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.

OK....taking the perspective that we are just like any other animal in nature.....

Animals that have "no-maintenance" offspring do not require either parent to raise the offspring. This includes animals where the offspring are born/hatched ready to go. They are mobile, can feed themselves and their lifestyle does not require any life skills be "learnt". Examples are many fish and reptiles.

Animals that have "low-maintenance" offspring require one parent to raise the offspring. This includes animals where the offspring need some protection following birth/hatching but are mobile soon afterwards and can feed themselves. These offspring often require "teaching" from a parent (doesn't matter whether male or female and examples of both are evident in nature) where the parent may show them what to eat/how to find food, but the offspring feed themselves. Examples are most non-passerine birds (such as poultry) and most grazing animals.

Animals that have "high-maintenance" offspring require both parents to care for the child (or a close family group). These offspring are very vulnerable for a considerable time following birth. They are not mobile and cannot feed themselves. Mostly, these offspring are demanding of their carers and one is required to protect the offspring from harm while the other searches for food for the offspring. In some cases both parents need to find food for the offsrping while the offspring stays well hidden somewhere. Examples are most passerine birds, many of the larger carnivores and...dare I say it....humans!

This is not to say that single parents (male or female) can not do a good job of rearing a child alone (especially, in the case of humans in countries with support systmes in place), but we produce "high-maintenace" offspring and have evolved for more than one parent to raise the offspring. This higher "cost" of rearing our offspring is why we (and other species in this category that do not have the benefit of contraception) have fewer offspring in a lifetime than animals with lower-maintenance offspring, but our offspring do have a higher chance of making it to reproductive age. Afterall, when it gets right down to it, that is what is important in nature (please don't confuse this with what I think is important in a fullfilling human life!) is passing your genes on to the next generation!

Sorry...science lesson over!

I must say that when I was filling in the Mumsnet relationship survey, I did think it was going to given an unfair impression over who took responsibility for childcare. I fell into the category of spending more than 15 hours a week alone with our son while my husband was less than 5 hours. This purely reflects the fact that I am lucky enough to work a four day week and when my husband isn't at work, we try and spend most of our time all together. I think it would have been useful to have had an additional question asking somthing along the lines of "Excluding work commitments, of the time available to you both as parents, how much time do you spend alone with your children?".

Hrm - interesting. When 'research' has been done on this, the combined time for work, household tasks and childcare for men and women come out pretty much equal - they are just distributed differently - i.e. men do more work, women do more household tasks and childcare. But for men, work IS a "contribution to the family" - we are told from very young that this is our main role - breadwinning. When I hear women talk about work, especially middle class women, there is alot of talk about "choice" and "options" and "fulfillment" - but you doni't hear this from men - work is simply our destiny - at least that is what many of us think - it is what we do to provide for our family. Work is often about "family" for men, and more about "individual" for women (nb. generalisation - obviously not true for everyone!).

The really interesting data is on sleep and leisure tmie - which is what is left over when work, housework and childcare is done. The combined time for men and women is roughly the same - women spend slightly more time in bed/asleep than men, and men spend slightly more leisure time than women, and they even up.

Also, when women work full time, men's contribution to childcare/housework dramatically increases - 36% of men in dual-full time households are the primary carers of their children in terms of time.

Anyway, I'm not really into setting men vs women - it's a useless way to proceed. I don't know many men or women who are really lazy and don't pull their weight, be that at home or at work. I think if you measure the things that are traditionally women's role, you will generally find women do more of them, still, even though we want a more even spread. There's little point in complaining about men unless you actually look to see what they ARE doing as well.

Hey Tigermoth, I love the formulation you use in your argument: "a happy single parent set up can be every bit as good as the current much less-than-perfect two-parent set up." - well, duh! of course, but then an unhappy single parent isn't as good as a happy couple arrangement, is it! Not all single parents are happy/competent/successful, not all couples are either. There are excellent single parents, there are excellent and happy couples. So what? Oh, and 10% of single parents are dads, by the way.

"The current and traditional nuclear family is not ideal"? well...

a. It's not "traditional" - it stems largely from the post-war period of economic expansion whereby: nuclear families could survive as economic units outside of extended families and we invented a sexual division of labour (men at work, women at home) to help increase male employement after the war and increase the birth rate - women being at home became a status symbol of the husband's wealth.

b. No - it's not ideal - such isolation from extended family and community makes it hard for parents to raise kids - as a single parent, I'm sure you are more aware than most of the need to rely on a network of friends and family to support you. Many nuclear families are tricked into thinking that you can do this on your own - it's death to most families I've seen.

c. The sexual division of labour within it is artificial, stifling to women and excludes fathers from the lives of their children by putting all the breadwinning responsibility on them. I'd rather see women work more so we can be with our kids more, to be frank.

