to wonder who Oliver James is? working mothers look away!

[Chulita]

Here Sorry if there's a thread on it already, I just read this and was a bit

i find gratuitous use of lines bit passive aggressive to be cheeky but not have balls to spit it out.and bottle it hide behind cross out lines

Self-censorship of emoticons and crossing-out/bolding/italics is unnecessarily self-limiting IMO

Bonsoir, I doubt if I would call it 'clever' to subcontract the earning of money, presumably to their hapless partners. Slightly shorted sighted and trusting, more like it.

I would agree with scottishmummy that earning money is neither tedious nor boring. The converse in fact would be true for me. But we are all different.

Xenia is making some valid points, which are unfortunately being largely ignored because of the way in which she is expressing herself.

Yes, of course some rich women choose to stay at home and look after their kids, but it's impossible to say how many of these women feel either a. pressure from society to 'want' to do this and therfore kid themselves that's what they want, or b. anxiety that no-one else will look after their children adequately so even though in an ideal world they might want to work, they're too frightened to leave their children because they've been scared by the warnings of people like Oliver James.

No-one has really answered her question which was: if childcare is so rewarding in and of itself, why don't more men choose to do it? I hear so many women say about their husbands 'oh he just can't cope with a whole day of childcare on his own' and no-one is outraged with this, but that's all Xenia's really saying about how she feels and look how shocked everyone is!

I'm not saying that there aren't any women who genuinely love staying at home with children - I know one or two - but I also know a lot who do it out of a combination of financial sense, professional necessity (i.e. their workplaces are incompatible with childcare hours), expectation, anxiety, or never having found a career that suited them anyway.

In Sweden, when the government increased maternity/paternity to 18months/2years for either the father or the mother, almost everyone stayed at home. They don't really have childcare for under 18month olds. Before that, parents were working, out of financial necessity probably, not because they wanted to escape the tedium. You describe what amounts to a cleaning job - nappies and washing etc, but you fail to mention responding to your child. Children under 18months old need close attention, sensitivity and responsiveness from an adult that thinks they are the dogs bollocks. If you are not that adult, by all means pay for someone to be. Absolutely people's individual choice.

I don't know about others but the reason I responded to Xenia's post in the way I did was that it seemed so wrong to imply that looking after an infant is tedious to EVERYBODY and only a certain type of woman would do it - one that is unhappy and subservient to her successful male partner. This perspective is totally blinkered isn't it? It is just not reality to many women.

I wish everyone would stop bashing oliver James. He was talking on women's hour about hard evidence. Stress levels rise in under 3s who are away from their primary caregiver, whether that is the mum or granny or daddy etc. it is factual, and how ever we want to discredit his theory, under 3s get stressed in day care. It's common sense isn't it? For goodness sake be realistic. Most mums would chose family to look after their wee ones (if they have a loving family that is!) rather than day care if they really had to work??? How can a child under 3 possibly understand why mummy or whoever their primary caregiver is , has left them for such long days. Remember time perception to a wee one isn't the same as an adult's.

these treads polarise and sterotype.the avaricious have it all working mum being berated by the why have children if you let someone else watch em brigade Vs the cupcake making ambition-less subjugated wee wife fit for nothing but domestic drudgery

the facts are less clear cut

fwiw ,i do wade into these debates as i work.love working,and am not solely defined or fulfilled by being mum.but never fails to amaze me how quickly some trot to the working mother=absent mother and cast aspersions on nurturing abilities

i do actually like the riposte on these threads. i dont enjoy seeing personal base attacks on someone abilities - nasty

we should all reserve that conversation for our children and us when time comes - the mum why did you work/sahm question

OJ methodology,inferences and narrative are flawed ILM.thats what we are all disputing.not bashing for sake of it

and no not all mums chose to be at home. i dont. i love working.it defines me gives me approbation and affirmation. i dont want to be sahm.i chose to work and be mum

The hard evidence he gave on Woman's Hour was that cortisone levels are raised among children in daycare.

I am not sure that there is only one interpretation to this evidence. It might be that the children are more excited than those at home rather than more stressed as James suggests.

I thought James came off really badly in that interview. He did not want to reveal his methods - where's the science in that?

Not read all thread yet but seen some gems...

I am a SAHM and have been a f/t and p/t WOHM too so have seen both 'sides'. I gave up a good job so am not SAH as I 'can't do anything else'. I choose to be home because I missed so much with DD1 and love being around for my kids, quantity is as important as quality for me.

I don't serve anyone, me and DH are as dependant on each other really so it doesn't matter. I find being home has liberated me and helped me see the more important things in life than i did before, I am now less materialistic. I also have started a degree and have lots of hobbies so am never bored. I also help in my kids school as they are desperate for helpers with swimming trips etc.

