Article on Motherhood in Guardian

[Blackduck]

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/mar/26/modern-mother-equality-illusion

Have only skim read, but usual comments!

It's quite interesting the shift in what 'being with a primary carer' means to a lot of women today. I have seen threads on here where new mothers are worried about their babies being cared for by different members of their family when they return to work. The ideal seems to have become that the mother and only the mother is dedicated to caring for her child. And that really doesn't do anyone any favours I believe.

LeninGrad - you have just triggered a thought in my mind - which is not very well thought out, but has been lingering at the back of my mind for a while now. So this may not make much sense.

I am part african, part european. My african experiance of family is far more extended than the traditional 'nuclear family' of the west. People who are strangers (I literally have no idea who they are) in the UK, are close family in africa (i.e. the children of my grandmothers second cousin!). Notion of family and childcare is more fluid and it is accepted that you will have other people being very, very involved in your childrens childcare and from an early age.

If you are woman and you work (which is pretty much all women be it in the market, domestic work, owning a business or employed by a company) - rich or poor - as a woman it is not unusual not to have some kind of support in place (or to be the support for someone else at one point in your life).

I really struggled with one UK based SIL (who is lovely) - who was very clear once she married that my brother that he was part of new primary family and we had to step back. Culturally it was a big shock for me ( and still doesn't entirely make sense to me), particularly it appeared to me to make their lives harder. I see similar discussions on MN alot and understand that the general consensus is closer to my SIL's viewpoint than mine.

If the societal construct of what parenting includes is more fluid to include other people, would that relieve some of the 'mothers guilt' we are all subjected to? Not on an exploitative basis - but as part of what a society/community does for each more the norm - would remove the 'all or nothing debate'? For example, a member of my family lives with me and is paid to do the 'au pair/nanny' role. So I pay her, provide accomodation and food - but also I support her in career decision making, education decisions and other things, we live like sisters (she teaches me about current fashion/music/hair styles). She will not live with me forever, but we both benefit from the arrangement rather than a staight employer/employee relationship (and the kids do too).

Not that structural/legislative/flexible working implementation changes don't need to happen - I was just interested in it from a cultural perspective.

I agree with noodle that it's important to set a good precedent right from the start - and stick to it. I was always very clear with DP that I was never going to be a 'housewife' for him - I don't mean I brought it up in a combative way, there's no need for that, just made it clear that that is not who I am or what I do.

I don't know how things will change when I'm on maternity leave, I think that's very often when inequality starts to creep into a seemingly equal relationship (as in this article), and the inequality seems to persist very often even if/when the woman goes back to paid work. I think it will help in a way that I can only take a maximum of 4 months (I know I should feel upset and deprived about this, but it has its advantages too) so we won't get into such a habit. Also I would want to make sure we both understand that my leave is for (a) me to recover from the pregnancy and birth and (b) for me to look after the baby. It's not for me to run around ironing his shirts and cleaning up after him and making sure his dinner is on the table. It may also help that my income stays the same during mat leave so I won't be depending on him to support me financially.

I've tried to read through this thread in its entirety but really just want to respond to noodle's comments about being a 'younger' parent -

I am 'younger', I suppose (23 when DD was born 14 months ago) and I feel immense, HUGE pressure to parent her 'well'. I have also really, really struggled with becoming a mother. I am still not back at work, mainly because before having her I had not really settled into any particular job and didn't believe I had found my 'calling', or what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. DH, however, is 9 years older and well ensconced in his chosen career and is a big earner. So, childcare and housework have fallen to me.

Things were not equal at first, far from it, but they are becoming more and more so. Once I return to work (once I decide what path is best for me), I will feel much more equal. As it is, I feel as though I need to do more at home to compensate for me not earning a wage. Part of me screams 'get back to work, then' while another part thinks 'aaah, but it's best for DD to have you around while she's still little' and I also feel quite lucky to be financially able to spend this time with her. She is a delight.

It is a huge internal battle for me and one which I turn over in my head every day. I think that I'll always wonder whether I should have waited until I was older and had an established career to have a child. I have always thought of myself as a feminist, but it wasn't until I had DD that I really thought about what that meant. Having a child has really opened my eyes.

Being younger does not mean that you are 'free' from concerns at all.

Sorry, one more point - I think that, because I was younger, I wasn't really sure about what I wanted from marriage/life/having a child. I didn't really set any precedent from the start with DH, simply because I couldn't. Personal relationships and sense of self evolve so much, especially when you're young, and it seems I was probably quite naive and foolish to think that I could be equal with DH just because I wanted to be

SWallowed a fly - can't remember saying that AStronaut70 was good - intersting if I did, cos it does suggets that I see him as doing beyond what a 'normal' man would do - but then, that could be becasue my dad didn't ever do a tap.

I think I was just trying to say that even if things do appear to be a fifyt-fifty split (he cooks, I launder; he does downstairs, I do upstairs; he mows, I cut hedges), the mother still ends up doing the bulk of child-related tasks and, as soome one else said, teh man is seen to be a hero if he does anything outside earning money.

