Working mums: new study finds going out to work has no harmful effect on small children

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello. We've just had the heads-up on this study suggesting that there are no significant detrimental effects on a child's social or emotional development if her or his mother works during her or his early years.

In fact, young girls may even gain from being in a household where their mother works, say researchers at University College London, in a UK-wide project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

These findings run counter to those of some previous studies, which have suggested that children whose mother works in the first year of their life may be more prone to bad behaviour, or even to be more overweight.

What do you think? Do the new findings surprise you? Or confirm what you already knew? Do tell...

FGS AnnieLobeseder I am a stay at home mum and I do not see my role as the lowest ranked in the family, that's a seriously offensive remark to make. Being at home doesn't mean that you are worthless, or worth less, than anyone else in the family.

I agree with AnnieL.

Of course my children matter. But I'm not sacrificing my life to them. I need to work. Not just for the money but for me.

And I damn well wish my mother had worked too, instead of feeling she had to sacrifice her life to us and being miserable. If you are happy, that's great. But not everyone feels the same way.

Blueberry, if you read my posts properly, you will see I don't say that all SAHMs see themselves that way, just some. And those are the ones I pity, because it's such a waste of their life and potential. I'm talking about how women view and value themselves, not what the actual logistics of any given family dynamic may be.

I have read your post.

I am sure that you will find many parents who work part time or full time and who do not value themselves, and that there are thousands of people on the job market who feel that their job is a waste of their life and potential.

And another thing. If you pitty people who feel it's the right thing for them and their children to stay at home, even if it means a few years of 'sacrifice', I feel pitty for the child who goes from one institution to another five days a week. It was last day at school last week, and I could see some children being picked up by afterschool club staff and who will stay there until 6-7 in the evening. I pitty those kids, frankly. A little girl in my son's class was crying because her parents couldn't pick her up. I pitty the ones that will not have parents dropping them off at school, being there for sports day, for plays, for music shows. I do not feel pitty for the mums or dads who believe that it's the right thing for them to be at home.

chery,wow thats socialsciencetastic bingo!my postmodern psyche and poor attchment, and a mix of vapid low paid staff. did you sy why bothre having them if you leave tem woth strangers?or can i reliably exoect it later

quick question: is post biddulph or is it oliver james? or a hotch potch of all quasi science et al

you see thats the thing anyone can produce a study purporting to "prove" anything and depending upon the nuance of the reader they may believe it

i dont base my life on studies, i use my personal and professional judgements. my instincts.and i pay a lot for my children to be ignored and mistreated by feral nursery staff, who cleverly pull wool over my eyes and ofsted to fake an excellent nursery environment

and i value the autonomy,choice, and intellectual stimulation work gives me. i worked damn hard to qualify and work.it gives me personal and professional approbation. my own mum worked ft. i work ft

Blueberry, seriously, you're misinterpreting me. The only pity I feel is for women who are utterly, utterly miserable at home, would love to work or do something of their own, but have such low self-worth that they stay miserable because they don't believe in their own right to be happy.

I know that's not the case for most SAHMs. Just the very rare few.

I have said repeatedly that if you want to stay at home because it's right for you, not just your children, that wonderful.

And I would agree with you that the same applies to anyone who stays in a dead-end job that they hate, because they value the needs to their family to have material things more than they value their own happiness.

So yes, it's not just SAHMs, it's anyone who doesn't value themselves enough and wastes their life and potential, supposedly for their family. What they often don't realise is that their families might well be happier if there was a better balance of priorities.

But please, don't start with the pitying poor institutionalised children. That's just pointless SAHM vs WOHM bunfight material and not worth of this thread.

ach,the poor crying wean at afterschool,last to be collected.gone midnight
whilst all the other kids of sahm go off to halcyon days of finger painting, pottery, stimulating and fun activities.and home made food

nothing like a good of cliché

so what about the plethora of the other mn posts the i hate being sahm the im bored,broke,frustrated,unemployable.and the kids are screaming and its only week 2 of holidays. plenty of that on mn that doesnt subscribe to the flour in your hair happiest days iof your life being sahm

wrt to the concept of 'institutionalised', my mum says my nephew is 'institutionalised' due to being at home with his parents for all of his pre school years.

