Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
GColdtimer · 14/01/2008 20:21

Not sure what world xenia lives in but it certainly isn't mine, or the world of any of my friends (and most of us are degree educated with so-called "good" jobs).

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:23

Since when is a childminder or nursery 'temp cover'.

NKF · 14/01/2008 20:27

I think hoping the cleaner can cover for you when you have to go to a meeting isn't great. Of course people get sick but I've had my best experiences with the proper nannies over, say the borrowed au pairs.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:28

Well I never had a nanny or an au pair. Registered childminder, yes. But they won't take a child with a temperature (and neither will a nursery)

NKF · 14/01/2008 20:30

That's why I think nannies are the best childcare. A good nanny can care for a child who's a bit under the weather.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:31

Nannies are mostly unregulated (I know there are moves to change this), a cm isn't, not a registered one at any rate.

MilkMonitor · 14/01/2008 20:32

I went back to work after six months at home with my new baby. I got depressed and very bored. I stopped work and spent time with my child. Never been happier.

That's just me, mind. I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there who work full or part time v. happily and consider their kids' needs too.

I have to say though, that I'm not v. keen on my child being ill and my not being there for that child. But of course if the child has bonded with another adult figure as described by Xenia, then that adult can care for him.

However, I have to question, why bother having kids then, if their primary relationship is going to be with other adults? What's the significance of being a mother or father? None.

Parenthood, I'm afraid, is about giving up something of oneself for the benefit of your child. It's that simple.

However, whether it is the mother or the father who stays at home is quite another debate that involves inequality of pay etc. A very separate issue.

NKF · 14/01/2008 20:32

Well, each to their own. For some people registration is vital. For others not.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:34

I still wouldn't describe registered childcare as temp cover.

NKF · 14/01/2008 20:35

No, I wouldn't.I'm referring to ad hoc arrangments.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 20:35

Ah that clears that up then, missed that bit on the thread.

morningpaper · 14/01/2008 20:54

XENIA: "On pay etc it's something to speak to your daughters about because if they want the luxury of these types of choices then their career choice is ultra important and then they won't be trapped into the minimum wage type jobs and no chance to pay a nanny if that would be their preference (unless they marry someone rich)."

YOU ARE SO RIGHT.

And I really agree with Quattrocento:
"In my world, [Xenia's] stance is totally normal and that of ranting housewife's is radical. This is why mumsnet is good, I think."

I really agree - among my group of friends there are very few SAHMs who are actually vocal about ENJOYING it. And absolutely NO dads who talk about enjoying it. The majority would concur far more with the original article.

WideWebWitch · 14/01/2008 20:58

Milkmonitor you say "However, I have to question, why bother having kids then, if their primary relationship is going to be with other adults? What's the significance of being a mother or father? None. Parenthood, I'm afraid, is about giving up something of oneself for the benefit of your child. It's that simple. "

Er, bollocks is it that simple.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 21:02

Actually I've been quoted out of context, nowhere did I say that I thought mums should stay at home with their children if they don't want to.
What I actually said, was that I didn't believe that women who want to stay at home with their children should be made to feel guilty about it.
And I say that as the daughter of a woman who worked full time throughout her childhood.

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 21:21

Thinking about it further, it is not so surprising that if you work, that you will not know any SAHMs. When I worked, despite having a child, I didn't know any SAHMs, why would I, I never did the school run and all my out of work friends were childless.
Any other mothers that I did know were all WOHM mums, just like I was at the time.

morningpaper · 14/01/2008 21:35

I work part-time, so I know lots of SAHMS. But the ones I know express sentiments very much in line with the article in OP.

MilkMonitor · 14/01/2008 21:39

Please tell me, WWW, how any parent does not give up something for their child, be it the way they work, holiday, shop, finances, sleep?

I think if you get down to brass tacks, parenting means sacrifice. Doesn't it?

morningpaper · 14/01/2008 21:43

MM yes of course, but the article expresses the feelings of a woman who feels that the arrangement of being a SAHM means sacrifice of an interesting and fulfilling life.

That isn't necessary.

BUT lots of women here say that they LOVE being a SAHM - so there IS no sacrifice.

The whole point is that you DON'T HAVE TO sacrifice these things, if you don't wish to.

Your vagina may be lost forever though, I fear.

Quattrocento · 14/01/2008 21:45

I thought they could, ahem, do a bit of nipping and tucking?

morningpaper · 14/01/2008 21:46

I don't think I could face that

I mean they could face that

no me obviously

rantinghousewife · 14/01/2008 21:47

Nowt wrong with MY vagina, I'll have you know!
See my experience of knowing SAHMs (and I know quite a few now) is the opposite, now our children are starting full time school, I am the only one who is checking out training options for going back to work. The rest are happy to stay at home. Although in some cases, there are younger children involved.

Judy1234 · 14/01/2008 21:48

The primary relationshipo doesn't work out like that if you have a nanny. The child tends to spend a lot of time with both parents and the nanny so it has close loving relationships with three people and usually tends to prefer the parents anyway. The fact it might cuddle the grand parent, child minder or long term nanny when it's ill isn't a threat to the parenting. It's an enhancement to the life of the child and the family as a whole. When the child tonight made the nanny stay on longer I thought great - isn't that nice, he wants her to stay. I never thought - how dreadful he prefers her to me, because he doesn't.

on the question of care if the mother and father paying 50% of the child care costs cannot afford the cost of a reliable nanny (which I think is cheaper than 3 child minding places or nursery places for under 5s by the way) then it is very very hard to maintain the career and have things work. I don't hink for most people there is a choice of good reliable nanny in the house simply because most husband and wive earn the average wage of £24k a year if they're lucky and out of that £48k joint wage it's hard to afford £23k or whatever the nanny might cost. It is of course worth it if your £24k might one day be £100k - in other words to work at a loss ineffect as I or my husband did when I was 22 was a very sound financial move because I knew I could earn six figures if I just stuck at the job. If that is not the case and promotion is not possible then the economics aer completely changed. However even there if you would go mad if you were home then working for very little net profit as a couple may be worth it - if the alternative is suicide as it may be for some stay at home parents.

OP posts:
RubyRioja · 14/01/2008 22:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

mrsruffallo · 14/01/2008 22:09

Suicide??? What???

RubyRioja · 14/01/2008 22:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread