In The Times today: Blind feminism has hurt our children

[twelveyeargap]

Blind feminism has hurt our children

actually if you look at many of the cultures still in existence today that are closest to our ancestors...many are matriarchies, where women do the hunter/gathering, own the property, define the line of inheritance etc.

and in early societies men and women played important roles in the rearing of children.

for eg. in many socities women are not to touch their feet to the ground for 40 days after the birth of their children. this means that it falls to other women and their menfolk to do everything except the breastfeeding which is what the women in bed with their newborn concentrate on exclusively.

the nuclear family where daddy goes out to work and mummy stays (alone) at home looking after the sprogs is very very new. Nothing hardwired about it at all.

Soph, agree, this nuclear family thing is not in womens favour...in the old age days women would live together in close communitys and everyone would help, etc..
I bet Breastfeeding rates would be a lot higher if it was common to have just to look after the Baby for the first few weeks and nothing else and everyone helping out with everything else...but sadly now there seems to be a complete opposite to that, kess help then ever, and women not only expexted to look after a newborn baby, but also to have a spit and span home and must not foget that women must look as beautyful, if not more beautyful after giving Birth within weeks, lol...

But we're getting over this temporary blip of sexism reasonably well. Women can help by giving up this view that they are best with the new baby and not trusting the father with their precious little bundle. Humility helps. Thinking you might not just because you love it most always know what is best for it.

I felt felt the children had attachment damage. We found the first nanny before the first child was born and she started work when she was 2 weeks old and I went back to work. That worked fine for us and I found physical recovery sitting still in an office hugely easier than lugging a baby around at home. Expressing breast milk is a nuisance but 22 years on I am happy with how we managed things.

If OJ wants to persuade loads of fathers to be at home with babies 24/7 then fine but I don't think he's going to force women who are working for the good of themselves and their children back into the home if they don't choose to.

of course not xenia. As I understand the article, he is not trying to force mothers or fathers into anything, but rather railing at a government policy that is places obstacles in the way of parents that wish to do more of the parenting of their children, rather than the opposite.

"Women can help by giving up this view that they are best with the new baby and not trusting the father with their precious little bundle. Humility helps. Thinking you might not just because you love it most always know what is best for it. "

Could not agree more with this Xenia. Absolutely spot on. And this attitude is pervasive.

No need to get bitchy with me too, Sophable. FWIW I think of you as one of the posters I enjoy seeing. But accusing someone who has a different opinion from your own of being 'defensive' says more about the accuser than it does about their target, really.

Edam. Sorry. I usually love you too.

But I was taken aback by your post...as my intent was definitely not bitchy...

fwiw, I'm sometimes not sure that ds is securely attached (although thankfully most of the time i think he is)!!! so i'm not being a smug b*stard about this.

the reason i called you defensive is that i've seen you getting very angry on threads about sahm/wohm because you adore your mum who woh. so i do think perhaps you are sensitised to this debate.

xenia, did you feel I was bitching? if so I apologise. I wasn't.

having used a combination of me/dh/two part time nannies and knowing full well that in fact ds is more attached to dh than me (as the care he gives is more consistent and responsive than mine imo) i would be casting stones in glass houses if i had been.

I do think that if the primary caregiver is an aupair or nanny then it is a consideration that that person will not always be in the childrens life (although they might be, if they are considered part of the family by the time they ahve finished working...and lets face it they are).

All of this is by the by. I'm with OJ in feeling that group daycare is not usually a great idea early on (prior to age 3) unless you are flukishing lucky.

Even when women are arguing for women's equality - essentially the right to choose - there is an underlying tension regarding how 'other women do it' - ie the endless wohm vs sahm. That is the saddest part of the whole debate for me. Really and truly, is there a right answer and is there likely to be a right answer right now FOR women in what is essentially been a male constructed environment manifested over a number of years?

To me, the fact that so many intelligent women argue FOR their own style and mechanism of parenting just demonstrates that there is more than one way, MORE than one way, not just one way. It's easy to make generalisations based on your own experiences and those around you (usually sim. income/class for want of a better word but that discounts (and sometimes actually undermines) the variety of experiences of other women and families.

Walnut, I agree although I do think someone needs to argue the corner of working mothers at times given the huge weight of press and other comments that comes in on us at every turn by the endemnic sexism that still exists never mind that to which some women are subjected in their own marriages. My way will never be the right way. Everyone's children differ even within the family. Some parents will be so truly appalling that the best thing they could with a 7 year old might be boarding school (which is normally something I think is wrong).

