extensive work experience. It was open 8-5 so that was the longest day. I don't think she has been affected and has always done excellent academically and is not a wayward teenager at all. She IS the most difficult of the 5 but think that is the determined temperament (I blame MIL!! Just kidding!!). What I think counts in addition is the time spent out of work. I spent all that with DD. I know some mums who also go out socially most the weekend and evenings when they are not at work but I think most dedicate time not at work to DC? I don't regret working with DD1 because what I did was right at the time, I was a teenager when I had her and not married so needed some security. However I feel 'closer' to DC since being at home but this could also be because of life experience/age/wisdom. DH works and is very close to DC.

Where I live (admittedly pretty affluent but pockets of poverty) most mums stay home at primary age and a few SAHDs, well over 50% have one parent at home. Very few work full time until kids are older. Those who do work usually do part time work fitting around DC. So I don't really feel different being SAHM as it is the norm really round here.

Incidentally some children, from some homes where parents are emotionally absent or incapable of meeting the child's needs are better off in day nursery !

Sorry to have sounded so maudlin. But definitely for me - I have always met my dc's physical needs, but realise I can be vacant and depressed if isolated. As such there have definitely been times where my dd has had a fantastic day out with our cminder and a pile of other dc, when it could have been an awful day with me.

As such, I try to mix and match a bit.

mini you're a ticket choosing Children Exposed to Severe Psychosocial Neglect to desperately prove point. lol
this is research based on a skewed v specific set Subjects.key is in severe neglect
knock yourself out,you will not find a good reliable study or data.there are plenty flawed though. such as biddulph and oj you could cite them to reallly get the part goin

working doesn't equate don't want to be with own children.not at all
so do dads work because they don't like own children?does your dp work to avoid his family?or is this another variation on mutha is goddess and being mutha is everything,and anyone not giving it all up is deficient

if you think working is not wanting to stay at home with children.well do you apply this equally to men? are they just being avoidant?

for me working is vocational and personal approbation and I like to feel I contribute to family and work gives me what I need.being mum fulfills a need work doesn't.for me it's both and

if you think working=don't like own dc,that's your personal prejudice.and I doubt anything will disavow you of it. but do you apply it to men, to your dp?

Scottish I am just making the point that very young children can be harmed in institutional care...whether that translates to the type of institutional care offered over a sustained period of 8-6pm child care is unproven, I agree. However the fact remains that children under two (in the case of Bowlby under 8 I believe) need a constant care giver to meet their needs and they need consistency. I think this places women in a very difficult if not bloody impossible situation. No choice is the right choice. I suppose more men could stay at home but we have a situation where only two wages are enough. As industry changes and different skills are needed, women are needed in two places! we have a rising tide of surplus labour....now mostly male. People are having smaller families, will that impact upon children as well as long hours in childcare? I don't know and I am not professing to know.

I just feel that no choices are more valid than any other. Both paid employment and full time motherhood are of equal value to society but what they contribute is measured differently and therefore difficult to compare, so why attack choices of others.

behave you're discussing romanian orphanage as if comparable to uk nursery
nice try though. I admire your brass neck
read biddulph and oj they're full of flaws too.give you nice range quotes though

scottishmummy, you appear with depressing predictability on every SAHM thread there is, sneering at SAHM's and saying exactly the same things. Your posts reek of someone who is unhappy with their choices and is seeking to convince herself she is - why on earth else would you go on so much?

You call SAHM's the 'precious moments' brigade. What is wrong with thinking that time spent at home with your children is precious?

I also wish you would write properly - your posts are very difficult to read with their lack of definite and indefinite articles and other important parts of speech.

FFS
Please stop derailing my nice controversial thread with all this HOO HAH about "institutional care"
the numbers of children in full time nursery for full days is vanishingly small

most mothers who are that busy can afford a nanny - who is then the alternate mother : several of my friends at junior school were brought up by nannies.

My issue is with mothers who seem to think that their whole identity is as a Stay At Home Mother
and I wonder if that is healthy long term for their children to have such unequal parental role models
and what will those mums do once their kids leave home : other than shop and lunch and do galleries

Oh honestly, TalkinPeace, why do you care what these mums do once their kids leave home. Do you really have such contempt for SAHMs that you think they are capable of nothing more than shopping, lunch and galleries? And if not, so what? What's it to you?

Hoo HaH sorry.

What is unequal about a clear division of labour? TalkinPeace? if you could explain why it is unequal we might be able to discuss if it's fair (nothing is bloody fair anyway but why not)

Or is this all about the fact that being a mother is just not valued in society so best to call yourself something else before someone notices the little people hiding behind you.

Why pay school fees or tutoring for girls who will stay at home raising kids?

(ducks)

"nice controversial thread"
oh I see, you like those.

I never understand why people keep looking over the fence at others.
Be happy with your own choices.

fwiw, on MN, the SAHMs seem to be very happy with their choices.
Are you happy with yours? If so, good. We are all happy.

Education is for more than just earning a wage.
I have raised 3 intelligent vibrant children using my education and intelligence and also my experience.
I've never worked at what my degree was but would I be the mother I am without my education?
I doubt it.

And does a girl or her parents know at 18 or younger whether she will be a sahm or Nicola Horlick?

Nicola Horlick NOT a good example : all of her children were largely raised by nannies and au pairs while she ran her business empire and invested loads of her clients money in ponzi schemes

lol,skinny I see you recall and understood enough to dispute my posts.funny that
I recall none of your posts so have no comment

I think I will be attempting to try and steer my dd into a career that can be pursued either freelance or part-time. Something a bit flexible.

Just because I've seen so many women have to give up their careers to have a family. Not necessarily because they want to, just that the career they've chosen involves long hours, travel or is only really doable in one part of the country.

Well I know deep down she'll do exactly as she pleases. But I'll at least make the point to her.

TalkinPeace, glad you've now cast aside all semblance of respect for SAHMs and are now just openly deriding us.

I have a degree from a good UK university and was educated before that at an excellent school. No, I am not paid to use my education and knowledge that I gained during those years. What I do do,however, on an average day, is-

• Walk my 10 year old DD home from school and talk intelligently about her schoolwork, offering her advice and help.

-Help her plan her school projects, one of which recently won a prize.

• Oversee 15 year old DD's homework; set her additional tasks which we work on together as and when I see fit;
• Plan creative and intelligent activities for our under fives to do.

I do most of this by drawing on what I have learned myself. My education has made me who I am and given me a broader and more enriched understanding of the world. Just because I am not paid to use what I have learned, does that mean it was not worthwhile? I suspect many of you will think not, sadly.