So my "ideal" is this: a happily married/committed couple, who are the biological parents to their children, living together in close proximity to a network of friends and family who have enough time to connect and support each other, and where men and women see their responsibilities collectively, and not parcelled out into "his" and hers" packages. And where we don't have such huge pressures and time commitments from work draining us physically and psychologically and depriving us of time with each other...

Of course, we don't live this ideal - people are frail - we fail at relationships, we are unkind to our friends and family, we make mistakes. We live in a global comepetetive economy and if our that drives us to relentless production and consumption. We try to create great families, we all fail, but we sometimes succeed in many things we hope for, whatever situation we're in. All we can do is keep trying, keep failing and keep succeeding. What use are the "ideals"? To give us a vision, perhaps, but let's not get too het up about them - we will NOT realise them this side of eternity.

Eulalia - yup - souds like you have an insight into the way non-resident dads are excluded.

My point about maternity leave is what the law covers - maternity leave is there to cover pregnancy and birth - it has to be, as this is exempt from sex discrimination law - if it was 'legally' for things like feeding, nappy changing, winding etc, then men would be legally entitled to it as well, as this is NOT covered by sex discrimination law (i.e. women are not exempted from sex discrimintation law for childCARE, but only for childBIRTH). So whether or not it is actually used for these things, in the eyes of the law, maternity leave is only for the effects of pregnancy and birth, otherwise it cannot only be available to just women. And yes, only women can breastfeed, but men can also feed their infants, using formula (not the ideal, I know but still...)

Interesting discussion, though...

Tom, thankyou for a truly brilliant message. I just couldn't agree more with your outline of the "ideal" family set up.

Croppy
sorry this is from a long time ago...I'm not saying this nastily, in fact I am smiling, but why are you still so prejudiced against Algeria when you clearly don't know very much about it??

Charities were thrown out of Algeria in 1968. Algerians don't go doing charity work abroad, why should they be the recipients of foreigners coming to their country dishing out charity? It's a respect thing. Respect is not such an important concept in northern Europe as it is round the Mediterranean. In Algeria, it is VERY important. To get an idea of this, read Asterix in Corsica - the Corsicans have respect like the Algerians!

Unemployment benefits are paid in Algeria - don't know the source of your information. You just don't want to believe me because, no offence intended, but you obviously don't have personal experience of life at the bottom of the heap in England. Poor and uneducated people are denied benefits for frivolous reasons all the time. One person I know had benefit cut because he turned down a fruit picking job 10 miles from his home. He had no car or bike and there was not a direct bus. Another turned down a job which explicitly required her to be dishonest (doorstep gas & electricity salesman). Yet another had benefit stopped because he refused to fill in the same form that he had already filled in, giving the same correct information, after the benefit officers had also visited him at home to check the correctness of the information. The person was not a native speaker of English and was therefore not in a good position to make a complaint. The point is, this sort of thing would not happen if benefit officers were there to make sure people got their rights, instead of being set up to grant benefits if the claimants jump through the right sort of hoops.

We don't have a secret ballot in the UK because your number is printed on your ballot paper. There is considerable anecdotal evidence to suggest that after the count, the piles of voting slips for extremist candidates have in certain constituencies been taken away separately. It's not hard to guess that the police or MI5 or whoever want a picture of who is voting for extremists, which they can easily get by comparing the numbers with the names.

Star
the doctor issue is that any doctor can refuse a patient on a whim. This could be racism or any other meaningless prejudice. In practice, the receptionist may refuse someone off their own bat who has walked into the surgery to register, and the doctor may then back up their receptionist, with no reason ever being given for why that person has been refused. This does happen.

Sml, I'm not prejudiced against Algeria in the slightest. I just dispute your claim that life for the majority of people there is better than it is in the UK, particularly women. I also think that your view that the Brits somehow don't realise how badly off they are is patronising!.

I know Algeria has a form of benefits but it was my understanding that it is not as widely available as the UK system.

If anybody had reason to believe that information on their vote was not treated as confidential, they should report it to the police as the secret ballot is clearly protected by legislation.

You obviously favour a socialist model of government. Well that's fine but clearly the majority of British people don't share your view. There are at least 2 national political parties which espouse the socialist cause but their support is minimal.

