Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Working mothers lambasted again!!

266 replies

Missmibaby · 04/10/2005 11:26

Has anyone seen The Times today? Yet more articles telling us that wokring mothers are bad for their kids development. Isn't it funny how all the examples they use are middle-class women who left well-paid jobs, who are married to husbands with extremely well-paid jobs: bankers, lawyers, media-types. One of the headlines was that a woman didn't go back to work until her children were ten years old. The article then went to explain how she worked from her attic whilst employing full-time nannies! Real world? Not for most of us. I am the main wage-earner in our house. My DP is on £20,000 per year and our mortgage is c.£10,000 per year. What little luxuries would anyone recommend we cut back on if I were to give up work. Beleive me I do nothing but think about my son all day, I would love to be with him. I have another on the way and am trying to think of ways that I can work less. My son has always been cared for by well-chosen loving people. The childcare arrangements have changed very little inhis short life and I think he is a well-balanced, sociable, well-advanced little boy. I think the most important thing that he has in his life is that I love him to bits and I make sure he knows it!! Sorry for the rant I know it's not mumsnet faultbut but these generalisations make me so

I don't think women who stay at home are better or worse than women who go to work. It's how they treat thei kids that matters.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 11:34

I WISH I didn't have to go out to work! Of course, these 'articles' come out at the same time the government is 'encouraging' (more like forcing out of financial necessity) both parents to work outside the home.

Mortgage? LOL!

Every one of the women shown when the BBC aired this piece of 'news' was white and in her mid-30s. Not that there's anything wrong w/that, it's just that it's hardly representative of the entire UK.

Of course, last week's 'article' lambasted women who 'defy nature' by not having kids until their 30s and up.

You can't win for losing.

eefs · 04/10/2005 11:49

I love the way they forget history - mothers have always gone to work, children would have generally been tended to by extended family rather than the more formal childminding we have today. Now we have more holidays, flexible working hours, paid sick leave, numerous time/labour saving devices, less children than older generations. Even working full time we can spend as much quality, one-on-one time with our children as our grandmothers could.

mummycan · 04/10/2005 11:49

Annoys me itensely too - where are the full page articles on fathers who spend most of their time at work, then go off to the pub, take work calls at home and sleep in at the weekends - is that not bad for the children?

I am a SAHM now but due to financial pressures I worked until DD was 3. To be honest don't think I am any happier now (but that's a whole new thread)but I hate reading about how nursery for under 3 year olds stresses them out. My dd went to nursery for 4 full days a week from 6 months - when I gave up work I cut her hours at work. She is now a lovely, independent, polite, considerate 5 year old who loves school and is not overly clingy - some of the credit for that must go to nursery surely.

And as I've said above - Why is it always the mum's fault?

mummycan · 04/10/2005 11:51

I cut her hours at nursery not work - I wasn't sending her out to work! Must preview

Original poster
Missmibaby · 04/10/2005 12:11

Glad to see there are some normal mothers out there who live in the real world. My mother and father both worked, but i don't think myself or my brother suffered.

I didn't see this piece on the news, but yes I can imagine that all the women chosen were white, middle-class. Nothing wrong with that - just that not everyone is in the same boat.

OP posts:
LadyFioOfTipton · 04/10/2005 12:18

due to our circumstances, i was sahm for several years as I was unable to work. husband worked away, childcare too expensive etc etc. i now work part time whilst my husband looks after the kids, weekends and evenings obv. My neighbour didnt congratulate me on getting a crappy job to pay my bills, nooo she reminded me that she stayed at home with her childrten until they left school as she doesnt agree with mother working. her dil doesnt work either. Fine I thought, but that is her opinion and as I pointed out to her i didnt make the kids on my own their father helkped

Nightynight · 04/10/2005 12:20

rant away missmibaby, thats what mumsnet is for!
I agree with you by the way.

Bugsy2 · 04/10/2005 12:42

Completely agree with you eefs. It was only for a micro-second historically speaking that children were exclusively looked after by their mothers (1940s onwards) & yet somehow the human race has made it to where we are today.
We all have to do what is best for our own personal situation. I'd like to know how they analysed stress levels in children. Surely those tests in themselves must have been stressful??????

beetlejuice73 · 04/10/2005 12:44

So agree with you MMB. And good point Eefs. I don't regret working - I'm lucky enough to have a job that I enjoy, and I also don't think I could be a full-time SAHM. But I'd still like more choice and a slightly shorter week. I have to work, because I'm the only earner in the family. That's a tough enough responsibility without having this extra guilt piled on. If I really thought that DD suffered without me for 4 days a week, then I'd reconsider our set-up. I don't think she does, and as far as I can tell she's just as happy, lively, advanced and loving as any other baby of her age (if not more so ).
This kind of report is so blase in assuming that all mothers have choices. It's also worth noting that here in France standard maternity leave is 3 months (too short imo), and nobody's beating their breast here about that. This issue seems to be a peculiarly British obsession at the moment.

