Selfish parents ruin their children's lives

[HecateQueenOfGhosts]

according to this

What do you think?

I completely agree with AMumInScotland. Correlation between two sets of circumstances (eg lone parent; child's behavioural problems) is not an explanation of cause and effect.

this is what penelope leach, guru of the attachment parenting theory, has to say about this...

I HATE these reports. they are useless from a public policy perspective, and can only be reported in a distorted way by the media, so I don't see the point really...

I also agree with muminscotland. Anf furthermore, perhaps they should look at the mental health of childrens whose parents remain together but are very unhappy and raising their kids in a dysfuntional surrounding.

Women working has brought them the oppotunity to leave and that is a good thing. They idiots behnd this (false) conclusion should be asking why people want to separate, and nott seeking to keep people together to supressing one gender.

Rowan Williams was on this commitee. I am and and it makes me question my own loyalty to the Church of England. Or maybe we just need a new Archbishop?

I dont think they have explored the option of parents both working part time?
They didnt really say whether they thought it was necessary for a happy family, that the dad should be the provider, it was just sort of implied.

Do we know if there were any single parents or working mothers among the team who wrote the report?

Oh, am .

I think it REALLY doesn't help the debate when this kind of thing comes out and gives ammunition to the reactionary brigade.

I didn't know the Children's Society was backed up by the Anglican church. That makes sense.

But yeh, why not report it a bit more in context? Lazy reporting.

GRRR. Going to make feminist effigies in snow.

Think it's telling that this was covered on the same Today programme that Mandelson was on to tell us that we can go get jobs in eastern Europe if we can't find one here . Cos that won't impact family life will it?

I thought the Penelope Leach comments were a bit too PC (but I shall be very interested to read the whole of her new book). She makes the (correct) point that children require good quality childcare and that good quality childcare costs a lot of money and that children do fine if left in good quality childcare.

But most second earners' salaries don't cover the costs of good quality childcare.

@Anna - surely childcare isn't just paid for by second earner? It's a family being raised, 1st earner should be kicking in too. And Childminder's can be best quality childcare, at around £3 per hour per child - way less than minimum wage in UK.

You see what SAHM vs WAHM does to my grammar? childminders ffs. I sound like a gr'eengrocer

Think again.

If second earner is making £30,000 working full-time outside the home and nanny costs £31,000, is it financially interesting for the family as a whole for the second earner to continue working?

Discussing it on fivelive now

Where do childminders only cost £3 per hour per child? They are £6.50 per hour per child where I live. So, I would put them in Anna's (lot of money) category.

Starlightmac and Victoriansqualour - I agree with your posts. Think the working mum thing was probably reported in such a way as to (understandably) incite wrath - media seem to love to do this!

It does seem to be the done thing at the moment to moan about your children and 'joke' about not wanting them around. It has become acceptable, almost derigure (sp) to roll eyes and say oh well when spending a day with children.

Why does it need to be a £31k nanny, who may not be the best form of childcare? I earn more than this, but would not pay out all my wages on a nanny, when I can spend £7/8k on a nursery that dd loves.

I would like to point out that if you have two small children requiring full time care, a live-in nanny is in fact cheaper than either a childminder or a nursery.

It's exactly what you would expect in a downturn, guilt the middle class mothers who are able to command a decent salary and benefits into giving up work.
The ducking stools will be coming out next, it's always been the mothers fault since time began.

But this is a tempest in a teapot, ladies; the report says little about working mothers, and much more about the gimme society that surorunds us all, the constant desire for more and more stuff. You could conceviably be a working mother who focused entirley on caring for others, in eg a helping profession or eg a campaign group. The report is as I read it criticising eg SAT tests and grasping marketers, not working mums.

How many nannies get 31k? If they all do then I'm retraining - way over national average earnings

They have some valid points about selfishness and materialism being bad for children - pity its mixed up with a sort of wistful call for the return of the 1950s.

I think this kind of thing is weirdly forgetful about the past.

Women have always worked - particularly in working-class households, agricultural and industrial settings in the past. Childcare was more often grandparents or older siblings and I fail to see why that was necessarily better than a nursery or childminder with training and regulation. Let's not forget that in the past children were routinely beaten and neglected and if they were abused, there was little help for them.

There have always been single parents too - longer ago, people died young / in childbirth much more often and single-parent families and stepfamilies were common - there are stepfamilies in loads of fairytales aren't there - I read somewhere recently that the levels today are similar to in the 15th century for example.

I would like to know how they know that children are less happy now. Could it just be that people listen to children now and we have much more concern for children with problems, so we know more about how they feel?

The sexism also riles me - totally unnecessary, what a wasted opportunity to put the focus on parents not mothers.

I do take their point about indivualism and consumerism etc. But they could have looked at the way these things might affect children independently of those other issues.

Totally agree about working hours too - and inflexibility and bullying by employers who put parents to the test by expecting them to work long hours, instead of making life easier for them.

Good point abbeylubber....but since when has anyone on this forum managed not to turn this sort of discussion into a outraged WOHM/SAHM slagging match...?

snowleopard - lots of working class women did stay at home though. The women in Lark Rise and the rural part of North and South, were all SAHMs, iirc.

My own ancestors include at least one single mother that I know of, who had to support her children, but she was able to work at home, afaic. Also, as others have said, the extended family was stronger.

I think this is the headlines are symptomatic of slanted and biased reporting.

The contention that:

"Children with separate, single or step parents are 50% more likely to fail at school, have low esteem, be unpopular with other children and have behavioural difficulties, anxiety or depression,"

is a matter of statistical fact. However the report and the headlines go beyond that fact to argue that women (and note only women) working causes separation, single parenthood and step-parenting.

My children are enriched in many ways by my working. They have a role model for equality both in the workplace and at home. They have a better education and more life experiences (travel etc) courtesy of my working. And they are in absolutely no doubt that they are loved and cherished. Oh and they have exhibited no behavioural problems in any way.

I would like to take this report and insert its voluminous bulk right up the arses of the 8 academics to see if this works as a cure for peddling right wing, reactionary and anti-faminist bollocks.