Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Rachel Johnson and Motherhood

244 replies

Judy1234 · 13/01/2008 10:57

It is boring being at home. It's unremitting domestic toil so most mothers of under 5s now work and I am glad I worked full time when we had 3 under 5. RJ says in today's Sunday Times she was at home with 3 children under 5. More fool her I say. Why not instead ditch your guilt, get wonderful childcare for your children and have the best of all worlds she says men have secured in the last 50 years - success at work and time with the family. That's the way to go not to feel you have to be there as drudge and chief cook and bottle washer for 5 years with no gains for anyone. The only way we survived having 3 children under 5 and avoided the problem that does not speak its name or whatever RJ refers to Betty F calling it was by us both working happily and having the amount of child care and cleaning we could comfortably tolerate.

"Many congratulations to the alabaster beauty Nicole Kidman, who is due to hear the patter of tiny feet in July. Celebrity ?baby joy?, as it is invariably termed, always spreads the love around, and the so-called friends have duly announced that ?Nic and Keith [Urban] are riding the clouds? while Nicole?s publicist is confining herself to a press release that describes the gravid couple as ?thrilled?.

I?m as pleased as you are, and possibly even more pleased than Katie Holmes, who is married to Kidman?s ex, Tom Cruise, claims to be about it. But I have to admit to feeling that the predictable gush over one elderly primigravida, who happens to be an internationally worshipped movie star with bags of fairy dust and the world at her feet, threatens, as these occasions do, to obscure the less sparkly reality of early motherhood for many women, women whose lives cannot so gracefully gloss over the harsh truth that 40 is not the best time to start a baby; that most companies are structured around men with stay-at-home wives in mind; and that being at home all day in sole charge of babies and small children can be tiring, repetitive, isolating and indescribably dull.

When I had three children under four, I never knew how to answer when child-free friends called and asked, ?How are you?? So I would trill, ?Fine! Great!?

But in fact I felt exhausted all the time, to the point of delirium, and for about five years my proudest achievement was the time I managed to make a trip to the chemist without a double buggy, nappy bag and toddler ? and didn?t forget my wallet. But I never had postnatal depression, and in that sense and many others I recognise I was blessed. For the day after the Kidman-Urban announcement we learnt of Heather Finkill, 30, the newly delivered mother of two-week-old twins, Lacey and Isobel. Mrs Finkill left her Hampshire house at 7am and walked in front of a lorry on the northbound carriageway of the M3.

Her death is desperately sad and sounds like an extreme case. But actually such stories aren?t all that uncommon. Suicide is the leading cause of death in young mothers. One in five women, according to the charity Perinatal Illness UK, suffers from some form of postnatal depression. Even now. In fact, make that, especially now.

In 1963 Betty Friedan defined, in The Feminine Mystique, the feeling of frustrated, morale-sapping dread that many ? especially educated ? women feel at the onset of domesticity, housewifery and motherhood. She called it ?the problem with no name?.

In the 1970s Spare Rib, the feminist magazine, was inundated by manuscripts from women confessing to their loneliness and shame that they did not find motherhood the idyllic scenario that it was cracked up to be.

But in 2008, even though we have the equal pay act and flexitime and supposedly bags of paternal involvement, even though we have Harriet Harperson insisting that ?it must be the cultural norm for both mothers and fathers to work flexibly so they can balance earning a living while bringing up their children?, mums are still depressed. More than ever, it appears, if the one-in-five figure is right.

I hesitate to put this theory forward, but I will anyway. I think that what lies behind this sorority of suffering is that nothing has come along to make motherhood any easier since the dawn of feminism, and lots has come along to make it harder.

As well as the demands of pregnancy, childbirth and small children, women are now expected to work when they?re expecting and beyond. And when they?ve produced the next generation, they discover to their dismay that they have just taken on a second profession. They will be responsible for everything their child does, annually audited, and to blame for it.

Meanwhile their husbands have inexplicably declined the tempting new-Labour offers of flexitime and paid paternity leave to share parental duties. Studies show that while fathers evince genuine desire to be involved in their children?s lives, they make poorer primary carers for sons, think that spaghetti hoops three times a day can?t be wrong and have herd immunity to mess.

They want family time and intimacy with their children but are understandably reluctant to extend this involvement so it risks annoying the boss or involves being made to hand-wash the Weenee pouch pants.

?Fathers are fine with a day out but they are reluctant to take on the menial everyday tasks like the laundry, and studies show that they want to have the status of a job and paid work and to be able, on top of that, to come home to spend time with their children,? Dr Esther Dermott told me. A sociologist who specialises in ?contemporary fatherhood? at Bristol University, she is the author of the father-son study. ?The fact that new fathers don?t reduce their working hours also means that the burden of childcare is much more likely to fall on the mother, rather than being shared,? she said.

