So working mothers do NOT harm their children - stuff you (again) Oliver James

[LadyBiscuit]

A very comprehensive study (most comprehensive ever apparently) has been done which shows that mothers who work don't disadvantage their children. It does show that working under 30 hours a week is better for babies but that working per se can actually give children some advantages.

Hurrah

Articles: Torygraph
Grauniad
Washington Post

[LadyBiscuit]

wouldliketoknow - but most of us also do all that unless you're talking about a situation where there is a SAHD? This isn't a competition about how hard one is vs the other. It's just saying that on balance, outcomes for children whose mothers work are no worse than for those whose mothers don't. The End

[InMyPrime]

Couldn't agree more with drymartini - the entire concept of a SAHM is just a fiction. Children nowadays are probably better cared for than they've ever been cared for in history, whether their mothers work or not. The whole concept of child-centred care is new. The idea of a woman giving up her life to focus entirely on her children would have been considered laughable in the past (over 100 years ago, I mean). Children were mainly considered a burden until they were old enough to work. Housewives in the historical sense were women who ran the household, managing food, finances, discipline of servants and children and the condition of the home, all of which were far more complex procedures than nowadays with supermarkets, technology etc. They were not doting mothers who spent quality one-on-one time with their DCs, making hand-made crafts and baked goods. All that is an invention of the 1950s when ideas about child-rearing changed and there were a lot of bored over-educated women in the home.

Things are better now than they ever have been for both women and children - and men, actually when you think about it as they've been released from the pressure to provide 100% of the financial resources. Women have been released from the lifetime of drudgery they were assigned to after the war, when domestic servants became expensive for the average family but higher-paid professions were still not open to women. There are flexible childcare options available to women offered by qualified, vetted professionals and some relatively high-status jobs are even available part-time, which would not have been possible 20 years ago. All the middle-class angst is totally unnecessary and hyped up by the media. I wish they would move on and focus on real issues of child welfare like the children out there being abused and neglected rather than ordinary women trying to do what they can to get by!

[drymartini]

Oh god, wouldliketoknow has just reminded me why I decided to go back to work. It wasn't work ethic or setting a good example at all. It was the ironing.

[drymartini]

Exactly my point InMyPrime only far more eloquent. When was the last time you came across a child in an Edith Wharton or a Henry James novel?

I blame the advertising industry.

[emmyloo2]

Agree with LadyBiscuit. Working mothers still do all the domestic jobs as well. It's not a competition about which is harder. A lot of jobs are very hard and very stressful and I would disagree that being a SAHM is harder than that. My mother worked full time my whole life plus did all the cooking, cleaning etc. I think she would disagree that being a SAHM is harder than a paid job.

But at the end of the day, it's a choice and sometimes I feel like people try and justify their choices by making it a competition about which is harder. Both are difficult.

[MathsMadMummy]

well Henry James did write Turn Of The Screw... definitely children in that... although admittedly not a good example as the nanny kills the boy!

[foureleven]

Its so sad when women work out side of the home and do all the household stuff... how does that happen??!

That is definietly harder than being a sahm.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

InMyPrime - brilliant post.

Yes all this hand-wringing angst about how nurseries are damaging children is just hyped up nonsense.

UQD I would also be mortified if my dd thought that. Thankfully she doesn't - she knows that if she wants something she will have to work for it.

[drymartini]

Oh yes you're right! See - should have sent the kids to day care. Much better all round and probably less haunted in general.

[bronze]

I find the SAHM/housework thing odd.
It's why one the reasons I don't describe myself as a housewife.

If I went and looked after someone elses 4 children during the day it would count as a job (I trained for that)but as theyre my own its obviously not. Does that mean a nanny works harder than me? No. Housework is something above and on top of paidwork /SAHmness.

[foureleven]

My dsd's mother thinks the world owes her a living. Thought that once she was married she would never have to lift a finger and her husband would support her financially 100%.

I am now losing a large amount of energy teaching said DSD that this isnt the way life is..

My daughter however wants to be a doctor... [smug emoticon]

She's 5 though so this could be because she has a doctor barbie (just for strix )

[LadyBiscuit]

I agree absolutely bronze. SAHM does not mean unpaid housekeeper, bookkeeper, PA although sadly it does for a lot of families. My sister has recently been very ill and after years of being a SAHM it transpires that not only does she do the childcare, she does all the gardening, all the financial stuff, all the laundry, all the shopping, all the paperwork, all the laundry. Basically her husband has spent the last 10 years going to work and that's it. My sister has done everything else (oh sorry, he does cook the occasional meal). I am very fond of my BIL but I am appalled at the inequality in their marriage

[bronze]

I just read that and thought so do I.

