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.

Sml, it was medicin sans frontieres (that well know front for an internal spying organisation...). It was a few years ago now. DO you not see just a teensy bit of irony in extolling the freedoms available in a country which bans the presence of international charities?. Re the Tibetan protestors, I think that's an expample of openness in the UK. There was a huge fuss at their banner being removed, it was in every newspaper, raised in parliament and the police issued a formal apology over the incident. Things certainly aren't perfect here but at least its open.

The government can only compulsorily acquire your property under certain circumstances and of course, has to provide compensation to the current market value. I am not aware of any developed country in which this rule doens't apply. On benefits, well I'm sorry but as a taxpayer, if people are refusing jobs, then no I don't think they should receive unemployment benefits as clearly they don't fit the criteria of "actively looking for work". In any case, from what I've read, Algeria hardly leads the world in the provision of unemployment benefits!!.

Presumably the difficulty that Algerians have in obtaining visas reflects the relatively high number of Algerian asylum seekers and refugees seeking entrance to the UK and other EU countries. Funnily enough, this doesn't tend to be a problem for Britons travelling overseas.

At least in Britain, people have the right to protest at theie "misery" - since June it is illegal to porotest against the government in Algeria.

A cursory Internet search will reveal a large number of sites concerned with Human Rights abuses in Algeria, particularly against women.

Sml - in what way is our ballot in the UK not secret?

To re-open the discussion with Winnie,etc., I have to say I mostly agree with her views. I have had 2 children, one where I very soon became a single parent after her birth and two, where I am in a very conventional marriage situation. in both cases MY relationship with my child was/is exactly the same. Of course it was financially harder the first time around (and lonelier once the child was in bed) but otherwise, there is no difference. I do exactly the same things with child No. 2 as with child No. 1 and the second child is turning out to be the same well-educated, intelligent, nice girl that the first one is. Marriage or cohabitation with the child's father is not the key to a well-brought up child, much as we would all like to think it is. Time, effort and love are the answers. These can be provided in many different sets of circumstances, what matters is what you are like as a person, what your values are and what you give, not your marital status. Society's biased views do not cause the problem but they certainly contribute to making it harder for people who are seen to be outside of the norm. I am sad to read some unenlightened views here.

Cam - I am sure you gave your children all the love they needed. However don't you think this is putting men down rather to state that their presence isn't necessary. As you state you were lonely at times. Well even if you say that the child's upbringing isn't affected by the lack of a father then perhaps you are affected by the lack of a partner. This could mean a less happy household for the child. I speak here of course in cases where the father's presence would be a positive asset. It just seems to undermine the man's role so much to say that a woman can do it all. Yes some can as I am sure you did, but it isn't it making life hard for themselves? I worry about my son's perception of relationships in the future. Surely if men think they don't matter then it is hardly a good incentive for them to make much of an effort.

Star - did I say anything about men choosing to leave a women? Don't put words into my mouth. I know a great deal about how women behave having 3 sisters.

It is a well-discussed issue that in modern society that a man's role in family is become blurred. Is this always their own fault? I think many feel powerless because women nearly always get custody rights. I am certainly not being either patronising to men or women. Every situation is different of course but when it comes to families breaking up the women get the children and there is nothing to stop them from going to the other side of the world if they want to. How does the man feel then?

Dear Eulalia
You are changing the issue a little. It is not about undermining the father's (or other significant male's) role in bringing up children. Rather the issue is that women can and do bring children up equally well in the absence of being married or cohabiting, whatever the reason is for their position. You do seem not to think that this can be the case in any circumstances. How can you judge this so absolutely?

But Cam, I don't think anybody is suggesting that individual single parent families cannot be as successful or even more successful than the conventional nuclear family. Just that in the main, families where the parents stay married, love each and are generally happy will overall, have a tendency to be more stable than families in which the parents have separated.

My husband's paernts divorced and the impact on him and the hurt felt by him are enormous - even some 15 years later.

I really admire you for being so successful as a single parent - you are obviously a strong and well rounded person. Do you not think though that for many people, the increased strains of being a single paernt (both financial and emotional) can in a minority of cases, lead to a less stable homelife than if there were two happy parents?.