Mmm. If I hear the expert correctly, what she said is that, in modern society, it?s men who are validating themselves in the workplace, continuing their careers and returning home to the fragrant, pyjamaed children, to the hot supper. Not women. If that is the case, it turns out that the past 40 years have resulted not in mothers having it all, but fathers.

Well, what can I say? Well done, chaps. "

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 16/01/2008 16:34

Good point, Sakura. When I had dd I had phone calls from family members asking me whn I would be going back to work.....then a few months later it was 'you need a job'. I didn't want to leave my dd and luckily had a dp who agreed.
That's why all this criticism grates; its your choice and you asked to defend it constantly.

Manictigger · 16/01/2008 16:39

Why is it so wrong to mention Xenia's failed marriage in this discussion when she herself often refers to her ex-husband? I for one would love to know whether she believes that either her views or her actions with regard to this SAHM or WOHM debate contributed to the marriage breakdown or whether she's come to these conclusions because of the marriage breakdown (IYSWIM), but I know that it's none of my damn business.

As to her actual views, she's entitled to her own just as we all are. I guess she'll only know if her way worked when her children come to make the same decisions. Maybe they'll say they want their children to have a different childhood, maybe they'll think their own was ideal. I just hope she lets them choose their own way, because the pressure of having to produce fantastic academic results, have a highflying job etc just to gain your parents approval is a good way to screw up a person.

Niecie · 16/01/2008 16:59

Goodness, another one of the SAHM/WOHM threads. There must be one a week! I try to stay away but it isn't working.

For what its worth, as I understand the research, the tipping point at which it is possibly detrimental for a child of less than 2 or 3 to go into nursery is 16 hours. Above that and you start to get the results which say that nursery is not benifical to small children. Below that and it doesn't make much difference so long as the child has one to one care the rest of the time. That is just my summary as I see them.

Coupled with this the happiest mothers are supposed to be those who work part time. Those who work full-time or are SAHM are not so content with their balance. This is on average of course and we all have our own personal ideal work-life balance.

I have also read recently that although the Swedish model for giving parental leave after the birth of a child seems to be very fair in reality only about 5% of Swedish fathers actually take their entitlment so the opportunity for equality within the family is not being taken up.

Not sure whose fault that is though - the women for not wanting their men to take over the childcare (I wouldn't want my DH to do it for a start not because I don't think he could but because I want to do it) or the men for refusing to take their foot of their own career ladder.

Manictrigger - I have often wondered the same thing myself and I think I have put the point in your second paragraph to Xenia herself. As I recall I think she would be happy to respect her daughters' decisions. I really hope she does.

NKF · 16/01/2008 22:34

Does the panel ie Mumsnet think most women stay home because they believe it's best for their children or because they don't want to leave their children for so many hours. I think either reason is perfectly okay but I have a sneaking suspicion that many women feel the latter and state the former.

spottyzebra · 16/01/2008 22:52

what a suprise xenia, on another working mums thread!

that must be some huge chip on your shoulder xenia, think you may benefit from professional help

being a sahm doesnt not mean you are a domestic slave,far from it.
ive never had so much time and feel wonderfully free relaxed and chilled.

life is what you make it, its boring if you are boring!
and sadly you are.

Anna8888 · 17/01/2008 09:43

NKF - neither, I stayed at home with my daughter because I wanted to, because I just adore being with her.

I also think it is better for her to be at home with me than at home with a nanny or at a nursery.

Niecie · 17/01/2008 10:10

NKF - for me it is because I think it is best for the children AND for me.

At some point that balance will tip though. Once DS2 starts school in September I am not sure that me being stuck at home by myself 5 days a week is the best for me. However, I still think the children will appreciate me being home when they are home so it will be a part-time job for me for another couple of years at least.

Not sure your question is an either/or. Surely if you think the children are better off at home you don't want to leave them with other people?

GColdtimer · 17/01/2008 12:56

NKF, I also think that I wanted to stay at home because it was best for ME as well as my DD. I actually went back to work (financial necessity) part time when my dd was 6 months old. Personally, I felt that was too soon and I wanted to stay at home with her because I enjoyed being with her alongside the fact I felt that I was the best person to look after her. I actually feel quite lucky that I felt that way and didn't want to rush back to work - those 6 months were probably the best of my life and were a really special time. But that was me.

Now dd is nearly 2 I find the balance of working part time a good one. It suits our family well andI feel that I really have the bests of both worlds and feel lucky that I am in a position to make it work.

Not everyone is in the position to make choices based on what they WANT to do.

jellybeans · 17/01/2008 13:12

I LOVE SAH, my kids are at school, I have time to chill. Why would I want to add more to all the stuff I already do (ie very busy from 3pm-9pm and housework and school helping in between! SAH has allowed me to partake in further education and opt out of the materialistic and competetive culture. Work is over rated, time is precious. I like being there to pick my kids up. Have years yet to become a wage slave.

