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...

I think what addressbook is talking about is really downsizing. Lots of people are doing it. For her working is not as fulfilling as being a SAHM, so she has made a decision to downsize and not to earn a wage. But she is in a team with her DH, and he does earn a wage. I don't think she sees every worker as a wage slave. But for her working when she doesn't need to, when she can live without it, would be pointless and as if she was a slave to the idea of paid employment.

claig you made my point much more succinctly!

It's horses for courses. There is no right and wrong. It's really up to individuals to decide how best to lead their lives. All options should be open and equally respected.

desist from the im being attacked.its petty.and untrue
im taking you up on your posts and general assumptions about other people and work and wage slaves

and yes there are plenty "i am bored sahm posts" on mn and i surmised the content.didnt make it up, just gleaned the general gist. a rudimentary search and you'll find same threads too

I am critical of much of capitalism as we know it too. It often makes people very selfish. I know so many people (family members and friends) who have so much materially but are not happy. If people get benefit from paid work and enjoy it then that is great. I always worked public sector, as does my DH, it was more satisfying knowing that our jobs directly help people. Of course it would be silly to say everyone has a choice to do a role like that. Some will have to be at the bottom making profits for those at the top (i don't mean that in a bad way-I have done jobs like that myself). BUT there is much joy in unpaid work too if you have the choice; voluntary, caring for kids etc. Not for everyone of course. It does have societal benefits. Our system was built on the backs of unpaid workers.

There are lots of happy WM and SAHM on this thread which is great. What is hard though is if you want to stay home and can't or want to work and can't. I know several of both.

There are also plenty of posts that I can surmise about. About mums that feel guilty and stressed trying to fit in work and mothering. They are the wage slaves maybe? Not all working mothers are happy with their choices.

I can also surmise that capitalism has pitfalls based on what I have read and witnessed. That we base too much of our worth in how we look and how much we earn.

I am not making a sweeping statemnet about children's well being and working or non working mothers. I myself was raised by a SAHM but she was abusive, cold and unhappy. I have friends that work whose children are no worse off than my own

My point was that I don't want to be automatically devalued because I do what many consider boring and demeaning somehow. To many I am invisible because I don't have a career, a wage and I am overweight and not beautiful. But I am not unhappy because I reject those notions to some extent.

you dislike feeling judged and labelled.but call others wage slaves?
i suggest you maybe a good start point if you dislike labels and assumptions is not to glibly apply them to others.

and joy of mn is its words on a screen,no one sees what anyone looks like. the post and its content is the deal,not the unseen factors

I believe my DS (now 8) has certain insecurities and behavioral problems (ADHD - NB not naughtiness, genuine impulsivity / hyperactivity / inattention) because I went back to work full time when he was 15 months old. It may be his age that I chose, or rather financially needed, to go back to work; it may be that up until then we were inseparable or that I had to start early in the morning so I missed out on those precious cuddles and Dad had to take him to nursery or it may just be that he's a sensitive, intelligent boy and another child would have coped better with the sudden change. Whatever the reason, if I could go back and change things I would.

There is no way of knowing though really. i think we all question when we look back. My oldest was the only one in f/t childcare. I worked from when she was a few months old (maternity leave was 16 weeks or so then). She is the most 'difficult' to parent of all 5 DC but I think it is more temprament as she is very determined. I can't say it has damaged her though as she is excelling at school. I think we all feel guilty about something whether we work or not. With hindsight everything seems easy!

I have certainly not heard of any evidence that a mother returning to work at 15 months can causes ADHD . Most explanations are biological?

If there is any evidence at all (and that is doubtful) the negative cases come from extremely early childcare ( and even then in a neglectful setting) certainly not at 15 months!

It is likely that any change you saw in his behaviour at 15 months is developmental (kind of like some of the MMR cases where the vaccination happens at the same time as a developmental leap) and would have happened anyway,

I don't consider SAHM boring, or demeaning, nor a 'sacrifice' myself. I quite enjoyed my short time (18 months) as a SAHM. I also think staying home and enriching your community is very valuable (if you have the money/interest in doing so and prefer that environment). My beef, if you like, is for women who do want to work at some point in the future, but because they gave up work just for a few years to be a SAHM, find it very very hard to get any work, let alone work which uses their skills and qualifications. Fine, if you don't want to, but what if you do? Some friends I have have managed it, but others are just stuck, doing very boring jobs ironically, because society boxes them in due to these choices. That's why I see this as a structural issue. Every time a woman says 'you know what dear, I'll opt out, you earn more than me, it's best if I stay home for X years' it's tragic that this then runs on into their future prospects and pensions. If men also took that 'opt out' for 6 months, a year, a couple of years, it would be less a women's issue and more a parent's issue.

