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

biddulph et al all have an agenda to make money and guilt parents out.part of that money making set who peddles quasi-science schlock

Sunny2010 have kids and work with kids and

Erm I believe I was talking about SAHPs, which you are not. And I do love being with my dcs, but there's very little thanks, appreciation or break from the constant "Mum, Mum, Mum, Can I? Can I? Can you? Can you?". No lunch breaks, no toilet breaks, no downtime, especially with very young children. All my working friends say going to work is a break. Now these friends are a very wide range of work status and all say the same.

scottishmummy....Do you really have to use childish and bitchy terms like 'precious moment Mamas'? And clearly some people do think that spending time with their children is preferable and better for their family, not so hard to comprehend surely?

Sorry, not spending time with their children...
Spending working time with their children, ie not working.

I returned to work 18 hours a week when DS was just 12 months old.
We are lucky in that my hours allow DS to be cared for by his father.
Very glad I do have the option to work, not only financially, but I always return refreshed, I think it does help me cope with DS (and DP) a lot better than I might if I were with him all day.

posieparker - I dont get breaks either as I am with my kid then straight to work do a shift with her and she is there then home. Dont see it as a harsh job and couldnt care less about thanks. I think it makes me lucky. I did stay at home to and also think it is easier than my jobs I have done before.

Surely being with your child and seeing them grow is thanks enough? I dont go to the toilet without her at work either she is stuck to me like a limpet I dont mind though. I call my kids my entourage as I usually have about 8 - 9 following me but I like that they all want to be with me. I think its sweet.

I worked at way harder jobs but I suppose it depends on the types of jobs you had to do before.

posie precious moments mamas abund in life and in mn.id say its a pretty salient observation

given you admit to pretending to be a social worker,maybe you should attend to your own terminology

as much as you dislike precious moments mama, it aint a protected title (yet!) but social worker is

I dont think being a SAHM is harder than being a working mum - being a WOHM means doing a job and then coming home and doing all the things a SAHM does. I'd agree with sunny, I dont think looking after your own children is particularly hard either, obviously excluding those with full time car needs due to illness etc.

As for the "quality childcare comment" - it is childcare if you are paying a nursery/nanny but its not childcare to look after your own child - its called being a parent.

scottishmummy.....I can't really see how the two things are linked, but you obviously enjoy being abrasive so carry on fuelling the flames, there's a dear.

I can't be arsed to get into why being a SAHM for most professional part time and full time women I know seems to be a harder job than a fulfilling career....as mush of the argument for working seems to contain words like 'satisfaction', 'self esteem', 'identity' and so on. And it's not about how much work one does as a WOHM/SAHM it's the lack of change....

posie take issue with my terminology.i take issue with your pretending to be a social worker.mine is an informal made up term i oft subjectively use. social worker is a protected title, that you purport be.so my use of terminology may offend you as bitchy,but hey yours is illegal

I wasn't offended, just thought you were rather tedious and provocative, as usual. You do rather enjoy polarising this debate and are incredibly defensive about your own choice, just be happy.

Why are you discussing which job is harder then Posie? If that's not an attempt to polarise the discussion then I don't know what is.

do unclench posie.as you can see any working mums thread can stoke itself up nicely -its the mn way.working mums threads always have a wee fracas.they dont need any ole help or polarising

Sm is about the least defensive woman on here when it comes to this issue. Some of us are hapy with our choices you know - and saying we're happy is not some clenched teeth thing trying to convince ourselves. We are happy, our children are brilliant, our partners rub along just fine. There is no need for us to defend an all round good state of affairs. Neither is there a need for others to attempt to undermine it but somehow they always do have a shot...

I'm a bit unsure about the 'advantages include greater income and better quality childcare' bit - erm yes we knew that our incomes would be greater, that's why some of us are working. And you don't need any childcare if you're not working (unless maybe from age 2.5 ish when many studies say its good for children)

The question I'd like answered (as a part time working mum of a 5yo) at what point / age is greater income better enough for your child to compensate for you not being about; and does it matter at all to your child's early development unless you're on the breadline or likely to lose your home?

I'm with those that are suspicious of the newspaper science and would rather see the full report, or at least see it analysed by someone with a bit more credibility.

yes,NL!i have this planned since i was,oh 13yo.i always knew id work and raise my family

in the same sense as my friend always knew when she had family she'd take time off

whatever works

and should add that I'm with those that say the mix of work and motherhood is also good for their mental health not just bank balance - for me they keep each other in perspective somehow, and keep me 'fresh'. Good for our family unit as a whole - which is why i'm still doing it. But I would like to know how much is optimum, and when its best to go back.

I'm puzzled by this 'greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare' if mothers go to work.

What on earth does this mean?

No one will care for your child like you do. When you have children the dog becomes less important, the job becomes less important. The child becomes the most important thing in the world to you, not to the 'caregiver', how ever nice they may be.

No one can answer my DCs' questions like I can .

Of course nobody cares for your child like you do - we are all different. Every child is parented in at least two different ways - more if step-parents are involved. That difference doesn't mean one way is better. Frankly plenty of parents fuck their children up and plenty of paid carers,volunteers, foster parents do an infinately better job at parenting than the parents did. If you want to stay at home then stay at home - you'll do a great job. If you want to go out to work then go - you'll still do a great job parenting your child because contrary to what appears to be believed parenting is NOT about time served. I work and I raise my children. The ultimate love and responsibility is mine. I haven't given that away and nobody who chooses to work outside the hoem should be made to feel that they are giving that away.

high-quality child care = expensive presumably

so if you are working you can afford it

Haven't read the thread all the way through, but a couple of points.

1. IMHO, there's no point in saying which is harder WOHM or SAHM. It depends on a zillion other factors. Staying at home with angel child, local supportive family members, and supportive partner who carries the weight could be easier than doing shift work at a shitty job. Staying at home with devil child, unsupportive partner, and horrible neighbours could be harder than going to a job you love with supportive colleagues. And angel child can change into devil child at the drop of a hat/eruption of a molar/catching of a nasty virus/new bad habit). So in most people's lives there's always a day when you think - if only I was the other one....

2. when will the media wake up to the fact that there is the other 50% of the population who have the potential to bring up their children? Last time I looked there were plenty of dads at soft play/the library. Not 50% dads, but maybe 10-15%? I ahve some sympathy for the researchers as there are ofetn not enough dads to get the statistics stright, but all they have to do is use the term "parents" and they have suddenly not disenfranchised half the population.

Hope this makes sense! Have to keep leaving to put ds back in his bed. Again. and again....

slouching I am wondering if the ''greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare if mothers go to work.'' is implying/inferring (am v tired) that a paid childcarer will spend max time interacting with the child and not be over-run by other demands on time - cooking, chores, fitting in the shopping, IYSWIM?

Never been able to understand why people take notice of what these studies say?? Surely noone actually makes their choice to work/not work etc based on them? Their only purpose seems to be to make people feel more or less guilty depending on their choice and which particular study they choose to look at. Waste of time imho. Get on with your parenting and forget all the guff.

I would die for my dd, I love her madly, BUT I could never have stayed home for 4 years. I would have gone completely mad! I hate Cbeebies, I hate crafts, I hate playing snakes and ladders etc etc.

I do all these things in moderation plus lots of things we both enjoy, and in between times she has spent lots of time with people who are more than happy to play with cornflour and water, poster paints etc. And in Belgium she has been in full time education since 2.5 yo.

I am with the others who state that this SAHM stuff is a new invention. My gg grandmother had 14 children and made gloves for a living. How much quality time did her dcs have? Much less than my dd that's for certain!