Research is a load of baloney...?

[Kmg]

I am very sceptical of any 'latest research project results', and even more so since Child of our Time. Last week there was a child who went through a dreadfully difficult first year - parents arguing, splitting up, being shunted from one to the other, moving around the place, and it was fairly easy to conclude that this would have an effect even on a young baby, and she was clearly 'deprived'. Winston then said there was a well-accepted test of a whether or not a baby is happy, and they did this thing where you observe the baby playing with toys through a one-way mirror, and observe the reaction when the mother leaves the room for a while, and then re-enters.

My son is part of a research project, and we underwent this 'test' too. His behaviour was almost identical to the child on the TV - which apparently 'proved' that she was desperately unhappy, had no bond with her mother, and was clearly damaged and deprived!

I could go on to explain why my son behaved the way he did, but I do not feel the need to justify myself or his behaviour. Many, many of the other aspects of the research project are equally suspect to me, and the visits often seem a waste of my time, and I cannot have any faith in the validity of any results they might come out with.

Tigger, I'm with Bells on this one. It's not 50% each of everything in our house, that would be unfair and possibly even a threat to public safety, but nearish to 50% across the board. We try and carve it up according to what we like (or mind less) doing.
Dishwashers are fantastic aren't they. Hope yours is settling in nicely.

Croppy - just a note - I didn't come off a council estate, though poor. My parents were educated and dedicated to getting us to university, a privilege not enjoyed by most people. I agree that most women don't have good situations in other countries, point being that in practice they don't here either. Among educated families though, there isn't much difference. I've met educated women from Mexico, Uraguay, Korea, Japan, Algeria, Pakistan etc etc who are all doing high flying jobs and enjoy similar freedoms to our own.

Hi Chico, yes, there is a lot more to parenting than playing with children - but it's a start. I have never met an Algerian man who isn't great with babies and children, even young men of 18 or 19 years old. I've rarely met an English man who is as good as they are, and NEVER an English male teenager who knows one end of a baby from the other (though I am sure there must be some out there!). Don't Italian men take their children around with them when they go out?

Bells1, but the case could be argued in our house that I do 50% of the work as well, so he should do 50% of the household chores. Not making a case here but merely saying that has it now come to that fact that the woman does so much and the man does the rest?. I couldn't stand it if he became active in the house, i'd kill him. I have my way of doing things and he just, wll goes along with the flow. Or, is it the case if we work from home then it is different?. I'm really interested in this subject, and want to know peoples different opinions on this matter. Dear husband or he who thinks he should be obeyed, thinks that a hoover is an ornament in the front porch.

When I was with my partner, my neighbour once asked "does he help around the house" and I said no, he doesn't "help" me around the house, because it's his job as well.

I know I get weighed down in semantics but it really annoys me.

But then this woman's partner, by his own admission only spent 20 mins a day with his kids!

Hello SML. Do not really understand what you mean by men taking their children with them. Italian men certainly do no ttake them to work nor to smoky cafes and bars. You will all notice in Italy that children are more welcome in restuarants but I think that reflects broader cultural differences. Food is more important to family life than it is here and I guess children tend to be involved more in adult things than here generally. But most Italian men put their wife and children into compartments which from what I've seen, not many ENglish women would like!

Tigger, I don't want to give you the impression that I am hung up on percentage of contribution to housework. In our case, both my husband and I need the right degree of support to enable us to continue with our careers and retain our sanity. Maybe others have more energy but I simply couldn't come home after a long day in the office and cook our dinner, do our laundry, clean, entertain our son, prepare him for bed and so on while my husband dicked around upstairs with his stamp collection or whatever. In order for me to be happy about my decision to combine a career with motherhood, I just need his support and that does mean doing his fair share (although in our case, this doesn't happen to include cooking & washing and so on). As I've said before, he is actually very good and its only occassionally that I feel badly done by. If he didn't pull his weight, I suspect that what would bother me more than my resulting exhaustion would be the inevitable decline in the quality of our relationship. We have always treated each other as equals and if he was happy to sit on his bum while I worked myself to a frazzle, I imagine that I would start to get resentful. I don't know how women who work outside the home can cope if their partners don't do their bit as far as looking after the children and general chores are concerned. Hats off to single mums!

