Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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 · 16/01/2008 09:33

That's exactly right, Sue - women get it in the neck from every angle, especially from each other. It's so completely futile to attack each other over the decisions we make (which aren't always freely made choices, might I add) in our very complicated modern lives. To cast SAHMs at bored, boring and damaging to feminism is about as pro-woman as casting working women as callous, ruthless child-hating bitches. It just isn't reality, and it certainly isn't feminism.

(And Xenia, to say 'most women choose to go back to work' is a massive and inaccurate generalisation. Many women have to go back to work, as most families rely on two incomes. I think this fact is something you - and the Journo Jills working down at The Telegraph - seem to forget. )

Anna8888 · 16/01/2008 09:48

Xenia - you are quite wrong. I am surprised that someone like you who considers yourself to be intelligent cannot identify a conflict of interest...

An article saying that children in nurseries do less well is not the same as saying that all mothers should be SAHMs.

It is perfectly possible to agree with, and support, all the following statements:

  • children in nurseries do less well
  • children whose mothers are their primary caregivers do best
  • mothers require daily adult interaction in order to be contented
  • mothers require financial independence

And a whole lot more. One argument does not deny the other - there is just a conflict of interest between them.

Domesticgodless · 16/01/2008 09:55

ABSOLUTELY loveangel

women get it in the neck from every angle, especially from each other. It's so completely futile to attack each other over the decisions we make (which aren't always freely made choices, might I add) in our very complicated modern lives.

can't see anyone disagreeing with that

exbatt · 16/01/2008 10:05

Xenia, there is something about your argument I really cannot understand. You have said clearly on many occasions how women should work and should subcontract the 'dull' aspects of parenthood or housekeeping to paid staff such as cleaners, nannies, housekeepers or whatever. You have taken this decision and clearly it's a choice you're very happy with.

So it's OK for someone like you to go out to work and pay other women to do these dull, menial tasks. It's presumably fine for these women to be paid to do those tasks, they are working women after all. I presume you choose or would choose staff who are competent and efficient and good at what they do. Some of them might feel working in such a role is the best thing for them and their families at that time, others might feel forced to work because of finances, and I'm sure there are others who actually enjoy that sort of work, do it well and take a pride in that.

So why, why is it so wrong for a woman to do those same childcare and housekeeping tasks, but in her own home, looking after her own home and children instead of looking after a stranger's home and children? Again, for some
this is what they truly want to do and enjoy, for others it seems the best of the choices available at the time, and for others they might feel forced into it because of financial or other considerations.

GColdtimer · 16/01/2008 11:34

exbatt, completely agree. I don't understand that part of the argument either.

RomySchneider · 16/01/2008 12:28

Exbatt, such an apropriate analysis, not sure if Xenia has an answer for that...

Anna8888 · 16/01/2008 12:44

There is an argument (one which I don't adhere to) that everyone ought work for the most money they can possibly earn. If you adhere to that school of thought and are able to earn £300 per hour, you must - and must subcontract those tasks you cannot therefore complete yourself (eg childcare and housework) to other, lesser paid, persons.

Don't know if that's Xenia's rationale, though.

margoandjerry · 16/01/2008 13:46

The studies showing children do less well in nurseries are always accompanied by Daily Mail style editorial about mothers and work. I don't mind the topic being opened up - what I mind is that fathers are never ever ever ever ever ever mentioned.

margoandjerry · 16/01/2008 13:49

typical example

And also completely untrue. I know quite a few Swedish or part Swedish families who have shared the childcare between the mother and the father and it bloody well works.

sprogger · 16/01/2008 13:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SueBaroo · 16/01/2008 13:53

Is this really turning into 'We're more picked on than you are'?

sprogger · 16/01/2008 13:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SueBaroo · 16/01/2008 13:56

sprogger, sadly, too true

Anna8888 · 16/01/2008 14:00

margoandjerry - change your media . Try the Economist and the FT if you don't want Daily Mail style commentary on the analysis.