Charities may well have been chucked out in 1968 but MSF certainly had a presence there in 1990 - I know because I was there!.

But sml, surely every country marks their ballot papers in some way, otherwise how would you protect against fraud?. I would be suspicious of any country that did not do this as there is no way of proving validity otherwise.

Your friends experience of benefits seems strange. I am currently working as an EU consultant to the DSS. You will only be disqualified from benefit for nine weeks in this country if you refuse an offer of "suitable" employments. This does not include employment in the district you last worked in at a lower rate of pay or on less favourable conditions than your last job. Availability of transport is defined as one of those conditions.

SML, I've been checking out Algeria on the internet and have found lots of web sites. Do your friends and family there come from a wealthy background in one of the bigger more international cities? The reason I ask is that a significant part of the country as far as I can tell is still struggling economically. Algeria is a member of a wide number of international organisations, all of whom seem to have statistical information on Algeria, which I can only presume to be correct. These statistics show an unemployment rate of 30%, and 23% below the poverty line. It appears that all media is under state control and only very recently did the Government discontinue late night curfews and road blocks are still in place. The number of violent deaths seems very high and every single tourist web site for Algeria had very strong warnings about travelling, what areas to go to etc. etc. The sites I visited suggest that the infant mortality rate is 41.97 in every 1000, life expectancy is 68 for men and 71 for women and that adult literacy is 62%.
As far as I can tell truly democratic government has only existed in Algeria since 1999 as previous to that, since independence from France, successive elections have been subject to coup d'etat or challenged in some way. Algeria has had 3 constitutions in this time. None of this suggests to me a country offering a great deal of political stability.
I readily admit that the UK has plenty of problems but I do believe that the country is politically stable and that its people are free and protected by an open democracy and a long standing tradition of respect for the law.

Croppy
I don't favour socialism, it is a luxury which Algeria can afford as it is such a rich country. Was MSF helping the refugees on the border with Western Sahara?

Chico, those experiences reflect how the benefits are being administered. There is an organisation set up to campaign for a secret ballot in the UK, can't remember its name but they were on the TV a few weeks ago. Preventing fraud is a joke, it's been an open secret for years among activists that all the major parties have their share of M. Mouse voters.

Bugsy, no, our family is not especially rich or from a city. Those statistics about infant mortality, life expectancy etc are just a joke. People's expectations with regard to health in Algeria are similar to those in the UK. Algeria has enjoyed stability and full democracy for 7,000 years odd, with small interruptions from the Romans and the French (who only controlled small areas). I explained the situation around the 1992 elections in a previous posting. The Algerian government has repeatedly been described, totally incorrectly, as a "military junta" in the UK press. Algeria is not a poor country. How do you define poverty? There are many people in the world who don't know where their next meal is coming from - this level of poverty doesn't exist in Algeria any more than it does in the UK. I myself have seen many of these lies published on the Internet, including wild guesses at the unemployment rate and assertions that certain things are against the law.
Roadblocks have been extensively used because some terrorist groups were targeting lonely stretches of road a few years ago. We passed through many of them with no trouble whatsoever. Can't comment about the curfews, there may have been some local ones. We have always been out at whatever hour of the night we liked, in Algiers and Kabyle.

Tom - I live in a traditional nuclear family where husband goes out to work. I would LOVE to work, particularly now my son has just turned 2. The burden being placed on my husband to earn all the dosh is great and we are constantly short of money. However getting a decent job that is sufficent to cover childcare costs is extremely difficult. Also I don't really want to work full-time and all the decent jobs seem to be full time. Our work system in this society is either man works full time, woman doesn't at all or both parents work full-time (or neither work at all). I bet there are very few couples where both partners work part-time. This would be ideal as both would be less stressed with work and would get more time with their kids. Seems so simple but it just doesn't happen. Keep up the campaigning ...