I just had to say that I have spent half an hour reading throught this discussion and its fascinating!

Mooma, re secret ballots. I had noticed that (in our area at least) each voting slip was cross checked before being handed over and had a reference number on it. Before the recent general election my mother had a phonecall from one of our local candidates asking if she would be continuing her support for his party. We want to know how he knew who she voted for because she never ever divulges her political preferences - my parents have been married for nearly 50 years and until that point my father had never known who my mom voted for!! We did consider that it may have beeen a speculative call and the candidate didnt really know who mom voted for but it was strange and it tied in with our concerns re the referenced ballot papers.

Cam - it is not for me to say whether women can bring up kids "equally well" or not - depends on the men and women concerned. If you read back further what I was actually saying was that yes a woman can do it herself but it is much harder, regardless of the results of her efforts (which may indeed be better/or just the same) doing it all yourself is not the ideal situation. Which is why so many people want to get married/co-habit.

I know single mothers and most of them don't want to be that way, as I say regardless of the outcome, just because it is such a hard job. And surely to say that they can do just a good job (with man their or not) can only mean that it doesn't matter if a man is there or not.

Anyway again I repeat as I said earlier even if a woman can bring up her kids perfectly well, as some obviously can, what is often an issue is the lack of support to the woman ie from the point of view of a relationship (company, sex, help with house, finances etc). Some women may have plenty friends or just not want a man - good to them, but shared responsibilites are easier (in any instance) and in our society it is a man and woman set up which traditionally fulfils these roles.

Now I've said enough as I am just repeating myself.

Midge - if you don't have a system of checks and references, how can you avoid electoral fraud? I meant more that we cast our votes in private, rather than by a show of hands or other public method. Your posting really made me think though, about the potential for misuse of such information. My family all laugh at me, because I refuse to show my voter registration card to the canvassers outside the polling station. My reason is that I wish, as far as possible, to remain anonymous because the secret ballot was a hard-won political right. Perhaps at one time your Mum divulged her voting intentions to a canvasser, and that's why they knew she was a former supporter?

Don't know what sml is referring to as Britain has had the secret ballot since 1872. AS with just about most rights in the UK, it is protected by legislation.

Nuclear families? Just had a look at the results of the relationship survey.
A quick scan reveals figures like:

35% of fathers spend less than 5 hours a week alone with their children.

81% of mothers say they go out with their partners as a couple once a month or less.

Doesn't make good reading for nuclear family supporters, does it?

Tom's quick guide to why dads (& mums matter) to kids:

1. Biological dads (and mums) matter to kids because there is biological/hereditary information the child needs & also each biological parent is one half of the answer to "where did I come from" (i.e. sense of identity)

1. Dads are important to kids as male parents (converse is true about mums - important as famale parents) - they provide sons with an experience of being a man (can be +ve, can be -ve), and provide daughters with an experience of a relationship with a man (ditto). Biological dads/step dads/mentors can fill this role.

1. Dads are important just as parents, doing the kinds of things anyone can do - feeding, dressing, taxiing, talking, listening etc - parents generally have a lifelong unconditional commitment to their children that the child will not get from anyone else.

1. Dads (& mums) are important to kids as indivuduals - we each bring indivudual interests/hobbies/skills/networks into a child's life.

Those are the 4 levels on which dads are important. Note, mums are important on all 4 levels as well.

Hope that helps some

Couple of other comments:

1. Big difference between a "survey" and "research", although press usually confuses the two. "Survey" is like market research - a MORI/NOP poll or something - i.e. views of a representative sample (usually about 1000 people). For example, a "survey" saying dads only spend 5 hours alone with kids is useless - it's people's views, not measured independently.

Research uses control groups and measures effects of variables according to professionally agreed standards. So, a research piece on the time men spend with their children would actually follow the men around, measuring time spent alone with child, time with others, etc...

In my view, research is v. useful for getting at the truth about what is going on, surveys are very useful for getting media attention for your cause (all you need to do is get the question right - so you get the answer that backs up your cause).

