Sunday Times article about working women by India Knight.........

[ssd]

Did you read it and if you did what did you think?

FWIW I agree with her, will probably be stoned now.

No probs Ruty.

Drosophila, excellent point. I try and get my kids involved around the house as much as possible, from the earliest possible time. My thought is that at nursery, a lot of the play is doing play versions of what we'd be doing at home anyway, lol. So my girls help with folding laundry, doing washing and all that jazz.

I'm a working woman, same as any other mother. I get a kick up the backside if I'm not ;)

Going back even further I thought the typical picture was that the young worked and the older people looked after the kids i.e. grandparents looked after the children whilst the parents worked the fields.

Oh goodness. My children would be a right mess if I let them be raised by their grandparents... think I'll keep the nanny. Although I do have a friend whose inlaws looks after her kids for free, and I am indescribably envious of her (lack of) childcare bill.

NO WAY I'd let my ILs look after my kids. They're the type to take things lying down - NOT the way I want my kids brought up. Also they feed her rubbish.

But I'd leave 'em w/my folks in a heartbeat .

Well it's probably a whole new thread but I didn't read I K's article (didn't need to as I got the gist by reading the posts)and I wondered if she referred to fathers at all and the detrimental effect their absence can cause. It affects girls and boys differently, but in both cases can cause a lack of confidence. Boys with absent fathers are more likely to have difficult relationships with women and more likely to get involved in crime, whilst girls are more likely to make poor relationship choices as low self esteem makes them settle for less than they deserve. Now, as the daughter of a working single mother this doesn't ring true in my case but I have seen evidence of it in my work. There are always many variables but I know Stephen Biddulph has written on the subject in his books "Manhood" and "Raising Boys". He also says that boys are particularly affected by their mother's mental state, hence more likely to suffer if their mother is depressed. I guess he's saying that boys sense of identity is more fragile than girls. He does make the point that by absent fathers he isn't just referring to those who have no contact with their children, but also those who are there but not attentive to their children. Availability of a suitable male role model can mitigate against this i.e uncle, family friend etc. So mums, working away from home or working at home (since it's all hard work!)I guess the pressure is on to 1. stay happy 2)hunt for a decent bloke to spend time with the kids. I must say though that my mum was and is an inspiration to me. I think if you have one very strong parent maybe you can escape some or all of the negative effects of being without one parent.

Expecting - I think your point about having one strong parent is excellent! Some of the very early posts on here discussed long term mental health / immediate stress levels on children who were in childcare versus being with a mother. To add to your point - what about the families were there is no choice? So - from my own perspective and experience - my mother died when I was very young and from that point onwards, my father - who worked full-time to keep the roof over our heads - had sole care of me and my sister, supported by some family / outside help but this care was not continuous or consistent. No I don't think I've suffered at all (apart from the obvious - i.e. missing my Mum) as I believe that the relationship I have with my Dad is incredibly strong, loving and respectful...and I have masses of self-esteem and confidence which I attribute to both the way and environment in which I was brought up supported by an incredibly strong relationship.....

So - my point - well it echos what most of us have said about doing what your feel is right for you and your family, that 'one size' clearly doesn't fit all, some individuals have choices but others are driven by circumstance but ultimately, the mental health / stress levels and general well being of ourselves and our children is massively attributable to the strength of relationship that the child has with either both or a single parent.

Does that makes sense to anyone??

Expecting, good points. We make sure that ds has his uncle (who adroes him) coming over about once a week to babysit so that he has two male role models both of whom (his dad and his uncle) are laidback confident men. I hope in later years this will offset the negative male role models he will see outside. Also my parents are good role models, my mother is a f/t departmental head in a busy secondary school, my dad has mainly worked p/t and was usually home by 4pm so we saw alot of him. They still follow this pattern now which i htink will be good for ds to see. I know its influenced my views as I don't understand why a mother is preferable to a father in all these surveys that comment on WM or SAHM, it was often my dad who was around for us and we have a strong relationship now.

re childrens mental health, I am one of those parents who would go batty if i was a SAHM. I'm not maternal and I didn't enjoy his baby stage at all really. I love my job and to be honest my job is alot of my personaility and self identity.(before anyone says that sad I may add I work for a not-for-profit agency working with communities in deprvied inner city estates. Its fun, doing good and earns a reasonable whack.)