Judy1234 · 18/01/2008 02:27

I don't see anything contradictory in my saying there are lots of reasons mothers working benefits children and the parents and leads to more equitable relationshps and better role models for children whilst also needing those children to be looked after by others. Those others are usually trained nannies (or mannies these days sometimes) or whatever or their father or whatever.

Yes some people will always earn a pittance at the back end of the food chain - we aren't all born with equal abilities but a lot of women fail to achieve their potential and regret that at work because they unfairly take on too many domestic responsibilities and many are bored to tears with that life at home anyway.

OP posts:
GColdtimer · 18/01/2008 08:43

It is your presumption that working mothers make better role models that is likely to grate with people xenia. And the fact you state it as if it were a fact rather than your opinion.

LoveAngel · 18/01/2008 09:27

'we aren't all born with equal abilities'

Perhaps 'we aren't all born with equal opportunities' would be closer to the mark, but I digress...

SueBaroo · 18/01/2008 09:32

twofalls, exactly. The 'better role models' is precisely what I mean about the casual insult.

I would be a better role model to my children if I went out to work for money. The fact that I don't earn money means I am a less than worthy role model.

dejags · 18/01/2008 09:45

Haven't read the whole thread. FWIW here's my take.

I would give my left tit to be able to stay at home with my children.

I absolutely loathe the whole "work yourself into the ground" philosophy of life. I have an incredibly demanding job which I try to do in part time hours - it never, ever works out that way.

When it comes down to it my kids will always take precedence over my career. It's such a pity that I don't have the luxury of staying at home with them.

If I could just concentrate on them I would be the happiest person in the world. Sadly, I have bills to pay.

themildmanneredjanitor · 18/01/2008 09:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Niecie · 18/01/2008 15:42

I strikes me as a very materialistic image - WOHM are better role models.

It is the idea that you are only worthy if you earn money. Well, there is more to life than money and possessions. That is taking nothing away from those that have to work to support themselves - there is a difference between earning to survive and earning to accumulate more wealth.

jellybeans · 19/01/2008 13:34

Niecie, I agree entirely. Some people seem to have swallowed the idea that work is everything in life (think whos interest that is in) and that it is the only or main thing that defines you. Well, what when you are retired then? I agree that money and possessions are not everything in life, in fact many people who are stupidly rich are very miserable. I don't think WOHM are better role models. When I was WOHM, I was far more materialistic but since leaving f/t work to SAH I have found a new freedom and appreciation for important or simple things in life.

There seems to me little point in going out to work to earn money to pay someone else to look after your child or clean your house etc. Let's be honest, many jobs are menial and boring, some offer no adult contact, some are back breaking. I feel so sad for the WOHM that long to SAH but cannot.

micegg · 19/01/2008 16:53

Xenia - I have a great deal of respect for your achievments and decisions to maintain your career whilst having children. However, I tire of your militant attitude and question your underlying motiviation. Is it to justify your own decisions? Your almost hostile attitude to any woman who decides to stay at home to carry out the important job of bringing up our next generation is frankly revolting.

You seem to fail to realise that the decision to return to work or not is sometimes not a matter of choice. For some returning to work and getting great childcare is out of reach because of cost and for others returning to work is a must rather than a choice. I have been on both sides of this myself. I am a professional and have a degree. I have worked hard but happen to work in an area which whilst rewarding on many levels will never make me rich. When I had my first child I had to return to work becuase we couldnt survive on DH salary alone. I am due to have my second baby in April and will more than likely take a career break or just not return at all as the cost of childcare will exceed my earings.

As Sakura so eloquently puts it, you also can't anticipate your feelings when the baby is actually here. No one is claiming that being at home is great fun all the time. The repetitive domestic chores can be draining and the constant demands of small children are demanding but its a few years out of my life. The domestic side of things will be there even if I work and the small children will be all grown up before I know it. As for work, it would appear from your posts that you really enjoy your job. I am very pleased for you but many people dont share your sentiment and even the most demanding job has its tedious aspects much like being at home.

As for role models. Xenia - what would you say if one of your daughters decided to become a SAHM. Lets be really outrageous now and say she actually enjoys it and wants to be a SAHM until all her children are at least 10? Would you consider her less worthy than your other daughter who followed your suit? Would you actually think she were a worse role model for your grand children because she chose to be there at the schoo gates instead of the next meeting at work?

Ultimately being a good parent is distinct from whether you work or not. For some it will be maintaining a high flying career that enables them to pay for the best eduaction and nannies, for others it will be being at the school gates every day.

Each to their own.

Swedes · 19/01/2008 17:23

Is this one of those threads where all the lovely Mumsnet people celebrate difference?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page