He has come to rely on them for everything including lifting his fork and placing the food in his mouth. He can't get along with other kids for more than five minutes, and cries when he isn't instantly given something that he wants.

Even his parents recognise that he will get a shock when he gets to school - they've held him back a year already.

I'm no wonder-mum myself so I can't really wade in and tell them they're 'wrong', who knows, maybe he'd be like that anyway. But my mum (who brought up 3 kids and helped with millions of grandkids) is adamant that his own parents have 'institutionalised' him.

Ha! My DS cries when I pick him up from school at 3.15. He LOVES after school club and if I pick him up early he also cries. Our current favourite 'If you don't get dressed / clean your teeth / pick up your toys now' threat is 'then you won't be going to wraparound'.

Anywho. As to the post modern James . I have a PhD in developmental psychology. I lecture on the subject of attachment, childcare, parenting and early years. I work with professors of early years.

My DC's all went to nursery (cold, harsh, absence of love, cared for by bored teenagers nursery) from 6 months old. Full time from when they were about one. They seem ok to me.

Go figure.

Off topic but Peppa, I'm still trying to figure out your identity given the common area we identified last week

Good luck. I reckon if you searched the whole of mumsnet you would eventually work it out...but I occasionally throw a red herring in just in case my boss is reading.

Or IT Support

I always think that the people who do these studies have nothing better to do with their time. Ive always worked full time and my son is a very bright and well adjusted little boy. Its all down to amazing childcare and the fact that I dont want to live on benefits! As long as you know you are doing the best for your child shouldnt that be enough?? Obviously if I had the choice I would work part time but whos gonna pay my rent ?

I hate all this talk of 'sacrifice' for women, what's the point in creating a never-ending sacrificial circle, in which your daughters also 'sacrifice' themselves, and so on and so on? I think of it as dipping out of the workplace for a couple of years, which both myself and my husband have done, to look after the little ones, then back to careers which we both find very enjoyable (lucky, seeing how we need to work given our financial status). And, I do think men making the 'sacrifice' of a couple of years not at full power is a good idea, indeed should be promoted, because those two years out often turn into many years out, and women not being able to get new jobs linked to their qualifications, poorer pensions and a lot of frustration. The 'hit' of early childcare can be shared by men too, if you choose it that way (and yes, it's not all about who earns most at that time-point, but about long-term opportunities being preserved so that women have choices later on). You might want to stay home for 40 years, but it's nice to have options.

Whilst I loved working I am honoured and very lucky to stay at home and look after my children, no sacrifice. Why martyr oneself? If it's a sacrifice get a job!!!

My dcs have never be fearful of being away from me, I choose to believe it's because they feel super secure because I stayed home. Note I choose to believe that, same as one of my best friends chooses to believe her dcs are the same because they've always attended nursery!!

We see what we want.

But I never denied that capitalism has brought benefits. But can you deny its pitfalls though.

To me a wage slave = someone who works merely to accrue posessions or keep up with their neighbour, but it inherently provides little joy or fulfillment. Could I be more specific?

I do not really mean people who work to pay the rent or those who work because they love their job or even those who work to afford more things but that brings them happiness.

My dh is not a wage slave. He loves his job and loves working. It is a public sector job which provides him with meaning, fulfillment and satisfaction. He would not be fulfilled at home no. It is a very individual thing.

But I am fulfilled at home and duellingfanjo I only feel I have to justify myself because I get the snide remarks and put downs. Never in my life have I criticised a mother for working. But I genuinely, genuinely love being at home. I like baking and painting and cooking. I like being with my children full time. I am fascinated by child development and psychology. Sure there are tough times and down sides, but every job has that.

I am so fucking sick of being told I must be bored, I am throwing away my career and that my children will be behind socially because they didn't go to nusery.

