Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

soapbox i do not need to be reminded of what you said
your sentiments are imprinted on my memory

Twinkle certainly doesn't think she's getting a very easy ride at work, Alfiesbabe . But I do think I have an easier time than DH that is true. DH would love to work and can't due to our circumstances, whereas although I would prefer to be at home I do at least I do love my job. Granted I'm in the honeymoon period at the moment, having moved from an incredibly stressful job that I HATED, so give it time - my feelings might change. Currently I'm enjoying a good manager (for once), reasonable working hours (for once) and some appreciation (at last).

As for what I do, I am currently project managing, and doing a lot of the techie stuff for, an IT project in the public sector. It's a bit of a departure from what I used to do - I'm arguing with people less and using my brain more and I love it.

The other reason that I think I have it easier than DH is that I get 2 hours on the train each day to read and have time to myself, a luxury that DH doesn't have at home (despite what Soapbox thinks). Also DH is not that well - he suffers terribly from migraine and cluster headaches and is frequently caring for DS whilst feeling dreadful himself.

With all this talk about lifestyle choices, I hope you're all grateful that your parents didn't make the lifestyle choice not to have you! And I'm still very puzzled by the idea that it is unreasonable for one parent in a family to look after their own children rather than going out to work. The world's gone stark raving mad if you ask me.

BTW, what Anna888 said about the salary situation in France is exactly what I was proposing last night.

I think where the government are coming from with this news is (unfortunately for Fiona Phillips it may not have been her !) that research has overwhelmingly shown that children who do not have a strong and secure attachment with a caregiver - mother /father/fosterparent/ nanny/childminder, store up problems for later in life - low self esteem. lower IQ, depression.

These theories from Erikson, Bowlby, Mahler, Ainsworth and even Freud (!), have been around for ages however studies are mostly showing that if a child up to aged 2ish does not have someone that they can trust in every situation, and act as their base to explore and learn, it can effect them in later life. The problem with huge day care nurseries is that young children do not have a single caregiver they can trust.

IMO, when I look at research, to work is fine, but when little tiddlers they must have a single person they can trust when you are not there.

Twinkle I thought what Anna was saying is that incomes in France are totalled and taxed like that so in UK if you both earn 45,ooo you both pay 28% tax on everything up to about 25,000 then 40% tax on top in France you pay 28% (or whatever the lower ratein France is on 25k then 40% on the remaining 65,000-those figures are horrendously rough but you get my drift)

Bohemianbint to answer your earlier question what you need to do is mximise your income and minimise your childcare costs (wow rocket science!!) but can you do shifts, weekends, compressed hours or can dp? Can you find a community/charitable trust nursery place? depending on where you are childminders or other forms of care can be cheaper then nurseries.
If the answer to those is no then I'm stumped!

Fridayfeeling, can you please provide link to all this research you are quoting? I have never actually seen any good studies into this although its quoted as if it was true all the time.

Be SAHM if you enjoy it and it feels right for your family, but you won't get very far if you are trying to find reserach to prove that a child must be looked after by mum 24/7. Simply not true. What is true is that a child needs to be in an environment where she feels safe and secure and trust and like the people who look after her. A good nursery can provide this. Our nursery certainly do. All my children have been very fond of their nursery teachers and I think the fact that they have had close relationships with others from a very young age has been a good thing. Personally I went to nursery fulltime from 3 months as both my parents worked and I am eternally grateful for my mum for working and showing me its very possible to raise a happy family as well as having an interesting career. I hope and think that my children get the same from me. That my DD will enjoy both a great job and a great family and that my sons will marry woman who don't just want to be "women of the house".

