Yet another article re: why mothers should return to work

[boogiewoogie]

Just snatching a couple of minutes during a coffee break, will come back. What do you think of this?

Anna, you sound slightly confused to me. What I mean is that social problems and an unhappy childhood is not caused by parents working. In fact, it could be that all the children in the study who were not content were children of SAHMS. You just dont know.

FM - what lots of people want to know is - when is too little (or too much) parental involvement detrimental to child outcomes? When is too little (or too much) income detrimental to child outcomes? How in a family do people best optimise time spent together and time earning money?

If only it were easier... nutrition and obesity are easy to resolve compared to this one...

yr, interesting. Surely it's all those reasons - being at home is deadly dull for some of us plus if we work we get all the other benefits too, professional kudos, satisfaction with the work which we enjoy mostly and the money - win win all the way. It's those who work and find it heart wrenchingly hard, who cry at the parting from the baby, don't want to and also hate the work and think psychological studies prove they damage their child who have a pretty bad deal as working parents whether male or female. Thankfully I never fell into that category.

In some ways the biggest difference though is between parents with under 5s (your life whether you work or not assumingyou dont' have loads of cleaners etc is usualyl pretty hard) and those with older children when it changes and becomes easier particularyl as you're not being woken at night and children don't need or want so much time etc So probably parents are just talking about managing a process of about 5 years if your children are closely spaced and whether for the 30 years after that it is worth the mother or father leaving work and having trouble geting back in or whether getting back in is no problem or whether one of them hates their job anyway any excuse to give it up is great.

"What I mean is that social problems and an unhappy childhood is not caused by parents working"

FM - that is not the general consensus. Lack of parental involvement due to work is generally acknowledged cause (not the only one) of poor childhood outcomes.

I dont think its that difficult a question actually. I think it would be fairly obvious to me if I didnt spend enough time with my family and my children started to feel unhappy and neglected.

FM - good, I am glad you feel confident of your parenting abilities and that you have the choice to work less if your children start becoming unhappy.

But not all parents are good at reading their children's mood, especially those who don't see them much (I have good personal experience of this) and not all have the choice to work less if their children become unhappy. How should society address this?

I actaully find the Anna situation hard to contemplate. I can understand staying home because you'd only earn a pittance anyway and it's easier if one of you doesn't work and then does all the housework and childcare in the day and the other works but when that isn't actually needed and you could work and choose not to and perhaps those people who also don't work and have nannies, I find that hard to contemplate - it seems to be complete financial reliance on a man in a way I think I could never get my head around psychologically. Perhaps it's just how I felt from about age 14 or 15 - not something that would ever suit me but clearly people like it.

On what affects outcomes - loads of things do. Having a parent who has already had another family and thus the second family is likely to break down too - statistically if we use Anna as an example and not being married ( is not necessarily in your case) but on some likely to have a bad outcome.

I thikn my grandparents sending my uncle to boarding school aged 3 when he was jealous of his new baby brother in 1918 or thereabouts where he was left handed and forced to write with his right hand - clearly that kind of treatment it hugely damaging. But I don['t even think only seeing your nanny in the week is damaging if you have a close bond with her and with your parents at other times. It seems to be the wrenching of separation from the only adult you've bonded with which is hardest if you look at children evacuated in war etc. Even then some were not as affected as others. So it's is quite hard to generalise. Even studies on stress don't go on to say if in fact the stree might benefit children, that being challenged and coping might not ultimately being good whereas never ever being left until you're 5 at school could be harder. Studying happiness in the UK etc is not a very easy thing as the British tend to say they're not hpapy and the Americans are all loud and happy all the time so national characterstics, English self deprecation etc presumably aren't really taken account of.

Yes I agree on lack of parental involvement. its poor parenting, but there are poor working parents and poor sahms.

working less if children are unhappy... why does the world circle around children in families - isn't that where we're so wrong these days and our parents who might have sent us out to play for a whole day perhaps got it right, whether they worked or not. Chhildren aren't little Gods whose happiness is all. obviously if they're being cut and burnt or neglected by their mother as many are or even their paid carer then you intervene.

Xenia - as I have pointed out before, I am not financially dependent on my partner. I worked for many years and, unlike you, didn't have children to support or an ex-husband to pay off. So it's all mine.

I think all of our lives in this family would be duller if I went out to work right now.

Today I am packing for holidays. We go away (abroad or in France) for a week or two about six times a year, and for weekends in between that, and have friends and family to stay from all over the world several times a year. That is just one example of something I wouldn't be able to do so easily if I worked.

