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 it is pointless too and, without reading the whole study, I would be cautious with media reporting of it. It doesn't sound that objective!
I am a happy SAHM and think for me it has helped my kids and I feel closer to them. I did work with DD1 and she was in f/t nurseryBut regarding DD1, I don't think it has harmed her (nursery). My kids all went to playgroup at 2yr 9months and seem OK. But I would never again use childcare fulltime for a young baby. Being home has made me see and feel what I am missing. I see the kids whose parents cannot attend school events and they do get upset. Things like that make me want to be home. But I am a great believer in choice and each to their own. I drum into DCs that they should get good educations/jobs etc so they have a choice and can work p/t if they want or SAH with a career to fall back on.

I've finally disengaged from all these studies, both the positive and negative ones...no, I'm not surprised at the outcome, but does an study make a difference to the specific (i.e. my) circumstances? Probably not. I work because a) I want to b) I need to c) I'd go up the wall if I didn't and d) I was brought up expecting to work and married someone who expected me to continue to work. Neither Oliver James nor this study is going to make any difference to my specific situation.

i think its the emotional well being of the parents that is paramount.

i was the child of a fulltime working mother, whos father did nothing to help in the home

my mother did not enjoy her stressful job, which waas averagly paid

she was depressed and miserable alot of the time

although she may have been stressed and miserable as a sahm too.

anyway, i know it sounds like platitudes but i honestly believe if the parents are happy with whatever they do the children will be happy.

"Thousands of parents, mainly mothers, answered questionnaires about their children in infancy and when they were three and five"

So they only questioned the behaviour at these two ages? Ha, question them again in 10, 20, 30 yrs time, then you'll have your answer.

Good way to temporarily sooth the guilt of working mothers though. Oh and interesting who the study was funded and conducted by.

I second all calls for research into working men. leave the mums alone!

Rev - we do have an answer, from the millions of perfectly normal adults now aged 20 to 70 or more who grew up with working mothers.

Yes but edam you can hardly support research about harm to children when their childhood has not yet finished, can you? Not saying the study is wrong.

I just went in to the sitting room to ask DS1 whether my working full-time when he was a baby has harmed him. He stopped rocking in the corner and sucking his thumb long enough to turn round and ask 'Who the hell are you?'

Who was it conducted by Rev?

Agree with Edam - working mothers are not a new thing. Going to work when you have children isn't a crazy social experiment, it's life.

Gah to all studies. All designed to make mothers either feel bad or feel vindicated, and no use to anyone. What matters to children is how their own family life works. Some mothers are happier working; some aren't. Some have no choice. Ditto fathers. Some children thrive in nursery; others don't. I think MN should not be giving publicity to surveys that are essentially divisive. Is MNHQ trying to provoke yet another SAHM/WOHM argument? How very tedious.

I think it's really important to say that the idea of the 'sahm' is a historical anomaly. The vast majority of women have always been economically active, and where they weren't, households included extended families, employees (including but not limited to nannies/nurses/governesses). The very idea of a woman spending most of her time at home in the unrelieved company of her own children dates from the mid-C20, and was arguably a result of a unique combination of economic conditions and domestic technology. It affected one generation, though sadly they're the ones now describing their own childhoods as some kind of transhistorical norm. It's always taken a village, and for most centuries the village has been, in some form, there.

Agree with all the other posters who say can we please have some studies into the effect of working fathers for a change.

I wonder why there are not more studies done on the effects of working fathers have on their children, or how an unemployed father effects his children.

Constantly knock, knock knock about the effects of mothers working outside the home have on their children either negative or positive - but is only one parent important in a childs life? Is the mothers actions the only actions that effect the child of the family?

In fact is it screaming a large message to fathers - actually you don't count in any shape way or form - or is it just woman being scrutinised?

Rather 'thankful' to read about research that doesn't slate women for working (if they want to). In our case I wanted to go back to work and in this current economic crisis, let's just say it's bloody lucky that my job is good enough to support the family now that my husband will be out of a job in a couple of weeks time.

I wonder if there's research out there on sahds. I know my student did a small masters project on that...! I didn't get to read it though as I was on maternity leave by the time she submitted!

Just because something has happened in the past doesn't make it right though. If the study is saying it is better to spend less time with your children it doesn't really make sense. Are they saying it is better because of higher income/education/quality childcare? If it is education, many SAHM's are well educated.

i dont need a study to confirm what i know
working is good for my family,my kids and we all flourish as a result.my children see the value and benefits of a working mum daily, we talk about work and itds a good role model to set your children.work hard, stick in at school

my mum worked ft, i work ft

[Hmm]...one wonders whether these results have been adjusted for the effect that an increased income has on the household.
I remember other studies showing that children with mothers who worked part time were better adjusted than those whose mothers worked full time.
Mine hated me working when they were little- they were never invited out to tea as the other sahm didnt want to socialise with their granny. I was always tired when I got home and their granny didnt discipline them at all- why should she- she wanted to be a granny, not a child minder.
However from 7-15 years they loved that I worked, and it was a source of increased self esteem for both of them, and the money was useful
15-18 years was another watershed- granny retired, quite rightly, and they needed someone at home to cook and clean and provide a clean bright home and emotional support etc - they didn't get it, sadly. No Nigella sleepover suppers and fancy breakfasts for them. I was either not home or too tired. The house was always untidy with piles of washing.
Oh well, everyone survived, but if I had my time again I would look for a higher earning hubby, increase the cleaners hours to 10 hours a week minimum, and work part time from the start. I think there might be more joy all round then, and not such a depressing slog.

detractors will be banging biddulph tambourine and google cortisol,or regaling us with tales of day care orphanages.
and they know a woman/neighbour/cousin who worked in nursery and she said they beat dem kids

Try comparing the Guardian's take on this study tot he DM's take on it and you'll realise that nothing is ever, ever going to change. We all need to start ignoring studies and having a bit more confidence in ourselves as parent - working, SAH - as long as we are turning out well-adjusted happy children why should we care?

Don't forget the babies being 'brought up without love' scottishmummy

aye,cheers peppa im so emotionally blunted by working i forgot that nugget

In this day and age they still talk about 'mothers'. Why can't they say, e.g. if both parents work? There are more and more couples where both parents work part-time or dad stays at home. What then? Did the research take that into account?

I feel that I want to do the lion(ess)'s share of caring for my children. Their 'weekend break' should be with the carers, not the other way around. Therefore my children (1 and 3) go to nursery two days per week. I work more than two days, but I fit it into evenings and weekends. I sacrifice my spare time/hobbies not time with them. I do it because the long term satisfaction that I get from work is an important balance to the very short-term, groundhog day quality of household chores. And because I'd feel weird living off my husband's salary.

I'd guess there are no studies about fathers because fathers ain't that interested in reading them, in the main! My DH loves loves loves our DCs but absolutely doesn't want to drop to four days per week so I can go up to three days per week. I believe the difference in biology extends beyond ability to grow babies, to level of concern about who is bringing them up, and how.

And 'dumped with strangers' too. That's a good 'un!