I knwo I am prone to depression anyway having had a bad nervous breakdown in my late teens. I think its better for ds to see me happy and fulfilled and enjoying the time i spend wiht him rather than having me around all day but miserably depressed. I want him to grow up with the knowledge that if you get the right job it can be fun! and that working isn't a bad thing or something to be avoided.

We have a wodnerufl nanny who IS maternal and she gives him one to one care in a much more 'womanly' way than I could - I'm very practical! Yes its pricey but thats the choice we made and tbh once you look at all the itmes you get charged late fees by nurseries, the fact that even if you pick them up at 3pm you sitll get charged for the whole afternoon and the days/weeks you have to have backup or time off because lo is ill and nursery refuses to have him, a nanny hasn't cost us that much more.

It makes complete sense handbagaddiction. Sorry to hear about your mum, you must have found it hard when your children were born. Having ds brought back a lot of unresolved stuff re my dad and I think it makes you reflect on your childhood a lot - how you were parented etc.

I just don't get it.So many of you have said you'd be depressed if you had to stay at home and look after children.Huh why??

Well Loona, I for one would definitely be depressed if I was at home all the time. This is absolutely no reflection on the value of stay at home mothering (ie it's not that I would be depressed because I wasn't thinking I was doing anything useful), but that I find that I am simply a lot happier with the structure and stimulation that work provides than the rather different sort of structure you get when looking after a child. I also thrive on the positive feedback you get at work (if you are lucky) and the fact that there are constant intellectual and personal challenges to overcome. If I was at home all the time I would get far too introspective and would be in danger of manufacturing worries to fill my brain. This is not to say that being a full time mother does not provide stimulation and challenges in another form, but that the form that best suits me is provided by work. We are all different in what mode of life suits us best, that's all.

This article made me angry because it is born out of ignorance...nurseries are no longer places you leave your kids to stop them from harming themselves in your absence. Kids actually get something from it....it's a varied day with lots of fun, loads of interaction, songs, storytelling, two playtimes in the fresh air, great toys and games where children learn about human interaction and from the other children so putting their own jacket on etc. I'm not saying it's ideal for every child and I'm not saying it's the only way to give your kids these experiences. I'm not saying that it's ideal from 0730 to 1800 5 days a week but as always with her views she's condemned a way of life that some kids benefit from and love because of all the stimulation.
I hope her kids turn out to be perfect in every way because she certainly feels she knows it all.

Agree totally with Kathy1972. I'm sure being a SAHM is a very demanding job and it's certainly very worthwhile. But I don't think it would make enough intellectual demands on me, so I'd be liable to start thinking too much. Thinking too much is absolutely fatal to my mental health - I've suffered from depression in the past and as below, my Mum suffered terribly as a SAHM and was so much happier when working full time (and she was a better Mum when she was working, DEFINITELY). At work my brain gets worked so hard that when I go home it has stopped whizzing around and I can relax. I don't relax until I've given my brain a workout - never did, even as a little kid. I don't think I'd be a better Mum if I sacrificed my mental health for the sake of society's opinion of me.

loona, I'm pretty close to being a SAHM in that I work from home, my childcare is a woman who comes in to my home two days a week from 9-4 and I have the kids around me all the time. But I can entirely see why it would drive many women batty. And after a week with no childcare at all and two sick kids, I am well and truly at the end of my tether, have dumped the kids on dh and am just about to have my second glass of wine before I can even begin to be civil to dh or the children.
I also think it is possible to confuse the needs of our children with those of ourselves, whether that's saying, 'oh, my kids need to be away from me (for which often you can read: 'I need to be away from my kids') or 'My kids need me around all the time (for which read, 'I need to be around my kids all the time because otherwise I feel sick and guilty and strange') I tend to fall the latter camp rather than the former. I hate not being around the children, even though they drive me doolally quite often.