I suppose my main point is that why the hell can't I be an equal, because I love nurturing and home making. It takes all sorts to make the world go round. We need women that are good business thinkers or great in the academic field but somebody has got to fucking care for the children haven't they? Whether it is paid workers or mothers or fathers or extended family. My bug bear is that in a culture based on profit and GDP, whoever does that job is regarded as second best somehow. And it isn't good for feminism either.

Well said allinabinbag!

funny how your dh isnt wage slave,but you quick to assume others are!so he is in a worthy and fulfilling job? but you're quick enough off the mark to opine about others whom you believe are in wage slave jobs accruing empty possession. so if public sector good, whats bad then according to you?

you are as inextricably linked to capitalism as the rest of us.it and dh pays your bills, pays broadband,and facilitates you living on one wage. except you chose to embellish your situation as somehow worthier than others. when in fact we all need a minimum amount of revenue to sustain ourselves. you are fortunate enough that one wage sustains your family.not all people have that opportunity

I don't feel I have sacrificed anything and I loved my job (nurse). Why is it setting my dd a bad example, by making a choice that makes me happy?

I get to read and write (something I love dearly) when my ds is at pre school or they are in bed. My brain hasn't stopped working because god forbid, I spend a lot of time with two pre schoolers. I can hold interesting conversations with dh who absolutely sees me as his equal in albeit different roles.

Equality for women I feel will lie in a bit of a rebellion against some of the more poisonous capitalist notions. If our worth is based on our earnings, on how high up the career ladder we are then those that don't work (or are in voluntary work) are automatically devalued in a society that loves the biggest, the best and the most.

You only have to look at the beauty industry to see what damage capitalism has caused in some sections of society. Don't patronise me, I don't live in some utopian fucking communist ideology. I am realistic. I like my broadband yes. But in my own small way, I am trying to find some meaning in life that isn't dictated by some of these cultural norms.

scottishmummy you aren't reading my posts properly. I am more than happy to engage in a good debate, it is healthy. However I made clear that I felt a wage slave was someone who still felt empty and unfulfilled despite the posessions and lifestyle their wage affords them.

If you work because it pays the rent, I am not so fucking stupid that I would criticise that. If yo work because you love your job great. Hell if you are a banker working merely to make profit but it makes you happy fine and if you love to buy bigger houses and more cars or afford more holidays, who am I to criticise?

But I think you know that there are many who feel empty and sad despite what they own.

There have been many, many films and books on this very theme. I am not original in my thinking. But it is there and it is very real

youre all over place.want women to not solely seek worth in wages,but in doing so need seek husbands who can work so they can be fulfilled not working?your fulfilment is direct result of your partner ability to command a wage adequate enough to maintain family on his one wage. as i said you directly benefit from capitalism but seek to somehow distance yourself

you make many generalisations about how other people accrue a wage
but, not your family,as its fulfilled and happy
oh please.could you be any more patronising

'If our worth is based on our earnings, on how high up the career ladder we are then those that don't work (or are in voluntary work) are automatically devalued in a society that loves the biggest, the best and the most. Very good point addressbook. That could also be why sometimes elderly and people with learning difficulties can be devalued too.

'your fulfilment is direct result of your partner ability to command a wage adequate enough to maintain family on his one wage.'
Not always. In my case, my DH's fulfilment in his job is also dependent on my being at home.

scottishmummy you are just attacking me unecessarily now? Why? I have merely put forward my opinion. It may not be your own but I sense anger in your posts. Is it because I dared to suggest I like being a SAHM. Because it challenges your notion that SAHMs must be 'bored, broke, frustrated, unemployable'.

I will repeat capitalism has brought me many benefits, I don't deny that.

But can you deny there are any pitfalls to capitalism? Do you agree that GDP is calculated by wage earned, yet the voluntary worker (mostly women) or SAHM is considered worthless under this notion? Do you deny that someone has to look after the kids and in a society that values wage earned and how many rungs up the career ladder you are, whoever does that job is devalued?