Countingthegreyhairs · 16/01/2008 14:01

I'm not a fan of The Daily Mail but I know from Swedish friends that there IS a backlash developing from women who are beginning to question/feel resentment at being rail-roaded in to putting children in to state nurseries.

Oh for heaven's sake, I'm fed up of tip-toeing around the political correctness and if I get flamed for my next statement I don't care:

I know it's not for everyone, and not many people nowadays have a choice about this anyway, but I am going to state an old-fashioned view that I personally believe ... and that is, unless the child is underprivileged, the mother is depressed, or there is some other reason why a state nursery would be better, then I personally feel that a child under 2 is better off with one loving and committed carer who thinks they are the bees knees, preferably a family member.

I think things have got in to a ridiculous state when it's almost politically incorrect to say this any more.

Countingthegreyhairs · 16/01/2008 14:04

And just to add to Sprogger's point if I may:

aren't you missing something very vital out of the equation here??

... A deep (familial) love for the child, whether it's the mother's, father's or that of the extended family. A professional, however good, will not love your child as much as you do.

Anna8888 · 16/01/2008 14:08

To add to Countingthegreyhairs point about the Swedish backlash - I was talking to a French woman who had lived in Sweden for many years (her ex-husband was Swedish) and who had had her first two children while she was there and also holding down a demanding job with P&G. Her opinion was that nurseries were actually holding women back career-wise, as they only really worked for women with fixed working hours (teachers, secretaries, middle-management at a stretch). If you had a more senior job, it was super-difficult in Sweden because employing a maid or nanny was such a political no-no.

margoandjerry · 16/01/2008 14:10

There's a lot of tangential points here. My point was that in Sweden, fathers are expected to take on the early years caring as much as mothers are. My Swedish friends split it: 6months mum, 6 months dad.

I think this helps prevent family breakup, encourages fathers to bond with their children, promotes equality without damaging children.

Anna8888 · 16/01/2008 14:11

I thought there was lots of divorce in Sweden?

lalalonglegs · 16/01/2008 14:15

that anyone would think CGH was being controversial - surely that is common sense?

margoandjerry · 16/01/2008 14:15

I'm sure there is, divorce being a feature of a liberal, Western society. But I suspect that encouraging fathers to bond with their children and be an active part of the family structure helps to prevent the level being even higher.

Sakura · 16/01/2008 14:16

I'm in my 20s. My grandmother worked full time outside the home. My mother had a professional full-time career outside the home. Both of them had numerous kids (more than three). I fully assumed that I too, would be independant and have a fulfilling job outside the home when I had kids.

Until I gave birth to DD, that was. And then the feeling you get when you hear your baby cry and the thought of leaving her with someone else, and that you might not be there when she needs you and only you, made me feel incredibly gratefuly that I was one of the people who had a choice not to work. It something that can't be measured in monetary terms, which is why there will never be solid statistics to defend this choice.
I wish I didn't feel so strongly in some ways. Yes, I do feel I may be losing my sense of self and personal autonomy and I'm NOT criticizing people who do work full time and enjoy their careers. I am somewhat envious actually. But for me personally, I couldn't have it any other way.
Two things happened when I had DD- 1) I had instant respect for any woman who had given birth in a way that I hadn't before 2) I was amazed that it was seen as "the done thing" to leave your child to go out to work

NOw I look at studies about how we need to keep closing the gap between men and women's pay/job statis and I think that most of the researchers must be women without children, because somebody must know that many women just look after their babies because of the same feeling I got when suddenly all the paper shuffling and phone answering seemed meaningless.

SueBaroo · 16/01/2008 14:17

I really think it's not always relevant to use systems from other countries and cultures to try and prove anything the UK. So many more variables are involved.

Countingthegreyhairs · 16/01/2008 14:21

V. good point Sakura about statistics not really reflecting the strength of the emotional cost in all this.

Definitely agree about husbands sharing the load M and J and about state policy supporting that.

LoveAngel · 16/01/2008 14:24

Excellent point, Sakura.

Swipe left for the next trending thread