AIBU to feel uneasy about mothers leaving successful careers?

[Toodledootwo]

All my friends are quitting their successful career jobs after having children. They all seem to be throwing their hands in the air saying what’s the point. Is there a revolt happening against women working? It seems we were encouraged to get to work and be independent….but when becoming a mother….still be that mother, still be that provider till burn out?

None of the women in my family have ever been sahp. They worked. Not in careers, but generally around their husbands: cleaning; bar work; taking in sewing; the corner shop etc. The idea of just being at home with your kids so that you can give them the best etc is really about the mother, isn't it?

When I first had dc,I thought I was amazing: look at me, I've made a human! But, biology permitting, there's nothing inherently special or skillful about producing offspring or keeping them alive. Which is presumably why learning to do a job well and developing a career is seen as more worthwhile.

Having children is not my greatest achievement; my body just did its job. Having kids who are happy and independent and doing well is not an achievement- it's just what I'd expect from them. Becoming good at my job is an achievement, because I've had to work at it.

Wow, I hope you don’t express these opinions to nursery workers/childminders/grandparents/anyone involved in the care of babies/toddlers/young children so you can express your own skills elsewhere!

Good parenting requires masses of skill. Patience, perseverance and adaptability. Excellent time management and organisation. Children need teaching manners, how to behave, how to interact appropriately with both children and adults. They need to learn self-care skills, how to express and manage emotions, how to live a healthy life, how to respect boundaries and limits, especially with screen time. How to assert themselves and resolve conflict healthily. How read, write and count.

No wonder so many now start nursery/school in nappies- no need to bother teaching them anything useful at home, eh? Palm it off on someone else!

Actually what the research actually states is that there is no benefit to the child attending nursery under the age of 2 but it’s not detrimental either ( so it’s neutral - providing the childcare is of high quality).
There are recognisable and measurable benefits to a child attending high quality childcare from age 2.
However, we know that poverty is the bigger indicator to a child’s future prospects so this also needs to be taken into account. It might be beneficial for a child to attend nursery from 9 months if that means not living in poverty now or in the future.
We also should factor in the mothers mental health, for many women staying at home is not what is best for them and that will have an impact on the rest of the family.

it’s a nuanced situation which is why people should make the decision which is best for their family circumstances and not be influenced by what other people think.

I agree to the extent that I don’t think judgement should be gendered. Do I privately judge parents of both sexes who choose to work long hours in very high paying careers and hardly see their kids? Yes, I do, because it goes counter to a child’s wellbeing. Affluent neglect remains far too under the radar.

I was in the right industry to have had the “high flying” career but only in exchange for a lot of late nights, weekend work and personal mental energy. Then about 16 years ago something at work showed me the folly of deprioritising one’s ‘life’ for a job that will drop you overnight if it is expedient to do so. So I took the foot off the gas and stopped trying to climb the greasy pole. I have never regretted that decision, have seen a few things since that only confirmed I’d made the right choice, and it made going part-time for DC much easier.

Why do you say ‘uneasy’ when you really mean that you don’t approve, and/or don’t understand why they do it?

It’s similar to MNers saying they’re ‘uncomfortable’ about something, when they really mean they don’t like it or don’t approve of it. Maybe they think ‘uncomfortable’ sounds less judgemental, if they’re worried about such things.

I’d really like a campaign for Plain English on MN!

Yes, it’s nuanced which is exactly what I said. There is limited research and it is hard to tease out the effects of nursery from other factors. It’s virtually useless to look at a few studies on groups of other children and think it will predict how your specific child will do because it’s all just generalisation about groups of children who are not yours. It’s also impossible to quantify the effects — what do you mean? Cognive? Linguistic? Emotional? How are you even measuring these things? A study might find a different or no difference on one small measure but that tells you very little.

It is misleading to say it’s neutral for all 1 year olds because it may be positive for some and negative for others, which evens out at the population level but is not helpful if you are trying to make decisions for a specific child. Again, it also depends on what and how you are measuring “effect” which is a problem of it’s own. Equally, it is misleading to say it is beneficial from 2 for the same reason. Children and situations are all different so the research is interesting but ultimately not very helpful for the average parent trying to make childcare decisions.

there's nothing inherently special or skillful about producing offspring or keeping them alive. Which is presumably why learning to do a job well and developing a career is seen as more worthwhile.