I feel that it is fine for a mum to SAH or work for pay. I don't mind if someone slags off my choice but i really think they (if they slate all SAHM) are jealous deep down and want all mums to be WOHMs so that they don't feel so bad about their choice. WOHM that are happy don't tend to do it, nor do happy SAHMs really slate working mums. I am friends with both!

working mum threads are home of the faux-science,clichés,and anecdotes

thats what i come to expect

but feel compelled to wade in

As jo said above all I say is what virtually every man in the land says and men never get criticised and women do because we love to beat women and never mind. That's our cuulture. Woman's place in the wrong. But working mothers benefit children and housewives don't as I explain above therefore all is well and as I said if it's fine for someone's husband not to do 12 hours a day childcare it must be fine for his wife too and if he won't do it why should he subcontract is to some woman so her career is shot to pieces and she becomes in effect an unpaid domestic servant, even worse if he hasn't married her because then she has no legal protection either.

I never feel threatened by housewives nbut I'm very puzzled as to how they can like what they do for so many hours. It has few of the characteristics which make us like things. It's boring, unapid, repetitive, unappreciated and as I said above every culture ever has subcontracted most of it out to others as soon as they can afford it because it's bottom of the pile dull asn ditch water stuff. That does not mean working fathers 9and indeed mothers) don't adore a few hours with their children a day. I certainly always have done.

My children seem very bonded with me. I don't think you cease to be a father or mother close to their child just because you choose to work and sub contract our childcare like Oliver James and I do.

'But working mothers benefit children and housewives don't' ....That is just in your opinion though!!! Very subjective.

I love being a SAHM and am never bored. I would find it more of a grind having to answer to an employer and sell my time to others profits.

My time is my own and my kids time. If I need/want to do paid work again then I will. for now though I like being my own 'boss'!

' It's boring, unapid, repetitive, unappreciated' just like many paid 'jobs' then? I know many who hate their jobs. Jobs can be crap.

Mothers can enjoy working, mothers can enjoy staying home. Some mothers benefit their children by working, some mothers benefit their kids by staying home. There is no one right way, that's just silly really as everyone's situation is different.

'But working mothers benefit children and housewives don't'

see, it's when xenia says something like this that i start to think is she just playing up a role/stereotype. in a debate like this, i can't take this kind of bizarre comment seriously.

RubyBuckleberry Mon 31-May-10 21:10:56
"In Sweden, when the government increased maternity/paternity to 18months/2years for either the father or the mother, almost everyone stayed at home."

Yup, but after that age almost everyone puts their child in the nursery. Widely recognised as the only way to give your 2-3 yo a chance to meet other children at all, as none are left at home.

So before we use the Scandinavian experiment to compare with, we need to know what age group we're talking about.

I've worked/not worked/worked part time/ had my dc's in nursery/at home with an au-pair/being looked after by my mum.

If I had a preference it would be that I would have a bloody fab, well-paid job, and DH would stay at home and look after my children. Then I'd rest easy in myself that they were getting an optimal experience of childhood (my DH is a brilliant dad). Sadly this is the only form of childcare I've never had, because DH's earnings are good, whereas mine have always been a bit cack.

I have a lot of time for Oliver James' argument. I sorely regret putting my dd in a nursery as a baby and I didn't repeat the experiment with my younger children. Nurseries are crappy places on the whole. I know there are some good ones, and some great people working in them, but by and large they're staffed by very young women who aren't that bright, who are being paid very little and have probably not had great parenting themselves. Anyone who's ever taught on a nursery nursing course (as I have) will know the truth of this. The Children's Centres where I sent my dc's once they turned three were like a different universe to the majority of private nurseries I've seen - well-qualified, mature staff, proper teachers, fantastic resources. DC's had a great time there.

"and she becomes in effect an unpaid domestic servant"

Xenia, you need to read 'What Mothers Do (even when it looks like nothing)'.

Being a full-time mum DOES involve lots of domestic skivvying, that's very true. But MOTHERING a baby or very young child is a role in itself and is an emotionally complex experience. When my children were babies we seemed to be conducting an intense love affair for so much of the time we were together. I spent so much time holding them, feeding them, stroking them, kissing them and talking to them. Other than DH or my mum, I don't see how anyone else could have made their time so blissful and full of love and affection. I think affection is money in the bank for tiny babies.

agreed cory - apparently most experts agree that somewhere after 2 years old, nursery turns from a negative to an unequivocal positive. children benefit from socialising, learning, and most importantly playing with other children.

quote mummylovekids: 'Most mums would chose family to look after their wee ones (if they have a loving family that is!) rather than day care if they really had to work??? How can a child under 3 possibly understand why mummy or whoever their primary caregiver is , has left them for such long days. Remember time perception to a wee one isn't the same as an adult's.'