"woman who don't just want to be "women of the house" just?
Links to various research along the lines of those mentioned by Fridayfeelings here

"In the 1950?s, observational research studies exposed the level of psychological trauma experienced by babies,

toddlers and young children who stayed in hospital or residential nursery for ten days or more with only brief

visits from a parent. These toddlers were physically well cared for but they were helpless to reach their parents

and lost hope of being ?rescued? by them. The sense of danger and the fear that separation induced in these

children was such that many grew up feeling the impact of this early experience throughout their lives. The

research studies of the 1950?s eventually lead to the present policies of paediatric wards providing overnight

accommodation for parents, and for babies and toddlers in extended non-parental care being fostered or

adopted rather than living in institutions."

This is taken from your link Juule? Seriously.....give me something else. What I am looking for is studies showing me for example that 75% of children with asbos, are expelled from school, become underachievers in education, fail to form attachments as adults are children from families where both parents work. See, I think you won't find a link at all. Firstly, most of the children in private nursery care are (simply because of the cost of these places) most often children of middle class educated resourceful parents who tend to take a great interest in their childrens lives and education. They also tend to come from two-parent families where both parents are involved in parenting which can only be a good thing. Most of the children roaming the streets and getting into trouble in my area are children from the local estate where both parents are at home and probably on benefit, but care very little about their children.........

"woman who don't just want to be "women of the house"

just?

---------

yep, so about that. I hate the way these things get so polarized.

Mmm....yes the "womean of the house" comment was a bit unfair, but I think not less fair than basically a lot of previous posts claiming that working parents basically don't bring their children up and hand them over to people they hardly know. Its accusing working parents of neglecting their children, isn't it?

Fairymum, right. Still doesn't help to spend the thread chucking out casual accusations, whatever viewpoint is doing the chucking.

Sorry, just hyper-sensitive today, and these threads get a bit rubbish if it's just WOHM/SAHM or whatever abbreviation we're using today. FWIW, I/m perfectly content to be called a housewife. It was the just thing, lol.

'and that my sons will marry woman who don't just want to be "women of the house". ' So you won't be pushing your views onto your son then? If you son had a SAHW would you be one of these snide MIL's with digs about going back to work?

I expect the children who are most damaged by early external care are the ones who come from dysfunctional and already unhappy families. Sometimes parents may think it safer to put their child in care than stay at home with an unhappy parent who is unable to cope.

Well said, fairymum.

I have no problems with Bowlby's attachment theories. Heck, I don't do CC on a young baby - wonder how many mothers who quote Bowlby to WOHMs do that?

But the conditions under which the children in his studies were placed were extreme. It is not comparable to that of children of 2 responsible working parents who plan their childcare and are otherwise fully involved in their lives.

Firdayfeeling: "The problem with huge day care nurseries is that young children do not have a single caregiver they can trust." I will be the first to admit that there are good and bad nurseries. But to reel off a statement like this is so knee-jerk. It is as informed as saying "the problem with children who don't attend nurseries is that they just don't get socialised from an early age" when patently children can be socialised even though they are looked after by their mother.

I personally have a lot of experience with nurseries (having had to look for one for my dcs) and with the children who start ft nursery from a young age (eg 6 months). They are my dcs' peers - I love to have them round. They are normal, happy, generally well-behaved children, no difference in fact from those who don't attend or do the odd session.

As for no single caregiver to trust, I would argue that my ds, who attended ft from 11 months, has a key carer he is bonded to. He has also bonded with every single carer in the babyroom as well as floating staff who cover for the normal staff who are away for holiday or whatever reason. They were happily telling me one day how ds went from carer to carer just laughing and asking for hugs. And after 1 week off over Christmas (where frankly, I think he got bored towards the end) sweetly went back into the bosom of the nursery. I fail to see how Bowlby comes into this.

hellobellosbeck: "I expect the children who are most damaged by early external care are the ones who come from dysfunctional and already unhappy families."

Actually, I believe the converse is true. Studies show that children who benefit most from external care (eg in nurseries) are those who come from dysfunctional families. This is because the external care balances out the stresses they experience at home.

blueshoes - indeed, that is why the government is so keen for mothers in very low income and disadvantaged families to return to work and to have their children cared for in nurseries - it is believed that the nursery environment will be more stable, comfortable and stimulating than the home environment.