I am still confused about maternity leave - why is it so long then if it is just to cover pregnancy and birth? Current literature states that babies shouldn't receive solids till 4-6 months. This fits in with the timing of maternity leave. Yes men can feed their babies but this is artifical - biologically women are made to do this just the same way as pregnancy. I cannot therefore believe that maternity leave is only to cover the birth. This would predjudice those women who breastfeed by implying that it wasn't necessary. I agree that childcare can be shared but the onus is more on the woman until the baby is weaned. You may find these two excerpts of interest (full citations are provided)

"Obviously, the question is why human and legal rights are even needed, given that breastfeeding is a basic human activity, vital to infant and maternal health, and of immense economic value to households and societies. Yet breastfeeding remains a threatened activity in many parts of the world, often because of misinformation, or because it is seen to be incompatible with other roles women choose or are forced to play. Clearly, something is wrong in the way social life, work, and women's nurturing role are organized. Dominant social values, structures and institutions, which are rapidly spreading across the globe, often exploit and undervalue women's physical needs, their work and reproductive contributions. Hence the need to include the protection of women's right to breastfeed as a component of human rights."

www.infactcanada.ca/newsletters/winter97/humright.htm

"5. Breastfeeding requires a new definition of women's work - one that more realistically integrates women's productive activities.
In the sexual division of labour, infant care usually falls to women. It is women who have the capacity to provide food for their infants, ensuring women's self-reliance and their infants' survival for the first few months of life. Women give birth and produce milk. If the work of breastfeeding is valued as productive work, not a woman's duty, then conditions for its successful integration with other activities must be arranged.

These arrangements include legislation to provide maternity leaves and nursing breaks, affordable child-care and other strategies developed by women workers. A woman-centred definition of work must take into consideration the importance of nurturance and caring, including breastfeeding"

www.aleitamento.org.br/ingles/acsheet4.htm

Chelle – your points got me thinking … living in small family units is a strain on resources and is expensive. I am not necessarily talking about single parents here, this can include single people living alone without kids. It puts a strain on housing and the people themselves can struggle to pay rent/mortgage. In fact a recent report (don’t have details – saw it on the news last week) stated that young people are living with their parents longer than ever (around age 25) and relying upon them for down payments for mortgages, fees for studying etc. Most families that are separated causes 2 separate homes to form – usually the man ends up living alone (not likely to return to his parents!) Often the father needs to have a fairly large house/flat so that he can accommodate the child(ren) on their visits. Then if the children are small it can mean duplicating cots, car seats, highchairs, prams etc etc. And of course there are the costs of 2 houses, mortgages, bills etc. The financial costs of a family splitting are huge. Usually in time these families form into another with stepchildren but this can take some time.

From an experience of a close friend with 2 kids under 4 who has recently separated she appears to be in the situation of having both more freedom and less. She works full time so is financially independent of her husband, has her own accommodation and to all intents and purposes doesn’t ‘need’ him. However now being on her own she is struggling with less money and less time to herself. She also sees less of her kids as he takes them both for weekends. So doing without a man can cost you your freedom but in different ways. A single mum surely MUST work – she has no choice over that, unless she is on benefits. And being on benefits is merely having someone else work for you anyway. (I am not saying that everyone should go and stick with one man for ever and that single women are a drain to society etc etc as many are in this situation through no choice of their own and some may want to work). I am just illustrating that if there are problems with nuclear families – difficulties with relationships, men not pulling their weight and so on then there are just as many equal and corresponding problems with being on your own.

One of my favorite quotes from a marriage therapist is:

"Marriage ain't supposed to make you happy... it's supposed to make you married".

T
xx

Trying not to gripe on about single parents mothers but whilst I agree with you Tom about many fathers & children getting a raw deal from being separated because of relationship breakdown there are many, many fathers out there who don't actually give a damn... In my working experience I have seen both sides of this and it seems to me that very often the fathers who care the most and therefore are in the system re Child Support Agency/Legal access get penalised the most whilst those who dodge this system and pretend their children don't exist are still not taking responsibility on any level for their children. Personally I feel the CSA particularly has been a bit of a white elephant and family law in this country really needs to be updated. Fathers who have never been married to the mother of their child have no legal parental rights without going to court (even when their name is on a birth certificate) and likewise whilst a the child is considered to be legal entitled to financial support from his/her father in this situation the reality is often one of lengthy and unreliable proceedures which are difficult to implement and maintain. Part of the problem I believe is that 'parental responsibility' is taken as absolute and the law does not accept that frequently 'parental responsibility' doesn't exist. Many people (mothers as well as fathers) are far from responsinble or even rational in these circumstances and the law does not take the actual individual circumstances into account. Sorry to go on I simply feel that to imply that all fathers get a raw deal in this situation is simply untrue, it is often mothers and children who, for what ever reason, are left to go it alone without any imput, or inconsistant imput from fathers. Daring to cause controversy I wonder how much of this is a class thing? (I realise this is a big generalisation and I accept there are always the exceptions that disprove the argument.) However, it maybe that middleclass domestic strife is more hidden but from what I've seen in previous employment it is largely working class men who simply cut ties and run and middle class men who find themselves fighting for their children... just an observation and I am sure someone will correct me with stats. etc... I'll shut up now!