Incidentally, I earn more - so perhaps my household duties should be reduced still further. I also wonder how equal we'd be, had I not grown up in a completely unequal household - but maybe that's affected my choice of men.

Sorry, rambling. Lunch hour.

Hiya just got in from work and lots of good points. I agree snowmama thats what it is like for me here and I am from a English background. Family is a massive focus after children and my family were all involved straight away. I would definitely leave my child with my family, I had my mum and dad looking after her from when my daughter was less than a week old. I didnt think twice about it cause culturally I saw it as normal. I didnt feel the slightest bit of guilt leaving her with Gps, extended family members etc. We were both teenagers when we wed (well I was just literally turned 20) but I already told him what I wanted out of life, how many kids, and what I would like to do. We discussed it loads when we first met before we got married. It still meant a lot of learning though as I was completely rubbish at cooking and ironing, and he was awful organising the finances.

We just played to our strengths and made sure if one did one thing then one wasnt doing more 'work' overall than the other. I think I learnt how to be in a relationship/marriage and how to be a mum from all your family right up to extended family. IAll though I grew up in a family where family comes first, my mum or nan were definitely not rushing around after my dad/Grandad so I take on board what astronaut79 said that it did affect my choice of men.

I think your situation mothertucker is because of the age difference one of you is at a different life stage as they are more ahead in a career so that might be worrying you. If I were you I wouldnt let it remember he has 9 years on you which is a long time anything can be achieved in that time and by then you could be doing a job you really love.I dont think you have to do everything at home to compensate as your job is literally one of the most useful in the world.

On lenins point I have never wanted independence though so that might be a difference to many on here. (that would be my idea of hell). I want my family all around me and one of the reasons I left the military is I couldnt cope with living a 100 miles away. I think on Lenins point 'we can change it with a cultural shift' Some areas have already had a cultural shift away from the extended family/extended support/community spirit for many people due to people moving away from the families, going for jobs in other places, media involvement, people trying to get things perfect, not knowing your neighbours and your estate, and seeing parenting as a big competition etc. I dont think some sections of society will ever get that back, which I agree is a shame.

noodle, what about university? kids often leave home to go and study, and don't go back to where their parents live - it would be pretty much taking it back to rural communities where no-one ever moved away, they married the boy next door etc etc.

life just isn't like that any more. the support is still needed, but the family element just often isn't there.

interesting that you moved back home, but presumably your husband moved away. do you think that women need their families more?

I went away and did a degree and joined military but I wouldnt move away for ever. I was ringing all the time and back most weekends.

My husband did move away but we regularly visit, call, facebook, skype etc. I think its very important for my in laws to be very involved with our children to. I hope they think I am like a daughter to them and try and do everything I can to be there for them. We are hoping to move closer to them in a few years on my dads retirement. My mum, dad, brother and family, nan etc are all going to move up country together and then both halfs of the family will be closer together. Additionally a lot of my husbands extended family are round here in our current local area though so we do a lot with them.

'life just isn't like that any more. the support is still needed, but the family element just often isn't there'

Also support is available in the form of SureStart I think everything they do is amazing. (Although I may be a bit biased!) I think they really do bring communities together and offer services and outreach to those who really need it.

Yes, for me it is being able to to tap into to a modle of community and support - and not feeling guilty about it. It may be your actual natural family, as in the case of noodle69 or a re-constructed version (as in my case).

Alongside structural support with initiatives such as Sure Start (despite them being currently phased out.. but that is the start of a slightly different rant!).

it is intersting though. one of the huge criticisms of surestart was that the centres were full of yummy mummies offspring, rather than 'the people it was supposed to help'. but with threads like this, it appears that often the 'yummy mummies' are in more need of support than those from the deprived areas they were originally designed to support...

Not really true madwoman. I see children who are really in need of surestart support in my area. Ones that are under SS which really need help. They need help more than anyone I think and thats what I hope to do in my job is help them have a some kind of normal childhood. Its the really, really disadavantaged that Surestart want to be able to help and that is a very difficult process.

I still dont believe in segregated Surestarts though. As though we dont have middle class mummies at our setting we do have lotsof working class parents who have a similar background to mine. I do think it benefots people who have had no decent parenting role models growing up and the children living in very difficult situations such as being exposed to DV, hard drug use etc to see other types of families and parents to help them pull themselves up from the difficulties that they face.

I think I am still of the opinion that mums needing support, cuts accross age and socio-economic factors

I also have always thought that a diversity of people attending sure start schemes would be a good thing.. but perhaps that is a naive response on my part.

I totally agree snowmama. Thats why I hope it doesnt go that way. I think there should be a mix of people from the area if possible. Both mums and dads, ones struggling and ones not so much. I think it makes it more like a community.

I guess the argument with Surestart would be that it's primarily to improve children's chances of getting a more equal start in life, rather than to provide support for mothers. Of course the two things are not unconnected, but generally the middle class children are not disadvantaged in the same ways many poorer ones are, and not at risk of the same bad outcomes, regardless of how stressed and unfulfilled their 'yummy mummies' are.

These are big generalisations though, and I agree it seems like a good thing to have a diverse range of people attending these schemes.