How do YOU want society to address this Anna. Paying SAHMS perhaps. Surely this would mean higher taxes and you dont want that, I have given my answer hundreds of times. Society should address it by more family friendly policies in the workplace for both mum and dad. i agree many families dont spend much time together, but i disagree to be a sahm is a good solution except for very few super-sahms

The French are very big on their holidays. The English and even more so the Americans often don't have more than 2 weeks a year but who is to say who is best. If you love your work then working more isn't an issue and if you find being on holiday with small children only just short of a trip to the gates of hell as sometimes I have found it... then work is a blessing. You're not paying half the mortgage and house costs and food bills and cleaning bils and holiday costs though so you are living off his earnings and I don't think I could enjoy that.

FM - actually, I think that all Western societies need to give more structured and formal teaching on good and bad parenting techniques so that people make more informed choices when raising children.

Xenia - we don't have mortgages any more. I meet all my own costs.

Xenia - can I just say - you make a lot of assumptions all the time about life scenarios that I suppose are based on your own experiences.

There are very different lifestyles out there.

xenia, i assume by the very fact that you are on MN that you find parenting interesting at least. However posts which suggest that "children aren't little gods" (well mine are to me, working or not) and that a holiday with small children is one step from hell (although i do concede i would find it tough with my wee one just now)suggest that you do not enjoy being a parent and you resent your children for impinging on your life. I'm sure you don't feel like that and you are a fantastic mum and your kids appreciate all the good things your salary can bring them. But people could be fogiven for thinking that you dont actually like your kids ( i have only read your recent posts as it looks like a personal row you and Anna are having).

I have to say, you both seem to like everyone here to know you are doing very nicely thankyou very much, thats really fantastic, im happy for you - of course a little envious as i dont want to return to work but am likely to be forced to due to finances (and im not talking not being able to afford the second holiday this year either!). The thought has entered my mind though that the two of you are actually piss poor and fantasising about all that cash (joking of course)>

Now i'm off to build my greenhouse.

lucy - if it makes you feel better - I am a horrible miser in many ways. I have never owned my own car... I just invested and invested and invested and travelled the world on an expense account when I was single. And now I am reaping the benefits (first baby aged 38).

thats great for you anna, i tend to invest in my mortgage, council tax, bills, bills bills - no expense accounts for me. But seriously, thats great - of course im jealous would be lying if i thought otherwise but i have great respect for people who work hard for money and reap the rewards but i wonder, does the investment banker work any harder than the labourer or shopworker (of which am neither). Alot of my friends are well, seriously loaded, they just don't feel the need to tell me, over and over

I think apart from thinking oh that anna has a very privileged lifestyle it doesn't have much relevance to the un and poverty or people who are working or not as parents in the uk....

the issue which I saw as central to the op was that a parent who stays at home may find themselves struggling on a low income at a later stage in their lives however rosy the picture may be at the start of the stay at home experience

it is worth bearing in mind

lucy - I'm not "seriously loaded" - I just made choices so that I knew I would have some capital of my own by my mid-30s. But it does involve choices (not sacrifices particularly, in that I don't care about those things) - I probably spend a lot less on consumables than many people on MN, I really think hard about spending money on myself. I like buying furniture and I have a few really nice pieces and I live in a beautiful 1929 apartment, but it isn't huge - that's definitely a choice some people wouldn't make, but I like smaller apartments and houses because then you don't have to have so much help in the house (I hate having strangers under my feet) and spend so much on heating etc.

Yes, investment bankers work VERY VERY hard. That's not to say other people don't work hard, it's just a question of degree.

zippi - I think everyone's choices have relevance and I think it will be a very sad thing if all women feel (as some scaremongers suggest) that the only viable life open to them is to get on the working treadmill and a mortgage in suburbia as young as possible, with a copy of Hello and Vogue to fuel their unrealisable dreams.

There is so much more world out there.

I just wanted

To be

poster 1000!

As you were ladies!

I tink I like being a mother as much as the average father likes being a father. We'd die for our children but we find holidays with them hard (I was with a man last week who'd been for a week with his wife and 1 and 3 year old last week and he looked absolutely exhausted - his holiday was harder than home as it often is with little children as most of us know and we go to work for a rest in some senses). That doesn't mean you don't want to be a parent as parenting is a 50 year job actually but it does mean you realise your own limitations.

Not sure I show off actually. We saved quite a bit of money over the years which is hard when you've a mortgage and school fees and nanny to pay when you're only 25, by working very hard, both of us and not being into consumables either

Yes lots of people work hard but most of those who make a large amount of money probably do over all work even harder, the all night sessions etc.