Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Ooh this makes me angry (working mums blamed again...)

44 replies

PlanetEarth · 27/03/2011 17:45

Daily Telegraph article.

"Working mothers spend 81 minutes a day looking after their children
Working mothers in Britain spend just 81 minutes each day looking after their children - including mealtimes - a report has found."

In summary: SAHM spend 2hrs 35 a day directly caring for their children
Working mums: 81 min a day
Non-working dads: 63 min
Working dads: 43 min

So, SAHMs only manage 1hr 24min a day more than working mums - what do they do the rest of the time, considering that working parents have to clean, shop etc. just like SAHMs.
But, worst of all, working mums manage more child-centred time than non-working dads, but just look at the headline - working mums in the dock yet again.

Let battle commence!

OP posts:

PenguinArmy · 27/03/2011 20:40

am at the article but there are also very funny comments on here that made me :)

I particularly like 'two mums better than a mum and dad'

Drizzela · 27/03/2011 20:47

Also, as usual its the comments that kill me:

"The mother is the natural carer because she grows the baby and carries the food source. Personally if I'd have had a £1m a year job I would have chosen to give it up in order to bring up my children."

Jesus fucking christ - the fact that someone so deluded has bred is actually the most worrying thing.

Drizzela · 27/03/2011 20:53

Working people pay tax which is used to support single income families where one parent has made the choice that it is better for their children (with no factual/ scientific or statistical evidence) that they stay at home with them, despite the fact that the other parent doesnt earn a high salary.

In my opinion to give up work when as a fmily you can't support your children without support from a government that could pull the plug at any time is far more 'neglectful' than going to work and bringing money in to the house.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that is neglectful. Just that if words like 'neglect' are going to be thrown around then I think perception is key.

Drizzela · 27/03/2011 21:01

In fact, talking of how far away from equality we really are... Did our mums have it easy than we did in this area? I don't think they had all these studies shoved down their necks.
We used to finish school and play in the street until bed time, regardless of whether our mums worked or not. My mum sometimes worked, sometimes she didn't, I don't recall being in the slightest bit concerned whther she did or didnt. I know she didnt have the gulit that so many have nowadays.

I think the arguement that a mother must devote her life to her children else they somehow won't turn out right is inherently sexist. Some how people have bought in to it and dedicated their time to policing other women who have made a choice, the same as they have, to do what is right for their family.

thefinerthingsinlife · 27/03/2011 21:11

I really should learn not to read the comments under articles like this

Drizzela · 27/03/2011 21:27

Me too, hence the 3 consecutive and progressivly more angry posts!

pointythings · 27/03/2011 21:35

I gave up reading the comments about halfway through when I realised my BP was not going to stand the strain.

I'd question the figures too, I work f/t and have an hour's commute each way and certainly manage more than 81 minutes each day, much, much more on weekends.

I've responded to this by un-bookmarknig the Telegraph - they've just entered Daily Hate territory and I'm not giving them any of my time. FWIW, DH and I work and our DCs know that you don't get something for nothing, that you need to work to get a decent education, that you don't buy stuff you can't afford - I think that by working, we are teaching them to live in the real world.

queenofthecapitalwasteland · 28/03/2011 08:47

I noticed on the news this morning that 4 out of 10 men will not be taking Paternity leave as they feel it would affect their career and cannot rely on SPP and the mother's wages (because all men are breadwinners ).

Just makes me laugh that it's okay for women to affect their careers.

kerala · 28/03/2011 08:53

Buts its the Torygraph why on earth is anyone surprised its spouting such drivel? Totally agree that the emphasis on the working mother figure in the headline is despicable .

SmellsLikeTeenStrop · 28/03/2011 13:15

Wow, so working mothers are still doing more active hands on childcare then non-working fathers. That's pretty astonishing. WTF are these men doing?

SardineQueen · 28/03/2011 13:19

It is astonishing isn't it teenstrop.

Also astonishing that this revelation is not what has been picked up in the article

ineedagoodsolicitor · 28/03/2011 13:27

In conclusion then, the way to maximise a child of today's quality parent time and standard of living is for the family unit to be headed by 2 mums.

Something I have long suspected anyway.

I could have been awesome in the workplace if I'd had a stay at home woman supporting me !

darleneconnor · 28/03/2011 13:49

Is the figure maybe per child? SAMH's probably have slightly more DCs on average than WOHM's so that might explain it?

msbossy · 28/03/2011 14:01

Working dads: 43 min

I just don't buy it. DH is dedicated and adoring of DD but his working hours mean that he probably spends 0-20 minutes with DD on weekdays (most of which it putting DD to bed). Combine that with the knowledge of a number of friends' OH who don't even get involved at weekends...

Fennel · 28/03/2011 14:02

as a wohm I really don't look to the Telegraph for validation or condemnation of my life. so it doesn't bother me what they say about this.

As for the survey, I find those time use surveys very interesting, but it totally depends on what you count as childcare, I'd say I do a lot more than that with 3 primary age children in a normal working day. And I don't think I'm that selflessly overinvolved. But if you count all the getting ready for school and getting breakfast and picking up and feeding and so on it certainly FEELS like more than 81 minutes a day.

Bramshott · 28/03/2011 14:11

There is a reason I guess why they say "81 minutes" rather than "1 hr 21 minutes" - it sounds much less doesn't it!

Original poster

PlanetEarth · 28/03/2011 14:28

Interesting too that there's no mention of what any of these children are doing the rest of the day.

Sleeping?
Watching telly?
At school?
Interacting with other adults and/or children?
Doing sports?
Mugging old ladies?

The differences between all 4 groups could be minimal when you consider that a child is awake during the day for an average of what, 12 hrs a day? 9 for babies? (don't know really). That's a lot of hrs unaccounted for. But obviously those hours are not important, the only important hours in a child's life are the hours spent as the sole focus of mum .

OP posts:

slug · 28/03/2011 15:01

How about "Working mothers encourage independance and self sufficiency in their children" as a headline instead?

sethstarkaddersmackerel · 28/03/2011 15:05

Fennel has hit the nail on the head, from what I read about this they are using a very narrow definition of caring for children, so IIRC, giving the children their bath would count but tidying up their bath toys afterwards, for example, wouldn't be.

Flip

1 2