Address book- i have enjoyed your points which you make very clearly and very well.
At the end of the day, many people do what works for them and I am sure that none of us are really immune from that.Some women work because they cannot bare the reality of being a sahm-of course there is repetition and mundanity and 'boring' bits like any job but many feel that being with those feelings is worth it to be the main carer for their child. The problem I have is the sheer denial that goes on with some people. It feels uncomfortable to say" I know my child might prefer having me care for them/develop more securely, but I don't want to so I am going to pay someone else to do the job, if not as well as me and pretend that this is just as good as the care I would give."
I have seen the attitudes of many staff in a number of pre schools and whilst they will indeed be a safe pairs of hands for your children, they will not provide the same as you would as a parent.If you are happy with this then good for you.I am not.

/scottishmummy.....people in glass houses and all that.

Allinabag....it's a bitch isn't it? Work right through and maybe miss out, take a break and you're fucked career wise. Only two options, have children in your teens or forties!!

of course a nursery nurse isnt same as mum.doh! its a job,not a surrogate mum
and of course we are happy to leave the kids with someone else so i can work too.we pay someone else to watch them whilst we both work,they do the safe,regulated and inspected looking after. we do the parenting. wuite starightforwarsd.we are the parents.the nursery staff are competent caring adults

and tbh,no reports supporting or detracting working parents will change that decision

PosieParker, that's why it's great if you and your husband take a break, yes, you are both a bit fucked career wise, but not for so long! We've done one child each, not sure what would happen if we had a third (probably nursery).

I don't think sacrifice is a dirty word. Clearly a sacrifice for no good reason is a pointless waste. However, a sacrifice in order to secure something important and worthwhile for your children is a good thing. In fact, those who are unshakeably determined to go out to work because "I want it for me" are also sacrificing...simply different things.

we do compromise for our children
sacrifice and mummy matyr,no

the compromise is 2 parents working out how to accommodate appts etc for kids.

the sacrifice is usually always mum steps out to do bulk childcare and dad career remain unchanged (in fact can go stellar as he doesn't have as much childcare commitments)

the parental sacrifice is usually accompanied by narrative account of things given up. if genuinely that suits,go ahead. i have never wanted to be dependent upon a partner, and not contributing to the family. i value the ethos and role model my working brings to the family

Amateur you are being very hard on yourself, I totally agree with peppa (by the way I'm a big fan of yours peppa)
I had problems leaving DS with a childminder at the age of 10mths, he didn't adjust and CM handed him back to me after 2 months saying she can't cope with him :( it was heartbreaking!!! He's fine now, not perfect - still a bit clingy but that's his personality and I didn't blame myself for going back to work.

scottishmummy - "i have never wanted to be dependent upon a partner, and not contributing to the family."

It would be more accurate for you to say, "I have never wanted to be dependent upon a partner, and not contributing financially to the family".

Every mother who cares full time for her children knows she is contributing an enormous amount to her family. The time, energy and attention a mother gives to her children has no financial value, but money isn't the only thing a mother can provide.

no.i consider my finacial contribution to be pivotal for our family. so i know exactly what i meant to say, and you dont need to suggest amendments

if the amendment that you suggest is applicable to your particular circumstances,fair enough

but my contribution is emotional and financial as is my partners

You said that if you were dependent on a partner, you would not be contributing to the family.

In such a situation, you would certainly not be contributing financially to the family, but would be highly unlikely not to be contributing to the family.

who are you trying to convince me or yourself
my personal opinion is clearly stated.i financialy and emotionally contribute.

so all your, well contribution isnt just financial is directly talking of your own circumstance

I am simply correcting the following inaccurate point:

no financial contribution = no contribution.

no,you cannot ammend an accuracy because there is not one
my personal opinion and experience is my contribution is financial and emotional.and you can skirt around with syntax and oh what about this and that but fundamentally cannot ammend my pov

you may assert a different pov but to say you're challenging an inaccuracy is pompous

and who are you trying to convince?yourself

I am not asserting or amending a point of view. I am not discussing your family circumstances or mine.

I am doing one thing. This is stating (for the last time) that

"no financial contribution" does not equal "no contribution".