1. Response to Eulalia (sorry - have been on holiday) - maternity leave is not based on breastfeeding, but on birth. 6 months is long enough to recover from birth - if you've not recovered by then, you would have something wrong with you, and could get off sick. We would like the second 6 months to be available to fathers as well. Women lose nothing, men and children gain something - families get more options - what's the problem??? Breastfeeding leave is a nice idea, but it doesn't exist, and would cause problems - would you have to prove you are breastfeeding to qualify?

1. I'm sure being a parent on your own (man or woman) is a really hard job - it's hard enough with 2 of you to do it - there's very little point in knocking single parents, most of whom try very hard to have a family life, and life has often not turned out how they wanted - imho, of course.

1. Final point - it is rare to meet a woman who really understands the subtle dynamics of how men get excluded within family life. Just as it is rare to find a man who understands the subtle ways in which women are discriminated against in work. I promise you - it does happen. I have set out some of the ways, (and things mums can do to help) in an article I wrote for mumsnet - click here.

Tigermoth, I was annoyed when I was filling out the survey that it didn't allow more information on WHY women would spend more time alone with their children than their partners (as was clearly going to be the outcome). Obviously the answer is in work commitments. Many more women than men work part-time while overall, women work shorter hours. Most childcare arrangements are only in place while both parents aren't available.

Like many people's husbands, mine works long hours. When he is home though, we try and spend as much time as we can all together as a family. I simply wouldn't want to be away from him and my son for 5 hours a week given that unlike vice versa, at no time am I at work while he is at home. I think it is very unfair to suggest that men are abdicating their responsibilities to their children because they have less time in sole charge of their children than women. Most men would love to have more time with their children. To my mind, it is time spent together as a family that matters.

Tom, of course dads are important to kids for all the four reasons you've listed. Agree totally.

But the views of our representative sample seem to suggest that there is a big gap between the ideal and the reality.

And the reality may be that right now for many children, a happy single parent set up can be every bit as good as the current much less-than-perfect two-parent set up. By that I mean one where the father for whatever reason (put the blame on him or not), isn't contributing his share on the parenting front?

You want fathers to be more involved in the family. So aren't you saying that the current and traditional nuclear family arrangement is not ideal?

Isn't that why your website exists?

Just gone back and had another look at the survey. Surprise surprise, 65% of women spend more than 15 hours a week alone with their children which is exactly the same as the combined percentage who either do not work at all (31%) or work part time (35%). This seems to confirm the obvious, that men aren't spending more time in sole charge of their children simply because of work commitments.

As far as the success of the nuclear family is concerned, in my view the most important response is that 70% of women feel that their partners do their fair share of childcare. Given that 67% of the women concerned either don't work, work part time, or are students, this seems to be a pretty big vote in favour of the importance of the man's role in the family.

As an aside Tigermoth, although we have free babysitting from our Nanny and no financial constraints, my husband and I only go out as a couple once a month or so. This is simply because he, like me, would rather spend our evenings all together as a family given that we both work.

Yes, Croppy, It is encouraging that 70% of respondents are happy that their partners do their fair share of child care. As you say, work commintments must come into play when looking at how much time a parent can spend with the family.

However, when I read the survey results and saw the general tone of the nutshell comments, I came away feeling that it also highlighted many strains, stresses and inequalities in two parent families.

Figures can be manipulated to support all types of argument so I won't pull out any more. Just to say IMO the survey does the nuclear 'ideal' no favours.

I'm not knocking men as husbands and fathers (any lack of involvement isn't necessarily their fault), or the nuclear family as a very viable option ( it's been around for so long), but I question whether the nuclear family it is the ideal above all other family set-ups. And in my opionon this survey shows there is need for much improvement.

So what "Setups" would be better than 2 happily married parents exactly?. Unless there is an arrangement whereby there are more than 2 adults around to care for a child, I can't see how your concerns over the findings of the survey would be assuaged by any alternatives.

But Tigermoth, the survey is completely meaningless as a measure of the success of the nuclear family as it does not set out to compare traditional families with alternatives. There is no comparison involved whatsoever so while it may have implications for fathers role in general, it does not tell you anything about whether the nucelar family is "better" than the alternative. To do that, you would need comparative questions of single parents and other arrangements on questions of tiredness and so on.

