Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Work

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

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:
newgirl · 04/10/2005 14:41

Hi all

I've been upset about this today too. Why is that Dads don't get in on these reports? My DD always wants dad in the morning and cries when he has gone to work - no bloody reports on that one are there?

I work so have a dif view to Lacrimosa but I think you are brave to say your bit and I know several SAHM who think the same and would probably be less polite than you

This bloody report will now lead to my extended family have fresh ammo to moan at me about me working now - although, of course, none of them would ever volunteer to look after my DD for a morning.

deep breath aahhhhh

Missmibaby · 04/10/2005 14:50

Oh my gawd!! such a response - I can see this research got up a lot of noses.

Why do we have children? Becasue you want to be a parent? that sounds vague doesn't it, but I think that because it means different things for different people. imo being a parent means that bringing up a well-adjusted chikd who will cope/enjoy/have a good bash at their lives - after all they will leave home eventually. Sorry if I'm not making sense, but I think that a part of a child's development is learning that there are other adult figures to whom they can turn in times of need/fun/laughter. What mother is great at football,swmmming, art, cooking, reading, writing etc. Surely the idea of a society is that weall make our contributions and a child leanrs who he/she can go to for their different needs.

As I said before the main thing is love and as a parent you do your best by making sure that the chosen childcare will give the necessary love for your child at whatever point they are in their lives.

As far as affording it - one of the other message said if we all adhered to that there wouldn't be much of a population. It sounds like another middle-class argument...

OP posts:
PeachyClair · 04/10/2005 14:53

Sorry, but having worked with some needy famillies, I refuse to believe that the kids are worse off in a Nursery! Yes OK, if a Mum is happy (and that includes financially happy as money is a big stress factor), then maybe, but an unhappy Mother DOES NOT equal a happy child.

All mine went to childcare at various points: DS3 goes to a childminder who does far more activities with him than I ever could manage (I have poor eyesight and don't drive, we are in an isolated area).

When my eldest 2 were 9 weeks they went to my Mum for childcare: if I hadnt worked, we wouldnt have eaten or had a roof. Research like this used to break my heart as I had no choice. I was able to stay home longer with DS3, but he does go to care so i can study- the grants pay our bills and I will need a job to go back to.

PeachyClair · 04/10/2005 14:57

expat-

you're right about the 'working poor' bit, but I am reminded of the grants the Nazi's gave to people to stay home and marry if they found 'suitable' (ie Aryan) partners... a great method of population selection, reducing the breeding pool to those who can afford it.

onceonly · 04/10/2005 15:00

I have changed my name for this as I am not sure whether the person in question posts on this site.A teacher at ds's school was talking to me one day about various issues ans she said that although it was a politically incorrect point of view she said that most teachers herself included could tell which children had a a parent at home (mum or dad I think)and which were sent to childminders etc after school.She said those who were collected from school etc by parent were happier more emotionally stable and did better.This is not my opinion btw and it was said with regard to a class of 7 yr olds

Tortington · 04/10/2005 15:15

supposing you were not apartcularly good baby mum?
supposing unforseen circumstances forced your hand

supposing you lost the will to live staying at home?

if someone had given me a crystal ball maybe i would have made different choices.

no one tells you that actually some people find being a SAHM mind blastingly tedious. a loss of self to the extreme, hidious, grotesque, degenerative.

the other point i would like to make is this:

the amount of money one needs to raise a child is relative.

what makes any one person happy is relative
if the parent is happy the kid wil be happy - probably. not counting selfishness.

what one person thinks is good parents ing another disagrees hence a discussion forum called mumsnet and this isnt the only one is it.

and then a government fuck up economic stability and you end up having your house reposessed.

i dont get it - i just dont get the argument, its american stepford wives this is

the argument as i see it is this.

.........if your middle class well off and can afford it - a parent should stay at home to provide nurturing for child.

.....if your working class or the underclass and claim benefits get off your lazy fking arses and get on your bike to work - spending all our taxes becuase you cant be arsed working at tesco.
and then you go and have another kid ...for the child benefit money ( yeah right!!) and our taxes are paying for your lazy arse.

ok ok - i get it.

a good parent for the middle class is a SAHP - in fact its become rather popular - a fashion accessory like a four by four and having a cleaner.

a good working class parent is one that doesn't claim benefits - if you do - you shouldnt be entitled to children you should be able to afford them

expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 15:17

Yep, that about sums it up, custy. Spot on as usual.

