Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
WideWebWitch · 13/01/2008 20:10

Or should I say, WE'D have to pay someone to do it. And since it is all in a joint pot then our joint available income would decrease.

Anna8888 · 13/01/2008 20:11

WWW - I can understand that - my parents' marriage has always worked that way.

But, from my point of view, given the tax situation in France, it just can't
work like that. You have to think of the second earner in terms of marginal income.

Iota · 13/01/2008 20:16

when I worked we used to contribute to a joint account in proportion to our incomes and keep separate accounts as well.
This started off being similar amounts, but over time dh paid the lion's share, culminating in him paying the lot when I stopped work.

WideWebWitch · 13/01/2008 20:18

I don't understand French taxation but I know it's complex.

Piffle · 13/01/2008 20:19

Holy fuck
Heather
I knew her
shit shit shit

Quattrocento · 13/01/2008 20:20

One interesting comment was made about Xenia's stance being radical. In my world, her stance is totally normal and that of ranting housewife's is radical. This is why mumsnet is good, I think.

rantinghousewife · 13/01/2008 20:26

I really don't think it's radical to assume that someone else thinks differently to you!
I have no argument with Xenias assertion that she prefers to work than stay at home, that's the way she feels, I don't deny her that right. But it's ok to deny me the right to feel the way I do. And the argument that I would feel differently if I were working doesn't wash with me because I have been a working (single) mother. So it is not as if I don't know what I am missing out on.

ssd · 13/01/2008 20:27

custardo

Quattrocento · 13/01/2008 20:29

No - see that is where you're getting entrenched. Of course I understand that people can and do make different choices. I just don't meet them, that's all. That's what I was saying. So Xenia's analysis seems normal and yours seems radical.

ssd · 13/01/2008 20:38

wanted to say custardo your posts today in reply to Xenia restored my faith in this website, have eventually found some posters I have a connection with

Walnutshell · 13/01/2008 20:44

More of the same please from SueBaroo (and her raspberry-blowing), Custardo, Ruty and others of the same ilk...

Judy1234 · 13/01/2008 20:58

Yes, interesting. Normal amongst those I tend to know and the housewife view no one ever shares because none of them are housewives - it's not our world but that's why the internet is good. You get different view points.

Presumably in France there's nothing to stop two parents each paying 50% of any childcare bill however. I am sure in most couples in the UK most of us particularly those who marry young regard all the money as our shared money where both work at least and then you work out what would it cost the family in terms of income if one stopped work (and you tend to work that out even before you get pregnant never mind given up work). Then you look at which of you has a work place creche, whose employers might offer vouchers, which of you earns the most now, who is likely to earn a huge lot more than the other with promotions etc etc. That's how most couples sort it out and because most women marry men who earn more if there's one to give up work it's the lower earner woman. In my case my ex husband earned less so he would have given up work (and did ultimately work slightly part time).

OP posts:
Anna8888 · 13/01/2008 21:16

Xenia - honestly, it's more complicated than that .

SheikYerbouti · 14/01/2008 09:26

Shall I tyell you why women with children don;t go to worKL? shall I?

I have had a SHIT morning

DP and I work for the same company, who are genrally v unnderstanding about our plight. My immediate managaer is great. I start at 6 30 am when in the office, DP starts at 9 and drops off children to the CM at 8am. This morning, childminder's DS is unwell, so she is unable to work Fair enough, it's not her faulkt. I have been at work 30 mins when she rang to let us know. also fair enogh, she gave us fair warning

I consult my manager who sayd fine, do whatever, but there is work that needs to be done in the office.

DP's manager, who is a charismaless nobbo, starts moaning and snivelling to the MD and saying "Oh, your DP needs to be here now" so yet again, MY job has to come second, even though we are on deadlines in my dept

No he doesn;t need to be in at 9, he could have gone in at 11 when I finsh.

So, I have to come all the way home. I did 2 hours, watse iof fucking time. Because people aren;'t undertsnding to fathers. WEhat would happen if I were seriusly ill I dread to think.

Twat

apologies about the typing, I have certain issues about this man as it is. He is a grade a prick

SheikYerbouti · 14/01/2008 09:35

Ok, I am calm now, I have had tea

The crux of my last post was that father haven't all rushed at once to apply for flexible working conditions because for most jobs, this just isn't possible (it certainly isn't for DP - especially with nobboid manager thrown into the mix) DP's job has to be within business hours (ie 9-5.30), and while there should in theory be a bit of flexibility in what time he starts etc, this doesn't work in reality (see today eg) DP's manager even got the arse when DP asked for time off when I went to have a CS with DS2. Unsurprisingly, this man does not have children.

I know DP would love to be at home with the boys, but financially, he is the higher wage earner, so we can't afford for just me to work and him stay at home.

So to say that women have a choice is extremely blinkered.

I'd love the black&white life that Xenia et al think is the norm

Anna8888 · 14/01/2008 10:09

Sheik - oh, I sympathise.

