"In western society, we use sophisticated mockery to diminish the too-devoted parent.

[emkana]

We characterise women as fettishly connected to their babies if they breastfeed openly and for as long as nature intended. We seduce them back to work and the marital bed and proclaim them weak if they put their own needs on hold while attending to those of small children."

(From Deborah Jackson, Baby Wisdom.)

What do you think? Is she right or not?

Always thought I should have read some Germaine Greer!!!!
Monkeytrousers, couldn't agree more. Just always debating in my head as to whether or not mothers have the "right" to stay at home and if society should help that to happen etc etc!

Like everything else, parenthood is (usually) a choice. And I don't think we should be stigmatised whatever choice we make. It's not compulsory. I think society should help parents make the choice easier, not just mothers - if society encouraged fathers to be more hands on then perhaps mothers wouldn't feel so beleagured whatever they do!

i'm self employed but lost my agent six months after birth of my first baby a few months ago, because i wanted to stay at home with him and not put him into a nursery. Frankly, i do not trust somebody i do not know to look after my son. And we are broke if i do not work but at the moment i think it is the right choice for him. I have had many comments from friends and colleagues about how having their baby hardly interfered with their work at all, and how quickly they returned to work after the birth, and some obviously think i am a weaker person for making the choice i have. As for breast feeding, my ds is ten months and i still breast feed to the shock of some people i know and my in laws. I agree the 'we' of Jackson's text is annoying but i think she speaks a lot of truth, unfortunately.

i think bugsy 2 it is not very forward thinking to say we are 'lucky' we have that choice, just as it would not be to say black people are 'lucky' they have equal rights.

well said Wordsmith was just about to ask So what about the dads then? I think if we ahvd reasonable and flexible hours for all working parents then life would be better for everyone, Mums dads and kids.

I hate to say it again but I think we need to look to the EU to curb British business interests on precisley that matter. I'm all for Brussels putting a cap on the maximum working week if it'll help the cause of parents.

ruty, I do think we are lucky. It is only because we live an economically stable country that there is any chance for a parent to stay at home and raise their child/children. I do not think it is forward or backward looking just a statement of belief.
I work part-time myself and constantly wonder whether there is a "right" for a parent to stay at home to raise their child, whether it is right for society to support that choice economically if necessary. However, I am not criticising - just thinking. Provoking discussion in a way, as I am interested to see what others think.

Rights always spring from privilege.

I'd go further and say it was a statement of fact Bugsy, not only belief.

I agree that women have always worked, but the development of work to which you cannot take your children is extremely recent - post Industrial Revolution I believe.
In most of the world and historically all that work in the fields etc would have been done with your children.

Ruty, I do think one is lucky if one can afford not to do something one doesn't want to do. It's nothing to do with equal rights, everyone has the right to do whatever they want, not necessarily the opportunity.

i take your point bugsy 2 and wordsmith, but i still think saying we are lucky isn't that helpful, yes we are in context with history and with poorer nations, but still we should have a better situation for mothers here - better creches at work, better work options, better maternity leave, better paternity leave, better pay, i could go on and on. I lost my work because i didn't want to go back to work immediately after having my baby. I think more could be done in this country and so it should be done.

and wordsmith it depends on what you mean by affording not to go back to work. It is relative. We are very broke because of our decision that i look after our ds and it is hard.

also, historically women had extended families that they could leave their children with whilst they worked. This still exists in the form of mothers and in laws. I don;t have a mother to take care of my son, and my mother in law lives 200 miles away. So that makes a difference to my work choices. The government depends on unpaid help to raise children, be it mothers, or grandmothers.

I do think the situation where women 'stay at home' - without doing other work (yes, I do know about housework etc), behind closed doors - is also very new in historical terms, and in terms of human behaviour throughout evolution, extremely unnatural, which may be why there is so much depression in women who choose this option. Childcare was something traditionally done alongside other work and was shared responsibility.

How would you actually fit childcare around working in fields or doing serious pre-Hoover housework and microwave-free cooking? If there were no older kids to look after the baby would you just leave it in its cradle to cry? Or put it in a tree as in the rock-a-bye-baby rhyme?

It would probably be attached to you as you see with African women.

I'm not suggesting this as appropriate for corporate lawyers btw. Merely pointing out that our current models of sahm v working mothers are both extremely 'unnatural' in terms of human evolution.

Absolutely agree Aloha. It is totally at odds with our social historical development IYSWIM.

Ruty - we can't do something about an issue if we're in denial about the reality of it. Calling it lucky may seem defeatist, but it's only after you assess a situation accurately that you can make suitable plans to change it. Or apply a moral framework to it.

We are of course eminently adaptable but the culture of isolation for sahm's, coupled with society's many other oppressive rituals is catastrophic for many.

well, that's why I'm not a City lawyer anymore. Shame I couldn't sit at my desk drafting contracts with ds strapped to my back

i am not in denial monkeytrousers! i am merely saying just because things may be better for us than for some developing countries does NOT mean things should not be better. I don't think you can compare in such simplistic terms. In our society, my experience in my field of work is there is much prejudice towards women who have children and do not suddenly become a size 8 and dive back into work. That is wrong, and the fact that we do not have the standard of maternity and paternity leave and creche care they have in say, Scandinavian countries, is a deliberate oversight on the government's part.

Wow, what an interesting thread. Brillian post Custardo as usual.

I dont know what I think as I changed my mind so many times reading diffferent views. Good to see it didnt turn into a slanging match too.

No Rudi, I didn't mean it personally. And I agree with you on everything you've said.

I'm probably just approaching it from an academic perspective. That's why I flagged up Hume's fallacy further down the thread. It's just a way of getting to the meat of an issue before looking at it through a moral prism - thats the next step of course.

Hope that doesn't sound too arrogant. I'm just a student!

I work part-time myself and constantly wonder whether there is a "right" for a parent to stay at home to raise their child, whether it is right for society to support that choice economically if necessary.

About this point Bugsy, perhaps it depends on what it is that society is purporting to support. I lean to the left (surprise!) so I'm inclined to hope (and vote) for a society that enables people towards such goals.

Everything seems to be in support of capitalism however which is at odds with that as it depends on the relative exploitation of the weaker members of society..like women (or primary carers of either gender) and children.