Tigger, I can't say that my husband does 50/50 of the chores with me in the eveniing. I do the whole supper, bath, bedtime routine with both sons by myself,usually ( I see this as my time with them) - and then often cook supper afterwards (a very simple one!) and load the washing machine, do the washing up ete etc.

Like you I have my own way of doing things and feel if the two of us were doing if together, the general bickering would prolongue the process no end. Also, we would inevitably end up doing more because his standards of housework in some areas are higher than mine. If we were both trying to meet our own spearate standards - I have a thing about having a clean kitchen floor, he has a thing about wiping down the cupboards - we could be working all evening - but have a lovely clean house!.

However, my husband does do many household tasks during the late afternoon and at odd moments of the day. His working day is far more flexible and home-based than mine is. I am never around to see exactly how much he does. All I can say that when I leave at 8.00 after the waking up, dressing routine, the house can resemble a bomb site and when I return, it is clean and tidy.

To be honest, I think I should get my husband to do more, but because we do our bits at different times of the day, it is difficult to judge our relative inputs. I do have to say, though, that he tends to see his working day, including most housework and child care, as stopping dead on 6.30. The minute I walk through the door it's all mine. Luckily for him,(and apologies Jbr), I don't mind a busy evening being a mum and housewife, especially since housework can be all the exercise I get some days - I drive to work and my job involves constant sitting.

If things get really on top of me and I blow the whistle, he is at hand.

Hi Chico - don't forget that men are also putting themselves into a compartment. I grew up with the English way, so I find the mediterranean way a refreshing change! Men can be men and women can be women...sorry Jbr! This doesn't necessarily reinforce a traditional stereotype, witness the number of women from traditional families who have successful careers, and men who DO do housework. Personally, I like the rules and ordered way of living better than the social chaos that is England...

No Bells1, I know you don't I was just using it as a figure, sorry if I was implying anything else. Don't you think that some people take the issue to far with what "he" must do in the house?
I do know of some couples like that, and of one couple that she can't wash the dishes properly he does it, know what I'd do wrap the bloody dishcloth round his neck. But we've got a dishwasher and they've got 4 kids and themselves and don't have one, can't believe it I think they are potty.

My husband actually does a lot, but to really think about what he does is very hard because he does a lot taking the kids when he is outside working and taking them in the tractor. His one hate is when they are in the bath, they think he is a crocodile and they soak him with the water, serves him right, daft article crept up on them from the side of the bath and growled, was quite funny really, he looked like a drookit rat!

WHat I like about ENgland is that the sexes have a choice in their roles.

not according to jbr they don't! they have to do what she says!

Sml its clear from your postings, that you like the traditional stereotypical roles. If it works for you, then great - but don't keep putting the UK down all the time! Its not all hunky dory in Europe/Middle East/Africa (as you keep implying), and its not perfect in the UK, but we don't live in 'social chaos', and we don't have to live according to old-fashioned beliefs - Our somewhere in between certainly suits me nicely!

Hear hear Lil!. Am at a loss to understand what is preventing couples living their lives along more "traditional" lines in the UK.... hundreds of thousands of Asian immigrants seem to do it happily as just one example. If both partners are happy with that - fine but I can't understand how anybosy can even suggest that denying a group of people opportunity or choice in their lives based on their sex could be a positive thing.

As a matter of interest, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordanm Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Morocco have all refused to comply with the UN Convention on the elimination of forms of discrimination against women. The particular reservations relate to equality in laws of marriage, family, divorce, inheritance and choice of spouse and also relationships within the family.

Drookit rat, Scots saying for soaking wet! As a matter of interest, what is a typical British Male?. On the drookit rat subject, anyone ever heard Billy Connolly on about the Battle of Culloden?, brilliant, and a great discription of what many Tourists think that Scots are.

Am I the only person who lives with the "Footwear Police", I've had a pair of new trainers for about 4 months now and there was a complete hooly tonight because he thought they were new. Anyone else suffer from this or is it just me whenever I buy anything new.

We do have a choice but very often it isn't seen as normal. Like we say "working mother" but not "working dad". To see if something is sexist or carries some sort of assumption, you have to see if there is an opposite. My gender studies teacher always used to say "women are housewives and men are unemployed" to prove that point.

I don't see what is wrong with not liking stereotypes. We cannot put boxes around ourselves. I used to have this great poster that showed a little girl and a little boy standing together, exactly the same. In the next sequence there were quotes saying "you can't..." about various things (the girl said she wanted to be a brick layer for instance) and by the end sequence neither child could see because they were stuck in a cardboard box.

More research! More rubbish promoting mum,dad and the baby as being a better family than any other kind!

If your parents weren't married or were but got divorced, you are more likely to have a baby younger. What rubbish! Most of the people I know who got pregnant while still at school came from the stereotypical family ie mum,dad married.

This is the article I found.
"Teenagers who come from stable homes with married parents are much less likely to have underage sex and unwanted pregnancies, according to one of the largest surveys of teenage behaviour.
In an exclusive preview of the study to be published on Tuesday, the findings for the first time make a direct link between the teenager's family environment and his or her attitude to sex.

The survey of 2,000 teenagers aged 13-15 will be presented to the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group. It will re-ignite the debate on the role of the family in raising a generation of children who campaigners allege are bombarded with images of sex through the media.

Britain has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world, an issue that has been identified by Prime Minister Tony Blair as one that needs to be tackled.

However, the report, which says that cohabitation and single parent homes lead to more lax attitudes to underage sex and more teenage pregnancies, was condemned last night for being simplistic.

'These types of reports are not helpful,' said Margaret Creear of Gingerbread, the single-parent support organisation. 'Once again it is promoting the nuclear family headed by a heterosexual couple who are married. The reasons for underage pregnancies are much more complex and often to do with social deprivation, not whether your parents are married or not.'

But the report's authors defended the document, which reveals that teenagers are twice as likely to engage in underage sex if their parents are separated or cohabiting rather than married.

'This is surely one of the most important issues facing our country today,' said Dr Clifford Hill, one of the authors of the report by the Family Matters Institute. 'The simple fact is that the family environment and the relationship between the husband and wife can have a very real effect on the children.

'If one or other of the parents is rarely around or has been unfaithful then that affects the mores of the child.'

Hill said the number of children born to unmarried couples had risen from 5 per cent in 1960 to 10 per cent in 1980, and to 38 per cent in 1999. The number of babies born to teenage mothers totalled 48,000 last year, a number that has remained high despite falling on the Continent.

The survey found that children who did not think that they had a 'good' relationship with their parents were much more likely to engage in underage sex. Nearly 60 per cent of those who said that they had 'no sexual experience' said that they had a very good relationship with their mother, compared to 43 per cent of those who had had sex.

The Family Matters report was overseen by Professor Martin Richards, head of the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University, and a respected expert on the subject. He warned that the results should not be taken out of context and that there were other factors to consider.

'There does appear to be an association between types of family relationship and young people's attitude to sex,' he said. 'If parents are going through a difficult time then they are often preoccupied with their own issues and may not be as focused on their children as they might be at other times.

'This is unfortunately often at a time in the teenager's life when they are starting to form their first relationships and they are not getting the sort of support they need from home"

Why do some groups say anything to promote the idea that there is one kind of family which is better than another?