My cleaner rang me this morning to say that she couldn't come because her son is ill. I needed her to be in this morning because I was due to be out at a meeting and she was going to be here when my daughter got dropped off after school until I got home (1/2 hour or so). I have no-one to cover for me - so had to cancel meeting. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

Quattrocento · 14/01/2008 10:09

Sheik - believe me I do understand

I am stressed and tired today because DD (9) spent all last night throwing up and telling us about it at hourly intervals I have a million meetings but have to wait here until the au-pair gets back from his weekend away - juggling and rejuggling things - it means that I won't get back until midnight tonight - DH couldn't do anything because he is in court. AAARGH.

So yes I do know and I do understand, and I do appreciate that not everyone has choices. Actually I don't feel like I have any choice at all and you'll see that I have said so further down the thread ...

Rant over

Countingthegreyhairs · 14/01/2008 14:49

At the risk of flogging a dead thread:

I work part-time. Dh earns more than me. We live abroad. Dh travels to a different country every week. There is no extended family around to help when dd is ill or on holiday. She's only 4.5 and has already had 7.5 days off school since September with various gastro bugs/viruses. It isn't therefore as easy as Xenia seems to think it is.

But - even if it wasn't difficult for me to work full-time - I wouldn't choose to.

If "most" women automatically get as bored and depressed looking after young children as Xenia suggests, then why should paid carers not be effected in the same way? And if so, in that case the scenario is even worse because the mother-or-father-child bond and emotional attachment that helps to over-ride these feelings isn't as strong ...??

And yet there are plenty of mothers and fathers and child-minders and nursery workers out there who do not find looking after children mindless and depressing. They find it challenging, fulfilling and interesting.

Judy1234 · 14/01/2008 16:51

Probably most don't ge bored or depressed or the jobs they had weren't up to much anyway so being home and cleaning is not much different from being in the office typing. But for those women who are home because they think it's required or better for the children but hate it I think they should go back to work.

I certainly remember all the years we had of worry over who will cover if the childcare breaks down. My sister uses a local nanny agency who will drum someone up at great expense very quickly indeed for back up but not everyone can afford that and even in her case it very much reduces her profits for the day - she works for herself.

We have sometimes had arrangemetns with other parents for mutual cover if the nanny was off sick or had someone who did mornings at the wekened who could do part of some days if the nanny or child were sick. Like Anna we have sometimes used the cleaner if the nanny wasn't around. Now I have much older children they are sometimes available. I am going abroad on Wednesday and the older children plus part time nanny will cope with the younger ones.

SY's situation is not very easy. You need a second and a third back up certainly in some jobs where there is no question of you not being where you're contracted at huge expense to be. It's very hard to fix those sorts of arrangements up. I do help otehr parents sometimes if they can't get cover because they know there is always someone in this house almost 24/7 to look after children. My neighbour has offered too as they are usually yin house wife and elderly parents. Also our last nanny if she couldn't get in - I think she missed about 2 days in 4 years or something like that - she would find another nanny she knew who might take the chdilren for the day.

OP posts:
Countingthegreyhairs · 14/01/2008 17:40

No, it certainly isn't easy. And my dd only wants me or dh when she's ill, not a baby-sitter or cleaner. I sometimes feel that the child's voice is getting lost in all this somehow ... .

Also, there are thousands and thousands of women out there who, through reasons that they were/or are unable to change, work in jobs that are "not up to much". Counting salary alone, my job would fit that description too, as I'm sure many others would.

I really admire you for having juggled it all Xenia and come through it at the other end - and I agree with you about certain aspects relating to female/male inequity - but overall I suspect we just have to agree to disagree on this one!! As you say, that's the beauty of Mmsnet.

Judy1234 · 14/01/2008 20:02

I have never had a child in 23 years who has need one of us as parents when ill or perhaps we've just been really really lucky they haven't had major illnesses. I suppose the point is you get really close to a nanny who looks after you for 10 years. Tonight after I went to let ours go one of the boys pleaded with her to stay for 5 more minutes. So it's not like they're being left with some randome stranger - they will be with one of the known and loved adults in their lives who just doesn't happen to have a blood connection although my sister's emergency nanny I suppose would fall into that category although my sister has a student child of a teacher at school she can call on for childcare and does know the children if it's needed.

OP posts:
rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:06

Yes but, life isn't like that if you're a working mother without a nanny. If you're reliant on a CM or a nursery, then you cannot take them to them, if they are ill.
I remember one year, having to use my entire annual leave on child illness (a couple of viruses, plus chicken pox, a bout of conjuctivitis all in one year). The viruses weren't serious but no CM or nursery will take a child when they have a slight temperature or, for that matter with conjuctivitis.

mrsruffallo · 14/01/2008 20:13

Oh Xenia not again! Your posts are becming pantomimish-
SAHM's are boring!!!
Oh no we're not!!
Oh yes you are!!!
Do you think anyone gives a shit what Katie Holmes and Nicole Kidman are up to?
I don't.

mrsruffallo · 14/01/2008 20:16

MMJ-I just read your post- wonderful. Says all that I wanted to say but couldn't sum up the energy to.

NKF · 14/01/2008 20:21

Personally I think if you do want to work and you have children, you have to bite the bullet and shell out for decent childcare. This hoping and crossing fingers and relying on temp cover and friends and family is all very well but it's stressful.

Swipe left for the next trending thread