Other parents, male or female, may resent being at home so much they will be much better off at work and so will the children. Others may have such dull jobs they hate or the economics don't work that one of them stays home. Others again might want to do split shifts with a spouse. Many others male and female are bringing up children alone like me for all kinds of reasons, divorce, choice, death of a partner so don't have some of the choices others have.

soph, of course not. I agree with what you were saying. I am also not very keen on group care from what I've read for younger children and parents who think it's better because it's regulated and never shut are not really right - what counts is one to one care and bonding and little babies can get that in my view more easily in a home with a grandfather, father, manny, older sibling or even a woman like a mother.

xeeennnniiaaa....

I have a sudden and strong intuition that I know you.....do I know you???? do i? do i???

Yes, I do take your point there. Louder voices for paid-working women just to get anywhere near equality. Also frequently shocked at number of women who 'put up with' terribly unequal relationships

W, it's their fault. I think most inequality is at home, not employers discriminating and promoting only men. So if women can present to their children a model where men are as likely as women to clear up sick all will be well and we're getting there.

s, possibly. I'm not very good at disguising identifiable facts on line but I like to remain anonymous.

Soph, would be very happy to make up and shake on it! I was surprised by the post I reacted to as it sounded so vehement... that's why I replied as I did.

Don't remember getting angry on any WOHM/SAHM threads, I just happen to believe both are valid options and get pissed off with anyone who tries to assert that either option is somehow immoral (you know, the 'why have children if you can't look after them yourself' brigade. They do wind me up).

The only reason I bring my mum into this is that none of us can be sure yet how our own kids will turn out. I like to think ds won't be terribly scarred by me working mostly f/t from when he was 7mos, switching from nursery to nanny and from f/t care to mummy being at home p/t. Who knows! He's bound to have something he wants to blame me for when he's a teenager. But I do know how my sister and I have turned out and I honestly do think we benefited from my mother's career in all sorts of ways.

xenia, my dad was dead, so beyond criticism. My mum had the option of moving back to live near her parents, who would have looked after me after school. Because she could earn a couple of thousand a year more in London (and spend that on living there, but never mind), she chose to remain in London working while I went to live with my Grandparents and saw her twice a year. An extreme example, but if you asked her today she would say that she had to work and she was worth those couple of thou more.

I don't think either option is immoral, but I do think we all have reasons for making the choices we make and I know that personally, I'm incapable of working f/t and looking after the children because both jobs take up too much head space. I also know that on the days I do work late, I only see them for 5 minutes, and even though they've been with their dad on one of those days, that just isn't enough for my personal input. Those of you who can manage this better, great - I wouldn't want anyone to think I thought badly of them, especially since some of my best friends on mnet are f/t workers.
xenia, your choice was quite extreme (back at wk after 2 weeks) and I'm sure your children were fine with it, but for me, it's not just about attachment, it's about whose values the kids have time to absorb. If they're with a nanny or peers most of the time, then theirs are the values that are absorbed, because kids don't really respond to 'quality time' bunched up into a weekend - it takes hours and hours of just milling around together and letting them watch you live life. You must have had some way to get round this, I suppose.

Incidentally, we are not very far from the day when it will take 2 people 7 days work per week to support a household, at least in London. What will we do then?

But that's a very arrogant opiniont D, isn't it, that your values are right. Mine I'm sure are often wrong so it's good the children are exposed to different values and views.

And why is your husband's input with the children not as good as yours such that on days the children have been with him and not much with you you see negative effects? Is that because he isn't female?

Life is much easier for many people than 40 or 100 years ago. It is not harder. Work is not harder these days. It's easier. Some people have stupidly high expectations about what they "need" in terms of a roof over their heads, types of clothes etc but that is their problem.

Xenia, if you read Droile's post carefully she is not saying that other peoples values are wrong. She is suggesting that she wants her children to absorb her values & not that of a nanny, aupair etc - so she has made her working & childcare choices to fit with that. She is not suggesting that other people should do it, if they don't want to!!!
She isn't saying that her husband is no good either, rather that she wants to be with her children more than just 5 mins at the end of each day.

Actually you're right but I do think our children benefited from seeing different values in a mother, father, nanny, nursery school etc.