Thing is DH does do stuff I'm just trying to work out what mows the lawn, bins, erm he does do stuff really (but what)

[MathsMadMummy]

I agree too LB. I am very lucky to have a DH who is more than willing to share the housework, and all childcare stuff when he's home. I am so shocked at some of my friends' DHs who do naff all.

I want to shower my DH in gratitude for it, and I do tell him how grateful I am, but I also think, well that's what he should do anyway IYSWIM? I just feel lucky in contrast to my friends.

[edam]

Very glad to see this study. Agree wholeheartedly with the 'fuck you, OJ' response.

For the people who say studies can show anything - well, you have to look at how they are designed. And this one is very comprehensive with what appears to be good research methodology. The key tests are things like: Is the study set up in such a way that it is actually capable of answering the question the researchers have set? Is the study the right size to answer that question? (A study of 150 kids might be interesting but it wouldn't provide any evidence on this particular issue.)

Have the researchers controlled for confounding factors - other things that might affect the study? Have the researchers fairly reported what they actually set out to test, or have they come up with an interesting finding that wasn't the point and gone back to pretend that's what they were looking for all along?

This study seems to pass all these tests. Unlike many of the previous ones hailed by OJ and his like as 'proving' that working mothers damaged their children.

[PosieParker]

It's not really that hard to see that full time career extremes and the parent that sits on her arse and doesn't socialise the child are both doing the child an injustice.

[PosieParker]

Every WOHP I know says staying at home is harder.

[PosieParker]

The point about which is harder is not how much you have to do, it's the monotony and chore of stimulating your small child all day, everyday.

[blondecat]

I feel that both the study and the intensity of our reactions show one thing - how emotive and guilt ridden subject this has become. Or maybe always was.

Among my friends and peers I will be the only SAHM. Perhaps as a result I feel I am made to feel guilty about this. My sister told me I will be betraying the sisterhood (yikes). What's the point of my degree. Why did I take a place at Oxbridge. Why did I work a 90 plus week in my twenties.

In a way it helps to see that working mums feel they are made to feel guilty too. Maybe that's why they make me feel guilty. And I feel the need to defend myself. If pushed hard enough I will bring out Oliver J even. Then they feel worse and so it goes. We reinforce it in one another.
Let's just call a truce.

[ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave]

Full study is here if you want to read it

[PosieParker]

I wonder how anyone can say whether anything damages children when they're still children. I remember some psychology study I did involving monkeys and nature/nurture of maternal instinct. Surely we will only know about whether being a SAHM/WOHM when our dcs become adults and have a problem with attachment or no career aspirations!!

[Catitainahatita]

My twopenneth, for what it's worth:

The whole SAHM/D vs WM/D is a not a very good way to frame any type of research, imho. A happy, well-educated mother/father, who is able (financially and emotionally) to attend the needs of their children and can assure that they have good quality childcare, is going to prove a good start for their children if they work or not. In other words a good SAHM or SAHD would also make an excellent parent if they worked.

An unhappy SAHM/D, or one whose circumstances (financial and/or emotional) do not allow them to attend the needs of their children will perhaps not be the parent they would ideally like to be. I think this would be the same for the WM/D.

A child's emotional/physical/intellectual development does not necessarily require the presence of a mum or a dad, per se. It needs people that fulfills its emotional/physical/intellectual (etc) needs.

I'm a WM btw. With 2 DC in nursery. I don't feel guilty about working and nor does my DH. I understand that some women and men do, but then everyone's different.

[Francagoestohollywood]

So glad to see this study.

[Catitainahatita]

X post with lots of people.

@Riven. I think the terminology used in the newspaper reports (I'm not sure about the original research, I'll have to read it properly) is very indicative of the climate of opinion on the subject. They talk in term of "harm" or "suffering", which carry with them preconceived notions on the subject (ie that a women "harms" her child by woking)rather than using neutral terminiology ("how a child whose mother works compares to one whose mother doesn't" for example).

@blondecat. I second your proposal. You have no reason to feel anymore guilty than I do. In fact, none at all.