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...

No surprise but good to see some evidence that can be used to combat all those people who are prejudiced or who fall for 'research' that is very poorly conducted and fails to control for confounding factors.

We already know that growing up in poverty can have terrible effects on children (not all but across a population) so it makes sense that having a working mother is good for the family. Although then you need to look at the level of the minimum wage and so on.

The children's behaviour was rated by their parents. Is that an objective study? I'm not sure.

All these opposing studies prove to me is that you can conduct a study to prove whatever you like. Like Claig said, spiel.

... and again, it's working mums that are scrutinised

Do they ask how happy the parents are? It strikes me that happy parents working/not working are more likely to produce happy children, and the converse is likely also to be true. Given that money worries are likely to make you unhappy, and that having a job should increase the family income, that would seem to lead to increased happiness. Likewise, if one partner had such a huge salary that the other didn't need to work, but was unhappy not working, then working would lead to greater happiness. If one or both partners are miserable in their jobs, or there is still not enough money to alleviate to the money worries, then it's likely to be an unhappy situation overall. Surely? I'm not sure how they can really test for the working/not working effect when there are so many other correlations.

Overall, I don't have a problem with both partners working. I do have a problem with non-family friendly workplaces, tho - unfortunately both DP and I have jobs which tend by their nature to be non-family friendly. So it's a bit of a battle. But worth fighting, if our DDs are to have a better time once their of working age.

What battles worth fighting? If you and your DP manage to work and take care of DDs what will change? Just curious (definately not critical)...

Leroy - making it clear to colleagues that, essentially, it is possible to have loyalties both to your family and to your job, and that it's still worth employing me. Far too many lawyers, for example, are either childless and are sniffy about anyone who doesn't put in an 18 hour day, or have the wifey at home so that they can have children and still be sniffy! Obviously there are people who have imagination, and are not like that, but the hard core need educating. Otherwise there will a segment of the population always missing from corporate law! Corporate and commercial female partners were like hens teeth at my previous place of work

But you do have to be pretty hard-headed to say yes I am going to go home now, but I will be logging on from home at 9pm and carrying on from there. Or asking for compressed hours/PT working etc without fearing for your career. I am only too aware that we are in business and the client needs are paramount. But I have children too. Believe me, hard hats are frequently required!

To be honest, whatever studies say or don't say, personally I find it such a relief to hear the views of other mothers who, like me, work FT and who have happy, well-adjusted children.

I am the only mum in my 'baby group' in RL who works FT and whilst DD seems happy (and yes, there is the valid debate about working dads too) I do feel guilty from time to time, especially when I nip out of work in my lunch hour, eg, and see 3yr olds (like DD) happily ambling around shops or going to the park and I think of DD in a nursery all day [hastily adding it is a brilliant nursery and it's just me that feels guilty for no apparent reason!].

sigh I think I am pre-programmed to feel guilty,despite being brought up by a working mum myself, have very few negative memories of mum working and was pushed to believe that a career was the be all and end all.

But anyway, thanks for those positive comments - makes me feel better.

Opinionated - I assume they didn't tell the parents what the purpose of the study was.

I'm sooooo with you

'Opinionated - I assume they didn't tell the parents what the purpose of the study was.'

They didn't have to. They probably already knew what parents would say.

It's a bit like selling coal to Newcastle, and the researchers got paid for it too.

StickyLittleFingers - your comments and experiences mirror mine exactly.

I have not yet seen a study that measures the difference between children raised by parents who are happy and content to SAH, and children raised by parents who are resentful or living in poverty as a result of being SAH.

In a similar vein, this study says that the best outcomes are for children whose parents live together - but I don't think anyone seriously condones staying together for the sake of the children anymore (particularly where abuse a factor) due to the damage unhappy parents does to the children.

I was a client-serving professional and tipped for the top before having DCs. I decided after DS1 came along that I would step off the line into a back office function. It was halted my career progression, but I don't regret the decision. I do regret being forced to make the decision. DH used to work in a very similar role to my former one, and left his firm just so he could ensure that he's home for the DCs' breakfast and bedtime almost every day.

Nor have I seen a study measuring the different outcomes for children whose parents chose to work and feel fulfilled from their working as opposed to children whose parents work from necessity but frankly would rather be at home.

I think studies will find what they look for, TBH.

Of course I will assert that my DC have not suffered from having 2 working parents and being in fairly full time childcare (although I was PT (4days/week) for the first 3.5 years of DC2's life) but then I would, wouldn't I? It's the decision I/we made.

If I had felt/do feel at any stage that it was seriously damaging my DC then I would have revisited (and still would) that decision, but since DH and I earn more or less the same, it would be a 50% drop in income and would require major adjustment (no more independent schools, smaller house) which would, arguable, damage the DC more (not that smaller house and state schools would be bad in themselves, but the change would).

I do think it is desirable that DC grow up with different models (WOHP, SAHP) in their lives and realise that there are options and that people make different decisions, but it is not always possible. The grass always looks greener - DD wants her best friend's Mummy because she is always at home, BF wants me because I make stuff and bake

I'm no communist, but this is an excellent analysis of what is really behind the drive for work, work, work. There are lots of benefits to the state and the elite, but right at the core is control of reproduction and control of population. That is why women are always scutinised and sold these political messages.

"The New Labour government?s general approach to questions of women and social and economic policy has undoudtely been influenced by the goals of a very weak but nonetheless ?liberal? feminism, which espouses a vision of a fairer society in which women are empowered by the state to labour under capitalism on ?equal? terms with male workers. This of course represents the culmination of the policies of Workfare-style welfare which were readily adopted by the Blair government and have continued under Brown to uphold an emphasis on the absolute priority of ensuring women return to work and labour in the economy, in order to negate any possible welfare dependence.

What is clear in Brown?s attack upon mothers is that for the state human reproduction is only to be permitted if it is combined with a proper execution of wage labour in the market. The more one reads Brown and the Labour Party?s rhetoric concerning the outrage that teenage mothers pose to society, the more obvious it is that the reason these women are the subject of such contempt, is that they represent a deviation from the norm of economic production, which women are now more than ever expected to uphold. Any deviation from the standard trajectory of the young in society from education into the job market represents a betrayal of their duty to work under capitalism. For New Labour such a betrayal of vision and responsibility can only be rectified by their and their baby?s institutionalisation in state homes."

thecommune.co.uk/2009/10/06/gordon-browns-workhouses-for-single-mothers/

Sorry haven't read the full article but what are they comparing the results against?
I'm positive children with working mums do far better than those with 2 full time stay at home parents with no income who can't afford to heat their home or put food on the table. Just as I'm also positive that children can be brought up with the best money can buy but they end up less than happy because they working parents are never around to give them love & affection. It's all about balance.
Getting off my soap box now!

I think I'd need to see the study to be sure as that article leaves a lot of questions. How are they defining 'work'? Does this only include paid employment by others outside of the home or is it including the self-employed, particularly the self-employed working from home? Volunteer work? How does it change by hours, whether in the home or outside of the home? What differences are there in types of childcare? I would be curious to see how the different types of employment stack up compared to each other rather than a generic 'work vs SAHP' reshelled out. It does come across, as it is written up in the Guardian, as a political message rather than a proper in-depth study.

I'm a single working mother who went back to work when my DD was 4 months old and paid through the nose for an excellent nursery, then childminders, then pre and after-school clubs, all so that I could keep a roof over our heads. I don't need an article to tell me that my DD won't suffer any long term effects by my actions; in fact at the age of 11 she now realises that if you want something in life you have to work for it, rather than expect it to be handed to you on a plate.

i think if there was a fucking choice in the matter - the study would matter

how many people go out to work becuase they feel like it? not bloody many, most people men and women go to work cos they have to pay the fucking bills

it. is.necessity.

No, the findings don't surprise me at all.

Another fairly pointless study imo, although nice to see one come down on the side of working mums for a change.

It makes a nice change...

All a bit subjective - asking the mum's how happy/tearful their child is. How do we know the child would not be happier if mum worked or more tearful if she didn't. Pointless but makes a change from 'WOHM are the devil' I spose

Perhaps they should at the happiness of parents with respect to children's outcomes. I know if I had worked I would have felt like I was missing out. And I am sure if some parents had not worked they would have resented their children.
So in conclusion if this study alleviates guilt then woo hoo.