Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
LoveAngel · 15/01/2008 13:17

meant to say in second para:

I'm not going to pretend that taking a career break doesn't have an adverse effect on women in the workplace ( it wasn't the case for me, but I know I was lucky). However, the benefits to both parent and child and to the wider family of staying at home for a while can really outweigh that.

Sorry - rushed typing, badly phrased sentences.

margoandjerry · 15/01/2008 13:25

Here is my proposal - one year's parental leave on full pay paid for by the state but the caveat is this. Father must take at least five months of this, otherwise it's the normal mat leave pay. I think this is a way to get father to understand that they might have to make sacrifices too and employers to understand that both men and women have children to care for.

They do a version of this in Sweden.

LoveAngel · 15/01/2008 13:28

Also wanted to add, Xenia, you have a habit of making massive assumptions based on your own feelings on the matter. Your opinion that looking after babies and young children is all a terrible bore and you would much rather be off doing something more interesting is fine (although sacks to me of someone who doth protest a little too much..work isn't always fun, is it? Home isn't always boring and mindless..is it?)...but don't assume everyone feels the same. In y short time as a SAHM I have had days where I am ground down by the mundanity of domestic life (just like I had days at work when I was ground down by the bullshit politics of senior management at the BBC!), but I also have days like today, when my son has drifted happily from one activity to another while I chat and laugh easily with him in between reading a novel. Lovely days I wouldn't swap for anything or anyone.

margoandjerry · 15/01/2008 13:40

loveangel, how old is your son? I would love to be able to do as you described but it would be impossible

LoveAngel · 15/01/2008 13:49

He's 3. And it's not an every day occurence! (Yesterday I had to drag him kicking and screaming out of a softplay centre and bring him home on the bus, which involved a lengthy wait at the bus stop in the hail while he screamed until he was purple...oh joy of joys!). I was just trying to prove a point - for a lot of SAHMS it's hard some days and better others. A bit like working. When the drawbacks outweigh the benefits too massively ('Help! I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown / I'm dying of boredom /we're so skint we can't afford our mortgage...' etc) - well, that's when it's time for a rethink.

OrmIrian · 15/01/2008 13:51

I keep reading this thread title as Boris Johnson and motherhood.

sprogger · 15/01/2008 13:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

margoandjerry · 15/01/2008 14:01

but you've given me hope loveangel. DD is 15m so no novels just yet (unless you count Noisy Farm). Not looking forward to the meltdowns though.

LoveAngel · 15/01/2008 14:03

Eloquently put, sprogger, and I wholeheartedly agree.

mrsruffallo · 15/01/2008 14:17

I agree sprogger. Most women I know wjoa re sahm's intend to go back to work once their children are at school.
Aso, the sahm's I know have all chosen to be so, as the working mothers have chosen to carry on working. I think women do have choice atm and I think it is quite old fashioned to assume we are all under pressure to be like 1950's housewives.

lalalonglegs · 15/01/2008 14:28

Bloody hell, MargoandJerry, what a completely marvellous idea. God, I hate Scandanavians with their clear skin, subsidised nurseries and general sussedness . Does anyone else know about this split maternity parental leave?

GColdtimer · 15/01/2008 14:29

exbatt, I agree. A former SAHM friend of mine said she was almost embarrassed to admit that is what she did as people just wrote her off as being a brainless bore. She was a senior HR person before she took time off to have her boys. Now they are at school she is a fundraiser for a charity and is loving it.

And LoveAngel, pretty much agree with what you say too.

SueBaroo · 15/01/2008 15:10

And those of us who have chosen, not to take a career break, but to stay home for good, are not 1950's mousewives, either.

Women who do want to go back to paid employment are only going to eradicate the prejudice they face when we women who choose to stay home for good are not assumed to be lazy moneyed morons.

Judy1234 · 15/01/2008 16:59

In fact those women who think I'll have 5 very hard years with lots of under 5 s and then they will go to school and I get to put my feet up a bit (which is a very reasonable fair deal in my view) often these days find they cannot always negotiate that with the husband who thinks - children back at school so woman back to work so you get worst of all worlds again just when you thought you'd get your reward of novel reading during the school day.... if you're not careful.

I certainly don't think any working or stay at home parent ever goes after their own personal happiness. All parents male or female make compromises all the time whether it's not to take the posting away from home or not to go for all the work drinks because they want to be home to help with the baby. That's just how most parents are.

I ceratinly agree we should have non transferable paternity leave which you lose if you don't use. The plan in 1 - 2 years to give men 6 months off and the woman 6 months off is only going to mean most women taking 12 months adn most men not taking any.

OP posts:
mrsruffallo · 15/01/2008 17:23

But Xenia they don't think 'I'll have 5 very hard years..' they think I would really like to stay at home and bring up my child in his/her preschool years and they may have a fantastic relationship with their dh where they both talk about their needs and desires and work together for what they believe is right.
Life's not doom and gloom for everyone you know!

Anna8888 · 15/01/2008 18:14

Absolutely MrsRuffallo.

I already feel nostalgic for the days when my daughter and I were alone and could choose whatever we wanted to do, all day every day. I thought the baby years were magical....

kerala · 15/01/2008 19:33

Yes second that Anna888.

The arrogance of those that breezily state that what they have chosen to do is right and anyone that makes a different choice is wrong is quite breathtaking. And the cliche about protesting FAR too much springs to mind.

Of course the broadsheets are full of journos saying that looking after young children is dull (2 columnists in this Sundays Observer, Barbara Ellen and Marina Sawyer as well as RJ) because they have gone back to work writing their columns and there is no counterbalance because those that do enjoy being SAHP are too busy with the playdough/enjoying their lives to respond.

Rather surprised that anyone of intelligence takes anything written in those columns seriously.

Judy1234 · 15/01/2008 20:28

And you write what your readers want to read. As most women with under 5s choose to work then they may like to read of someone who thinks that's good. Despite that I think there is a lot of anti working mother (never anti working father) press comment around much of it very unfair.

OP posts:
kerala · 15/01/2008 20:35

Perpetuated by column after column of handwringing about childcare by north london female journalists?

JossStick · 15/01/2008 20:46

It's media land. Where everyone has their life sorted, a pad in the country with an AGA to complement the London flat and go from working in the office to a party night out with just a bit of lip gloss added and a change of vest under their suits.

ITS NOT REAL LIFE!!!!!

WideWebWitch · 15/01/2008 20:47

what tfkingf has Xenia's marriage got to do with this? Fuck all, imo. It's not fair to take swipes at that.

WideWebWitch · 15/01/2008 20:49

And I agree with Xenia, I have NEVER ever seen an article saying all fathers should stay at home with their children and give up paid work and if they don't they are BAD parents.

themildmanneredjanitor · 15/01/2008 20:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Judy1234 · 15/01/2008 22:06

mildm, there are loads - every one saying children in nurseries are damaged, children who don't have the mother there do worse. Almost every day of the week one or other newspaper churns them out.

OP posts:
SueBaroo · 15/01/2008 22:38

Yes, but for every article showing the damage children receive in nursery, I can show you another that says they do far better than their at-home counterparts. And I can't remember the last time I read a parenting magazine that didn't have a whole section on going back to work - I even received bumf from the government about it when I'd just given birth, before I even managed to leave the hospital.

Women get it in the neck from every direction on this issue.