Croppy, I'm not saying that any family set-up is 'better' that any other.

Just confused by your point that's all. I thought we had all established that obviously in individual circumstances, single parent families and so on can be happier and more successful than the traditional variety. However, in most cases, the ideal environment for children is two happy parents who love each other, stay together and are able to provide a stable, secure home environment. Without wishing to sound like a broken record, no-one is suggesting that single parent families cannot provide this environment, simply the obvious observation that 2 happy parents are generally better than 1 happy parent. It simply means more time, more money and more support (when the couple is happy that is).

I just cannot see that the Mumsnet survey tells us anything about traditional versus alternative families anyway.

Tigermoth – it is unlikely that non-nuclear families are going to have any better statistics regarding time fathers spend with their kids or going out with a partner. In fact it would be MORE difficult for kids to see their fathers. Often dads only get every second weekend for example or even less depending on where they live. My husband only saw his kids about 6 times a YEAR because his ex left him and went 500 miles away. As for going out – well again there are more problems with going out if you live on your own I would have thought because of baby-sitting. Anyway going out isn’t anything to do with the family set-up (nuclear or non-nuclear) it is to do with many things including babysitting and finances. Incidentally a single woman could see less of her kids because she has to allow her husband access. This may mean she doesn’t have her kids at all for a whole weekend.

Tom – I think I have a fair understanding of how men are excluded from my experiences with my husband and his children. He had no powers to do anything about them being taken so far away. He tried to get his ex back for 7 years despite the marriage being in tatters just so he could be with them. He had 16 years of being strung along by her – having to play her game as to when he could see them. It was only once the kids had grown up and were able to come to visit on their own that he could finally cease contact with her. I guess he was just lucky that she didn’t move even further away. I am sure this implicit threat hangs over many men and it really made me think that if men have domination in the workplace then women have it at home.

As for maternity leave – the time given must be more than recovery from the birth alone otherwise women would go back to work sooner. Many do return before 6 months – I believe there is a minimum time when a woman can return to work – about 21 days I think but few do this. Recovery from the birth (if it is straightforward) is fairly quick. Who gets time to recover anyway with a newborn?! Maternity leave is spent changing, winding and feeding and bonding. Indeed feeding is the most essential part of a newborn’s life so of course time is needed after the birth for this. As for breastfeeding - it can take 6-8 weeks for a baby to learn to feed properly and breastfeeding is physically demanding on a woman’s body even after she has recovered from the birth. It would be very hard for women to do this and work at the same time so of course maternity leave covers breastfeeding. And I did state in my earlier message that a man’s role is essential to support the mother at this time so it is indeed important for dad to be around. To say ‘breastfeeding leave’ is silly – just as it would be to say ‘changing-nappy leave’ because it is an essential component of a child’s first few weeks and months. It would obviously prejudice women who don’t breastfeed if they got less time but some may argue that there is actually more work in washing, sterilising, mixing, winding etc with bottles anyway. I stress again a man’s role is important to either help out with feeding if bottle feeding or help out with the other chores that mum can’t do because she is breastfeeding. So I am all in favour of men getting longer leave.

Your comments on research are spot on – far too many people get confused about what research is.

What people seem to forget is that families largely split up because the PARENTS don’t get on – not because mum and dad isn’t getting on with their kids. In some cases dad may be violent and abusive but generally speaking the parents split up for their own reasons and the relationship that dad has with his kids may be perfectly OK. Hence many dad’s lose out on their kids upbringing. Anyway Tigermoth I don’t see how dad’s can help out more in the home if they aren’t there! Yes the nuclear family is not ideal (has it ever been?) but are you saying that being a single parent is better?

Doesn’t everyone think that a discussion would be better channelled towards making relationships better between all concerned rather than nit-picking about how ‘nuclear’ it is?

Tigermoth -

I see you answered this point about being 'better' further down. But if you are willing to criticise nuclear families and admit no set up is better than another then you must also know that there are faults in alternatives. What do you feel are the downsides to a non-nuclear family, and what other kinds of set-up's do you propose?