Jbr - I think you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument to refute the findings of this research. Dismissing it as rubbish, citing personal anecdotal evidence, is hardly the most convincing counter argument.
The Gingerbread spokesperson calls this research 'unhelpful' but in my opinion it raises inportant issues about the attitudes we, as a society, are conveying to young people about emotional and sexual relationships.
The article makes it clear that there may be other factors at work. other than the type of family the young person grows up in, but to me the crux of the issue is contained in Professor Richards' assertion that:
"There does appear to be an association between types of family relationship and young people's attitude to sex. If parents are going through a difficult time then they are often preoccupied with their own issues and may not be as focused on their children as they might be at other times. This is unfortunately often at a time in the teenager's life when they are starting to form their first relationships and they are not getting the sort of support they need from home"
This is not aiming to dismiss or trivialise alternative family arrangements, merely to point out that they may not provide the best support for children as they emerge in to adulthood. We all know that the 'traditional' family has its faults - one of many insights feminism has brought to the world - but that doesn't mean that the types of family unit we have developed in its place are perfect.

I agree with you Mooma. And what an accusation from Gingerbread - 'Once again it is promoting the nuclear family headed by a heterosexual couple who are married'. Promoting the nucelar family - how absolutely shocking!.

Surely the fact that the report is by the FAMILY MATTERS INSTITUTE is highly significant! What is 'a family'. All this sort of research does is undermine the very difficult job done by lone parents and add to the propaganda that stereotypes single parents.

Tom – I have come rather late to this discussion. I agree with you that a father’s role in childcare is not promoted and that there should be longer paternity leave. I do take issue with the fact that you state that parenting skills are “learned” by both parents. Also I was a little unclear about your distinction between 6 months and after 6 months as if women suddenly recovered from childbirth in that period of time. I think there is a lot of instinct involved and a woman is naturally inclined towards the care of her child (post-partum depression aside).

It is different for men and women. To be rather obvious about it - women give birth and breastfeed and men can do neither so initially the difference is larger due to the hormonal state of women. This doesn’t just suddenly stop at 6 months as many women go onto breastfeed for a year or longer. Perhaps I am taking your comment too literally but I do think the burden is greater for a woman in the first year at least. If paternity leave is to be increased then the onus should be more on supporting the woman (I don’t mean financially necessarily) to do her essential part of feeding and recovering her body. From a book I read it stated that the focus shouldn’t be on trying to cut the baby up into 2 equal portions for Mum and Dad to do their ‘share’ of but to allow the woman to do the larger part of feeding the child (because that is what she is designed for) and for Dad to help out in winding, cuddling and nappy changing and more importantly perhaps, doing household chores and looking after older children. The term was “mothering the mother”. In other words men should support their partners/wives … gosh a terribly old-fashioned viewpoint! But men will never ever be able to breastfeed so the demands on the mother are bound to be greater and thus she should be assisted at this time. Rather than women attempting to be more like men and piling more on their plates and rushing back to work early why not allow them to take their time over their babies. I therefore still think it is more important that a mother has a long maternity leave. I do agree of course that men’s leave is not nearly long enough but perhaps for different reasons that you suggest.

My husband had only 2 days off work when our son was born and I am not sure if it would have made any difference at all to our son if he had been around longer. It certainly would have made a difference to me though. The effects on our son if I’d not been around would have obviously created a much larger impact. As for later in a child’s life I agree with everything you say – my point is merely that the first year is more mother-child dominated.

Also I agree with you Mooma. Anyway gay couples have been shown to be great at bringing up children. The point is that it is generally better for TWO people to bring up children from the financial point of view and because the emotional strain is shared. Single mothers (and fathers) generally do need support and often have a strong support network of parents and friends. But this can pose difficulites ... There is obviously more difficulty with gay couples with how a child is created in the first place and with single parents other family members are not always accessible and/or reliable when they are needed most. Hence why a nuclear family often (although not in every single case) works best.