I don’t think the majority of people do think a job is more worthwhile than keeping children alive and raising them well.

The research is never saying ALL children but it can (and does) say that on the whole childcare for under 1’s is not harmful or beneficial. There will always be outliers but that’s how research works.
The research isn’t limited at all, there’s plenty of it around ( I’m an academic in Education) but people need to be mindful that some research isn’t more reliable than others. Unfortunately there is a not insignificant amount of research which is sponsored by groups with an agenda. These are often the ones I see people quoting on MN. The more reputable and ethically sound research is often only available in academic journals and libraries.

The one thing the research does tend to agree on, is that the quality of childcare matters. That is very helpful for parents and really should be what we focus on as parents and society. Making sure there are high quality childcare options available for anyone who wants to use it.

Yes, but when you are studying something so nuanced it’s misleading to say “it isn’t harmful for children under one” because it’s massively simplifying a complex issue.

”High quality childcare” is also a highly ambiguous term and different studies will define that in different ways. We don’t even have a clear idea of what it means on the whole or what percentage of UK nurseries could be considered “high quality.” Some studies I have read define “high quality” by standards that would be very difficult for the average UK nursery to meet given the limited funding available to the vast majority of childcare settings.

I understand what the PP posted was saying. Majority of women managed to give birth and keep their kids alone. Doesn't require qualifications and exams and training

And don't gor get childcare is all different. Not every child is in nursery in office hours. Sone are with childminders , done with relatives etc and I've now heard of a hybrid thing where a few childminders are renting a space between them to work so like a mini nursery space

Well, this thread certainly shows that women have different views on right and wrong, best and worst, necessity and wants. Each woman does what’s best for her and her family. That should be the end of it, shouldn’t it. Where has this thing of women telling other women what why should and shouldn’t be doing, what best for them and best for their children, come from? Feminism isn’t all women sacrificing their own desires in order to get what men have got!

It is possible to say that on a societal level childcare is not harmful for children. As a parent, it is then your responsibility to ensure that you are doing what is best for your individual child. It is perfectly possible that your child is not suited to childcare for whatever reason. But that doesn’t mean that childcare is harmful on a societal level.

There are a number of indicators that are used to judge the quality of childcare providers- ofsted, staff turnover, staff qualifications etc. But again, parents will decide what ‘good’ means to them.

A lot of the research was around 'group care settings" and cortisol levels.

But I am a good 14 years out of date on this topic and i think the big one possibly got debunked.
I do know that the staffing levels and opening hours of sure start were based on the research at that time that long hours in group care young could raise cortisol. It was quite common for surestart to open 8 til 6 only because they felt 7.30 to 6.30 was too long, the other nurseries my my area offered thst around trains to london. They also had training staff that didnt count in the ratios are wrre big on pushing key workers which is pretty universal now.

I didn’t want to be a SAHM - financially I didn’t need to work but I enjoyed my career and wanted to continue to progress. I have a supportive DH who also enjoyed his career. We parented jointly and made it work very successfully for us and our DT’s.

Yes, it’s possible but parents reading that will inevitably generalise it to their situation which is why I said it can be misleading.

I think in terms of childcare it’s also far from settled given all of the potential variables. I don’t personally feel there’s enough research to say that on a societal level it’s not harmful.

Of course parents can decide what “good” means to them but we are talking about “high quality” as it is defined in research studies that have suggested group childcare is not harmful to children. Usually these studies define “high quality” in a very specific way and often the criteria for the studies is much more rigorous than what the average parent would conclude is “high quality.” Most parents are happy with their childcare even when more objective measures suggest it may not be high quality. Ofsted standards also do not necessarily correlate to the standards set to define high quality by studies on the impact of group care.

Yes that's true. And actually salary enables it, as they have a fleet of staff, holidays with elaborate kid's clubs.

ETA that's why I was so impressed by my friend who gave up such a high-paying career. She could easily have found adequate care for a SEN child but it did impress me that she was prepared to give that up because she felt he needed her. I can't really wrap my mind round people like the OP dissing that.

I have raised all four of mine the same yet they're all very different. Two have additional needs. 19yo needs lots of support from me still. He makes seriously stupid decisions at times. I have to be there to pick up the pieces, with my MH barely in tact at times. He will be the death of me one day. Getting parenting right is an achievement in itself and that isn't always possible with all the will in the world. Parenting teenagers and adult children who think they know it all is on another level entirely...
No way could I return to the workforce when I have children who need a lot of input and support still.