Gobbledispook · 04/10/2005 12:47

Roisin's ds was part of the study, perhaps you can ask her but she reassured us on the other thread that the study was very thorough.

If you're happy with your choices and your child seems happy, why do you let it wind you up?

littlemisspiggy · 04/10/2005 12:50

I'm glad someone else's is p**d off at that article.
These 'articles' are really not constructive and just serve to undermine people who are doing their best and may not have the choice to stay at home.
My mum worked and as a child I was very aware that she was doing it to give me the best she could. I didn't feel I was missing out emotionally either.
I am the sole earner in our house and DS is looked after partly by DH and partly at nursery and has my full attention when I'm home and in my opinion he's a happy (most of the time but what child doesn't have his moments), sociable & balanced child.
Why don't these people just shut up.

Fangache · 04/10/2005 12:50

Gobble - That is such an odd thing to ask.... and is always asked on threads like this.... but in the context of implying that we are clearly not happy with our choices!!

Whether people are happy about choices or not doesn't mean that being slated for your choice won't still bug the shit out of you!

Honestly..... only on MN!

Gobbledispook · 04/10/2005 12:52

S'pose so - I guess it's like the breast and bottle debate for me. I'm perfectly happy with formula feeding but the debates get right up my nose!!

I guess I'm just trying to say, if your child is happy and well adjusted and it's working out for you, don't worry about it!

Fangache · 04/10/2005 12:53

I wonder if there were an article stating that children who stay at home with their Mums every day turn into clingy, antisocial lumps of lard.... I'm sure a few Mums would express their anger and annoyance at that article. Would that mean they were not happy with their choice to be a SAHM????? Noooooooo, it would just mean that an article was published that they didn't agree with that slated the way they have chosen to rear their child! Simple as.

Lacrimosa · 04/10/2005 12:54

I have not read the article but I personally believe that a child should have care from at least one of its parents full time whether its a dad or mum.

Fangache · 04/10/2005 12:55

Unfortunately when things like this are published its only natural that parents (lets not leave Dads out) will worry that they have made the right choices.

Fangache · 04/10/2005 12:56

Lacrimosa - And if you can't afford to do that should you just never have children?

beetlejuice73 · 04/10/2005 13:00

Why Lacrimosa?

littlemisspiggy · 04/10/2005 13:00

Quite.

Lacrimosa · 04/10/2005 13:05

I do personally believe that if you can not afford to have children that you should not. Why have children and have to move to a bigger house that you have to work long hours or even both of you work long hours to keep and not look after your own children? I do also agree that there are many people who have been put in a situation that they have to work though only because they have to for example a marriage break up.

Eaney · 04/10/2005 13:05

WHy is this type of research commissioned. Who is going to do what with the information? Most women work because they have to either for financial reasons, their sanity or a mixture of both. No amount of research is going to alter this.

Perhaps the very few who are really not sure what to do and can truely see the advantages of both approaches may be swayed by these types of reports.
My fear is that a report like this can make some parents so convinced that staying at home is best that they ignore their reality.

I know one SAHM who stayed at home even though they really could not afford it (constantly borrowed money from family) and it broke up the relationship. He felt she was not being realistic and was putting an unreasonable pressure on the family. He felt undermined that they were living on handouts.

I know another SAHM whose partner worked 4 (yes 4) jobs (about 80 hrs) so that she could continue to delude herself that the family could afford to live like this. This ended tragically.

I think staying at home is great if it is best for the Family that includes everyone not just the kids. I know other families where this works well. Happy family = happy kids.

Parents need to act responsinly and need to be good role models for their children and if this type of report encourages parents to do something they really cannot afford then it is a very unhelpful piece of work.

oliveoil · 04/10/2005 13:07

I think that children are better off in the home. But I work, money would be extremely tight if I didn't. So you just get on with it.

Just because something is seen to be better, does not mean that you can do it (see breasfeeding/only buying organic/h/m purees v jars blah blah blah).

hocuspocusdiplodocus · 04/10/2005 13:08

It's not just "in the home", either, it's "in the home being looked after by their mothers", I think.

So Gawd knows what harm we've done ours by having DH look after them .

Enid · 04/10/2005 13:13

I do think children do better being looked after by mum IF its a certain type of hands on, cheerful mum. I personally think childminders are better than nurseries for the under-threes as i think its important for kids to see the boring side of family life rather than doing activities every minute of the day.

I work by the way so am a hypocrite but I have never felt in the slightest bit guilty about it.

gossifer · 04/10/2005 13:18

lacrimosa - we live in a 1 bedroom flat and do not live a lifestyle beyond our means, i'm going back to work part-time and ds will go to nursey and play with lots of other kiddies parttime too, are you saying that we should not have had a child?????

Swipe left for the next trending thread