ThomBat · 04/10/2005 15:23

Ahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa (that's a kind of laughing, exasperated scream!!!!)

What a crap sweeping statement from that teacher woman.

So all mums who stay at home with their kids do better jobs of bringing up their kids and the kids go onto to acheive more and are better people becasue if it, no matter what that SAHM is actually like as a person. Okay, fine, that's cool, it's her opinion, it SO isn't mine. I would never make such a sweeping staement and think there is a lot more to a child being happy and doing well at school than having a mum, or at dad at home with them.

So the 3 hours of the day when lottie is with her nana, not me, are going to effect her that much are they? The time difference from 3.30, school finish to 6.30 - mum arrives to collect her - they'll damage her for life will they??????

Give me a break!!!!!!!!!

Honestly!

You do have to laugh at such crap really don't you.

expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 15:24

You do indeed, Thomcat, have to laugh at such sweeping generalisations.

Gobbledispook · 04/10/2005 15:25

Onceonly - I've heard the same from a pre-school teacher and another primary teacher (mother of a friend).

ThomBat · 04/10/2005 15:25

ahaaaaa haaaahaaaaaaaaaaaa ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

That's either my sides splitting or i'm having another Braxon Hicks!

expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 15:26

LOL! My sister is a primary school teacher, whose daughter went to nursery. .

motherinferior · 04/10/2005 15:27

Well, in that case my kids are just going to have to cope. Sorry and all that, but I'm sure they'll manage somehow.

Gobbledispook · 04/10/2005 15:27

Not sure what's so funny. Of course it's a generalisation, as most things are, it doesn't mean it applies to everyone.

What reason would they have to say it if it wasn't a real observation they'd made?

Gobbledispook · 04/10/2005 15:28

These are 2 specific individuals - they aren't speaking for the whole teaching profession.

expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 15:30

They'll do fine, MI. Many people on the planet cope with far more harsh conditions than Western childminders and nurseries, find a way to cope, and become healthy, well-adjusted adults.

ThomBat · 04/10/2005 15:32

If I didn't laugh i'd scream that's why I'm laughing. Gritted teeth

And like I said - I personally don't believe for a second that the 3 hours of the day when lottie is with her nana, not me, are going to effect her that much.

Caligula · 04/10/2005 15:36

Yep. I'm sure there are lots of things kids don't get which they orta - museums, music lessons, mozart in the womb, holidays abroad in improving places looking at temples or practising their language skills, organic food, etc - but there aren't great big studies produced detailing how much worse off these kids are. And they probably are - I'm sure if I took my kids to museums occasionally, it would do them good. But I can't be arsed just now. So they'll just have to miss out on those things, but then again, they'll have other things which will benefit them in other ways (racking my brains to think of some! )

expatinscotland · 04/10/2005 15:44

Mine gets Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Chet Davis and Byrd and Dizz in the womb. Does that count?

ThomBat · 04/10/2005 15:48

yeah, does Theolonius Monk count? That and funky house?!! And I breastfed and then used organic food, and we take her to museums. Will she turn out okay? Even if after pre-school she's not with her mother for 3 hours.

dillydally · 04/10/2005 15:56

I secretly think i over compensate for being a working mum and on weekends we have unnecessray outings to cultural events, temples, museums, festivals, the opening of a gallery, the opening of an evelope when probably DD would prefer to stay at home colouring in my walls.
I blame these surveys - but am now confused as to whether I am not spending enough time with DD or hot housing her to over perform.

I am also toying with the idea of spending this weekend on an open toped double decker doing the sights of london with a flask of soup.

Missmibaby · 04/10/2005 16:07

Open-top bus sounds brilliant!!

Kaiser Cheifs anyone?

OP posts:
TheRtHonBaronessEnidOBE · 04/10/2005 16:13

my dd1's teacher thinks the same

PeachyClair · 04/10/2005 16:14

If nothing else, the brisk air on the open top bus will sharpen the immune system. My eldest two will be on a carnival float Saturday night- absolutely useless for school but great for lots of things (excercise, social skills, practical skills- ds1 is 5 and knows how to solder already), teamwork...

YES to the Kaiser Chiefs... I predict a riot!!!!!!

dillydally · 04/10/2005 16:29

na na na na naaaaaa

continuing the Kaiser chiefs theme