My older children don't believe in God. If I had done a better job at imposing my Catholicism on them, isolated them from people who weren't of the same faith, sent them to Catholic schools etc then using that as one example I would have better imposed that on them. Also I suppose when you hire a nanny and pick a husband and choose a school you are looking for a match with your own values anyway so even less of a valid point of mine. Wrong all the time really...

Droile, your post 10:28 makes so much sense to me, I'm so glad you wrote it. [And I respect Xenia for amending her post; I find myself constantly adjusting my opinions after reading MN (amongst other sources! )...]

Even trying to change our lifestyle because money isn't everything I'm finding difficult, it's such a dominant factor.

Xenia, one of the things that you can never guarantee is another peron's opinions. No matter how much mythology is rammed down people's throats, many reject it and live perfectly good and happy lives free from religion. Just as the offspring of unbelievers may decide to join up with some or other cult for a while or indeed forever.
Sure, you (anyone and everyone) can teach your kids what your values are, but unless you're prepared to isolate them entirely from anyone who might have even the tiniest shade of a differing opinion to yours, you can't force them to think or believe the same things as you do.
One of the few things I'm 100% with Richard Dawkins on is this: the best thing we can teach our DCs is not what to think but how to think, how to examine evidence etc before coming to a conclusion.

SOrry if that's a bit of a hijack.

It's an interesting point. It's why some of our local cults here like to teach children outside of local schools I think. It's why people set up communes on Scottish islands or send their children to board miles into the country or even send them from inner London back "home" to Jamaica to get the only decent education they can get.

By going back to work when the babies were small I removed some of my influence although once they're at school working parents still remain a big influence on them and I think on the whole they've adopted our values not those of their nanny. Then school is a big influence and in their teens their peers are a huge influence. You hope by then you've indoctrinated their little internal computers enough to have set them on course to be sensible.

I think all of us in life are much more influential than we think - the example we set to people we don't even talk to locally, who see us coming and going and our general actions, good and bad.

Thank you bugsy and walnutshell. xenia, you do need to read people's posts properly before you flex your typing fingers. You need to get off your sexism horse - I don't care which sex looks after the children - I really couldn't care less. Of course my husband is good enough - I just miss them when I work long days! I have different reasons from the rest of you for wanting to savour every day with my kids, (and that predates ds2's illness). My dad died when I was 4 so I've always been aware that time may not be as fabulously long as we'd like it to be.

My values may not be right and I relish them getting input from others, but the balance has to be weighted on my side otherwise they may as well be someone else's children. Surely you want to put plenty of yourself into your children too, so that they can reject or embrace it when they're old enough to decide? I really don't think that you just give birth to them and then go away and do something more intersting xenia, for all you'd have us believe. If you did, you wouldn't have the relationship with your older ones that you claim to have.

I must reiterate that I respect other people's choices and that I have tried it all ways. I've worked 4 days, 3 days and 2 days and I'm doing what works best for me. Incidentally, there is no more available cash involved in any of the combination of days - we just spend it on convenience food if both of us are working too much to cook, and life has a way of making sure there is never enough in your pocket any way. Just to reassure you again xenia, the people who pick up at 3:30 at our school gates are 50% men. We seem to be a school of part-timers living with f/t workers, sharing the care, and a lot of those p/t are dads. We don't have one single couple in our village who both work f/t and have kids, so we're very lucky to have that kind of lifestyle in my area and I suppose it's become so ingrained in me that I take it as read. I know that isn't the case in all/many parts of the country/world, and as I've said in other posts, I do understand, etc etc, again... I'm bla

..blathering in the hope that there will be someone still speaking to me at the meet-up........

Yes I'm sorry but I don't understand this thing about maybe my values are wrong, so I'd better let DD's teacher/ nanny/ neighbour down the street take over. Call me arrogant, but if I thought my values were wrong, surely I'd change them?

I'm sure my kids will reject some of my ideas/ values and long term, they may even change some of them; but while they're little, I take responsibility for their care, and part of that care is instilling the moral or ethical (whichever word you prefer) values I would prefer them to have. If they reject them later on, that's probably as it should be.

Caligula: while I don't know what your values actually are - they would probably be kindness, courtesy, don't steal, don't start fights, etc. Which are fair enough but some people's priorities vary. I'm certainly not accusing you of any of the following, but there are parents who might pass on to their children their own racist or sexist views, for instance - or if the parents are career criminals, might influence the DCs to belileve that it's perfectly OK to con or rob "rich bastards". It's only by being exposed to different views that children learn to reassess what they've been taught at home.