I certainly feel uneasy about it.

I wonder whether some of these quitting British mums are burnt out and just don't like their jobs. In many countries mums would not even think about quitting as there are no reasons/ benefits to it.

But it's 2-3 factors putting women into that situation:

1. Lack of proper paid maternity leave
2. The most expensive childcare cost of almost anywhere in the world, other than North America
3. Laws that prohibit leaving children unsupervised to a very mature age, and lack of free at-school childcare that covers full-time working hours

I'm from Denmark and recently went back, chatting to mum about childcare/ school/ other life arrangements. 3 key differences:

1. Every parent gets to be at home with their child for a prolonged period of time without losing any money. Denmark is actually still pretty bad at mat leave, in a number of European countries, the government starts paying you extra money as soon as you become a parent, there are extensve welcome packs for the new child, and becoming a mum doesn't suddenly make you poor, you have the same income as before
2. Childcare is free or very cheap. Public childcare in Denmark is heavily state-subsidised, with municipalities covering at least 75% of the cost. Monthly out-of-pocket costs for parents generally average between £230 and £490 a month (approx. DKK 1,988 to DKK 4,289). Compared to some other European countries, this is high.
3. Children are quite independent and go to school/come back/ go to hobby groups alone. This means a parent can go to work when they need to, and stay there for the hours they need to - there is usually no school run/ having to go pick kids up at 3pm and walk with them. In some circumstances there may be, but social services would not be called for a child who is outside alone aged 8.

We basically came to the conclusion that UK economy is set up to create a 'childcare industry' which elicits ridiculous spend from parents, which is not really a thing in many other countries. In the UK, after all, we also have private schools, paid-for school uniforms etc. There is a very ripe market to rinse parents as we collectively accept it and are willing participants.

My friends were also a bit 'ah yes, suppose in the UK you still have that historic culture where the mum is at home, which wouldn't really work here as we've never really had it'.

Come to think of it, I don't know any Danish mums that have quit their jobs and stayed at home. There are, of course, some, but usually these are women that worked in non-careed jobs, e.g. cashier, waitress etc, and just prefer being a mum. There have also been cases of some very high-flying women quitting, but these have been cases where they drop everything with the whole family, move to the countryside, start a farm, home-school, go off-grid etc.

Pregnant then Screwed! 😂🙃

The vast majority of this debate has a focus on young children, the value of being at home with them when they are little. With an assumption that a SAHP or a parent who has significantly reduced their hours or taken a less career focussed role can easily get back on track later.

In reality I found that high quality care was relatively widely available when dc were very little. My real challenge came when dc were in their teens.

Teenage dc facing huge emotional turbulence, exam pressure, potential bullying, the risk of them becoming involved in antisocial activities (because their parents are working and have no idea where they are). ime that was when dh and I needed to take our collective foot off the career pedal. It was a time when there were NO support options (what teenager wants a nanny?); home and vigilant, subtle and supportive parents were essential.

For a short while (there was s difficult local thing going on that had the potential to become violent) our house became like a community youth club. Either dh or I were wfh so there was an adult presence. We were busy with work so teens had to sort themselves out - there was a lot of toast and jam eaten! It was better than them hanging out in the park.

Different ages, different stages. There is no one perfect answer to how we juggle all of this.

Good for them. They have minds of their own and obviously thought what is important. I was lucky that I could work from home with my kids but I i had to travel and miss out on family life then I was fully prepared to give uo working to focus on my family.

I really dislike how judgemental people are towards mothers who choose to give up work for their family. There is literally nothing nore important than being there for your children and if you can afford to do it, then why not?

You can also be there for your children AND work.

I fully support women having choices and if you can afford to not work and it’s what you want to do, then brilliant. But that doesn’t mean that’s a better choice than choosing to work after having children.

Those parents are still raising their children, they’re ‘there’ for them - they’re just doing it differently to those who stay at home.

It is better for the families who chose it though which is often why they chose it in the first place.
You can’t “be there” to the same degree unless you’re only working a handful of hours a day and your children are all in school. It’s not offensive to say some women choose to leave the workforce with young children to physically be there for their children.

People need to stop being so triggered by other people’s lives, if it was better for you and your family for you to work then great, that doesn’t invalidate someone else’s choice and it doesn’t mean there are no benefits to staying at home.