I love my job, I work fulltime, my DD is in ft nursery and has been since she was 11mo. She absolutely LOVES it there. I have a great family but I do not choose them to do the childcare. I know OJ says little ones don't need interaction with their peers til they are 3, but my DD is 2 and has lots of friends, knows about sharing toys, helping smaller children, playing games as a group, just generally being socialised. It's the one thing I can't offer her and I'm delighted she gets it at nursery.

I suppose if we had a smaller house and didn't want to have any kind of a life / money, then I could give up work and stay at home. The casualties would be a) my sanity and b) my DD. I hated maternity leave with a passion and spent most of it depressed. I am so much happier working and therefore my DD gets a happy mummy collecting her at the end of the day with lots of energy and love to give her. This must be better than me being a fraught frustrated bored mummy doing a bad job and feeling guilty about it to boot.

In this respect I'm with Xenia - I just don't believe that educated women love every moment of childcare. Even when the baby has been yelling for no reason for 10 hours straight? when your toddler throws a tantrum in the supermarket? when you don't get 5 seconds to yourself ever? when every job you do around the house just needs doing again 24hours later? For me it was soul-destroying. My DH feels the same but no one tells him off for not being a 'proper' daddy which is the tone I'm getting from some folk on here

Novicemama I can relate to so much of what you say.

DS1 is 16 months, and I've been back at work since he was one. We have a live-in MH and I work from home, so he's not in nursery and I get to see him throughout the day, but what you say about maternity leave and returning to work resonates very much for me.

I am 31 weeks pg with DC2 and whereas last time I couldn't wait for maternity leave, if I'm entirely honest, this time around I am steeling myself for it a bit, and it makes me feel guilty. I know I am going to struggle, as much as I love my DCs to bits.

My problem with OJ, apart from the flawed science, is just his expectation that it should always be the woman to give up her career and stay at home to provide the crucial early years care.

I don't doubt that the care is crucial or that nurseries may not be optimal for many young babies (they certainly didn't feel right for mine). I just resent the implication that it must always been women who do it, or feel guilty if they don't.

OJ doesn't create flawed science. He is reporting the science. But it is psychology, a social science not natural science, and it will always be flawed and open to interpretation because it is about people and there are no right or wrong answers. Bashing OJ is pointless. He is expressing an opinion based on psychological research. There is some truth in what he says but there is also a degree of opinion. If it doesn't fit with your own then fine but that isn't a reason to slag him off.

'In this respect I'm with Xenia - I just don't believe that educated women love every moment of childcare'.

I have yet to meet an educated woman who loves her job every moment. I have childless friends in high powered, responsible, well-paid jobs who spend a lot of time loathing them. Who in their right mind expects to love every second on every day? If you do then you are going to be disappointed. If on balance I prefer to stay at home and do my own childcare even when it is crappy, why is that somehow less worthwhile than those who work despite the crappy days?

The fact that childcare can be boring is not a good reason for making every woman go back to work as Xenia would have us do because for a lot of people, work is just as tedious. The person who loves their work all of the time is a very rare person indeed.

why is someone liking their job such an anathema.plenty people enjoy working derive vocational,intellectual stimulation.we arent all wage slaves

i chose to work ft in favour of sahm.i genuinely do love working and get approbation and enjoy it.i would not derive such satisfaction being sahm

I like my work and I like being with dcs, provided I do a measure both during the course of the weekday.

Both being at work and being at home have their crappy moments and both have their interesting moments.

But if I had to choose between ft work and ft SAHM, I would unreservedly choose the former. For all the reasons novicemama gave.

"In this respect I'm with Xenia - I just don't believe that educated women love every moment of childcare."

You're wrong - I have masses of friends of the über-educated sort who love being with their small DCs all the time. But you know what? Their DCs don't scream for ten hours straight and have tantrums in the supermarket. Maybe those parents who love being with their children have an easier relationship with them?

I'm with Xenia on that point too. What I can't agree on is that the work of mothering is not "work" just because its unpaid. If its not work why is it that women who look after their babies and toddlers hardly get a second to themselves. Even slovenly ones like me who don'T do housework. (actually I work from home when I can, writing and translating but the fact I try desperately to get this done when the kids are around but can't tells me that I must be doing something)

What MOthers Do (especially when it looks like nothing) is a fabulous book.