My daughter (3.2) went back to pre-school today after her two week Christmas holiday rather reluctantly - but then, I know and she knows she has much more fun at home than at school. School is OK; home is great.

These things depend on so many factors.

I see your point blueshoes, that a child needs a refuge. What I am suggesting is that when a young child's faith in adults is badly shaken at home, can a nursery make up the shortfall?

hellobellosback - I think that school has often been a refuge for children in very disturbed/disadvantaged homes - all that orderliness and predictability versus chaos, hot meals on time, heating etc. Why not a nursery?

These things are relative.

hellobellosbeck, you asked whether a nursery can make up for a child's faith in adults being shaken in a dysfunctional home environment. I believe, yes. A nursery or foster carer won't completely replace or cancel out the devastating effect of a poor (I mean, really bad) home environment. But it can provide carers who have a loving touch and gentle manner, who are interested in that young child - something we take for granted but is not experienced by a child from a family where the parents are, say, alcoholic, abusing drugs and/or depressed. That does volumes for growing self esteem. Children can be amazingly resilient.

Anecdotally, there are a lot of situations of wayward youth who were set back on track because of the faith of, say, a teacher, in their abilities and potential.

Just to expand on what I meant - there were a few throw in there comments - unsubstantiated !

The weight of research in psychology says that working mothers and going to childcare places (wherever - but obv. some better than others!) are unlikely to harm a child's attachment so long as the child receives good responsive and sensitive care from the parents.

So, the point I was almost making was that the attachment with 'a' person, generally a parent must be good and if it is and the childcare setting is quality then no worries. What I think the govt are trying to tackle is when mothers feel they HAVE to work for economic reasons, because if a mother has a negative attitude to working because they feel forced into it / are depressed, then there is a danger here that the child will develop negative feelings about childcare, and then themselves, and this may affect their attachment etc.

So, if the government are going to give those mothers who have are 'forced to work' and have a negative attitude about work, the ones who probably will manifest problems, the chance to stay at home, then great !

If you are interested in these studies:

How Mothers attitudes to work matter - Lois Hoffman (1989), Crockenberg & Litman ( 1991), Hock 7 DeMeis (1990), Belsky & Rovine (1988)

Parents attitudes / type of care received - Broberg et al (1997), NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, (1997)

Longer Leave being better to help depression etc - Clark et al, 1997

Any studies from the 50s shoudl be treated with caution, as there was a huge propaganda drive to get women back into the home so that there would be jobs for soldiers returning from the war. Hence all that happy-housewife bullshit that is still messing up people's lives today.

That article is sexist. It doesn't mention the word "father" once. Not once.

I dare say some men ought to be offended.

And "incentives" for SAHM (or SAHDs!) are not financially viable. The economy is taking a turn for the worse and Gordon will need to reduce his outgoings, not increase them. He simply can't afford it.

Fridayfeeling: "What I think the govt are trying to tackle is when mothers feel they HAVE to work for economic reasons, because if a mother has a negative attitude to working because they feel forced into it / are depressed, then there is a danger here that the child will develop negative feelings about childcare, and then themselves, and this may affect their attachment etc."

It is a question of degree. There is the Bowlby orphanage/residential care/abandonment/gross neglect situation (which the social services should rightly and do step in) and the resentful working parent situation who is on a much lesser scale of harm.

Any mother can have conflicting pressures. It is not just being forced to work. It could be debt. Or just worn out from looking after too many children and not giving individual attention to each. Or just depressed per se. All of which are potentially harmful to their child. The state does not throw money at those situations.

At the end of the day, the state does not owe a living to anyone. If you choose to have children, you do the maths. If a mother prefers to stay at home, then maybe have fewer or no children, smaller cars, smaller house etc. Many SAHMS who have that option do. For those who find themselves at sea due to divorce, tragedy or unexpected situations, the benefits system is rightly there as a safety net.