Have to agree that the best way ahead for a more equal partnership with regards to two parent family life is indeed part-time working for both parents. That would certainly be our households personal ideal.

Must add that I realise that single parent Dads are in the same boat as single parent Mums. I didn't mean to sideline them. And secondly I realise that 'access' is, of course, 'contact'.

Oops! Agreed Batters, a slip on my part. I agree that whether or not a couple has a marriage certificate is largely immaterial - happily committed is what I should have said.

Some facts to add to the discussion:

1. Unmarried fathers get no legal parental responsibility unless they get a Parental Responsibility Order or Agreement through the courts.

1. This is changing - the government will introduce a clause in the adoption bill so fathers on the birth certificate get PR automatically.

1. The number of non-resident fathers who have regular contact with their children is 70%

1. The percentage of divorced/separated resident parents who admit to "thwarting" contact with the non-resident parent is 40%.

Croppy, promise last posting on Algeria...I asked my husband and he said MSF must have been in Algeria for the earthquake in 1990? Foreign aid was neither sought nor required, but some organisations including MSF asked if they could help with the relief effort so the Algerians let them come.

I agree with all that you said about families.

You are right about the earthquake. That's my last posting on the A-word too!

I can see this discussion has moved on since I last posted, but now I'm back behind a screen again, I'll try and briefly answer your question, Eulalia, and thanks for recognising that I'm not saying that any one type of family setup is 'better'.

You asked what I feel are the downsides of a non-nuclear family and what other setups do I propose?
I've never said that non-nuclear families don't have their problems - and of course many of the problems involved in child rearing are pretty common to everyone - like time and money. And, as I've said before, finance must be an especially hard problem for a single parent. I don't propose any other family setups over and above the nuclear family. I'm sure I could be equally critical of any family set up. IMO, and echoing my earlier posting, a happy parent/parents at peace with their family situation is most likely to result in a happy child. Whether the set-up involves one or two parents, gay or straight,working, not working etc etc is secondary to this. Sorry if this appears to be a rather simplistic approach.

And Tom, regarding the above, you seem to have missed the point I was making. Of course I wouldn't suggest an unhappy single parent is as good as a happy couple. Do you think I'm mad?
BTW you refer to me, to quote ' as a single parent, I'm sure you are more aware than most for the need to rely on a network...' Just to put the record straight, I am a married and happily committed parent, and part of a nuclear family. So I have no axe to grind regarding the desirablilty of single parenthood.

Croppy, glad you feel that happily committed means more than happily married.

Two further things to add. I had a happy childhood and I like to feel that we're giving our sons a happy childhood too. Sorry for resorting to personal experience here but to illustrate how I feel that different family setups can work, here goes:

My parents chose to live with my grandmother in her house (pros and cons here that I won't go into!). My father was in hospital for much of my childhood, so I was bought up by my mother and grandmother. I never felt deprived of love or attention or felt second-best in any respect. Although I would have loved my dad to be well, I had really only ever known him as ill so I couldn't really imagine it and therefore didn't dwell on it. I some ways I gained from having two generations acting as my 'parents', with their different wisedom and experiences.In some ways I lost from not having much male input. But when I was 17, and on my mother's suggestion, my much-loved then boyfriend came to live with us. He easily fitted into our family for some years - and looks back on it as one of the happiest times in his life. Later on his father lodged with us, too - but that's another story.

When I look at the more conventional family life that I have now, I can see lots of advantages but also disadvantages, too. For instance, my parents, by choosing to live in my grandmother's house and look after her, were under far less financial pressure than we are. They had far more time for me, too.

Anyway, you can go on forever giving specific examples to support a general line of arguement, so I'll stop.

Last thought, and I guess what prompted me to quesition the supreme desirability of a nuclear family: It seems that we're very tolerent of parent's individual choice regarding working outside the home or staying at home to look after our children. I'm not so confident that we are as tolerent when talking of family set ups. Surely this is just as much a matter of individual choice and individual circumstances - in all it's glorious imperfection. And if all the world was made up of 'ideal' nuclear families, wouldn't life be boring?

Apologies for misreading your position Tigermoth.

Thanks, Tom!

Tigermoth
You are making the really pertinent point which is that good parenting is good parenting whatever the circumstances regardless of who does the parenting. It IS that simple and cannot be categorised any other way. Everything else is BTW.