Before I joined mumsnet I didn't really realise I had the option of being a SAHM after the children had reached school age. I suppose I thought I could "get away" with being at home with them (which is what I really want) while they are toddlers but that once they were at school I would be condemned as unemployed and lazy rather than a SAHM. This isn't at all my own opinion - so don't all jump on me - but I am quite prickly about sneers and jeers from people (even in my own family) who think I am some wet bovine cop-out who has wasted her education and used her children as an excuse to hide from the world. I'd love to be able to say "I couldn't give a witch's tit what anyone thinks of me" but it's not true I'm afraid

I think it is optimistic to expect the Govt to pay parents to SAH. At the minute women make up 50% of a workforce that is continually becoming a diminishing workforce compared to pensioners and students (a growing area). If they then paid for parents to stay at home where would the National Insurance come from to pay the NHS and the Government pensions. Basically it is all down to economics and that is what the Government is trying to balance. This is why they are trying to concentrate on flexible work patterns etc. I don't see how the French situation would be sustainable in this country although it wouldbe lovely. Interestingly though I just handed in my notice to go self-employed to work from home although will still use nursery three days a week but it will give me more time to spend with the kids. My boss's last comments were 'This is why employers do not like taking on married women with kids!' Very sexist attitude and this is from a guy already facing a sexual discrimination case. My only answer really would be 'To pay your state pension!' We are never going to get the correct balance but every parent should thing about what they believe to be best for their child and not what the researchers say. How many of your parents would have made mistakes according to what current researchers say and do they think about it? No.

You could argue that the workforce is diminishing because it is so hard to have children, I suppose.

Meanoldmummy
keep repeating to yourself
"I couldn't give a witch's tit what anyone thinks of me"
"I couldn't give a witch's tit what anyone thinks of me"
"I couldn't give a witch's tit what anyone thinks of me"
"I couldn't give a witch's tit what anyone thinks of me"

or try this one

serene indifference

Loona, because I'm not maternal at all. I enjoy older kids and I like doing things with them, but babies aren't really my thing.

Not every woman is automatically 'maternal' or suited to 24/7 with hcildren. If we were we'd all be nursery school teachers etc.

Ok,not getting at anyone honest.

What about this then,I have been looking after my children and so has Dh without anyone elses help and I've been working weekends and evenings and early mornings eversince they were little.I have had two letters now telling me I won't be able to get a full state pension when I retire as I haven't paid enough NI contributions.I have worked since I was 13.So I'm getting penalised for bringing up my children.And in my lifetime the pension retirement age will probably go up by 7 years!Thankyou goverment.

I have just read the article - I would just like to say that staying at home may be an option or a preference for some but sometimes it really is not viable. My dd is at nursery now the same one that my ds attended that was far from dark and evil is a fantastic place and that both of them loved. My ds now attends breakfast and after school clubs in order that I may go out to work to pay my bills as nobody else can and I dont want to live on state handouts. Both my children are happy and healthy - where does this woman get off!!

Loona I am a fulltime breadwinnning mum but I quite agree about your pension rights - dreadful!
THis is real gender inequality that needs sorting out.

Thanks Tonton.

What I don't understand is they're talking about being able to save all this money by putting up our pension age to 67 and putting the money towards peoples pensions but what has happened to all the money they will save or have saved by putting up womens pension age to 65 now huh??

The problem with the state pension is what goes in today in national insurance goes out tomorrow to today's pensions and we are a slave to the decisions made by future governments. There is no fund being saved. We get no refund of National Insurance. Today's pensioners are getting a good deal compared to what we will get. If you have the option to pay National Insurance if you are self-employed but on low earnings it is worth doing to get the credits. It is more expensive to pay contributions later on to make up the difference.

But Lulu, perhaps India was making the point that children are in 'wrap-around' childcare for practical and financial reasons, not because it is good for them. Given the choice, theoretically, would you rather be able to look after your children more yourself?