Wise Ruby Wax - working and stay at home parents

[Judy1234]

In today's Telegraph....

"Dear Ruby

I stopped working when I had my third child. It didn't make sense to continue with my job when I had a stressed-out husband requiring my support and children who needed me at home. It was an agonising decision, but my salary only just covered the cost of childcare.

And we didn't need the money - my husband earns six times more than I did. More importantly, I felt really guilty going off to the office every day and leaving my kids behind.

My problem is this: since I stopped working I feel like a non-person. Oddly, it's other women who give me this feeling. Women who have somehow managed to keep their careers afloat through babies, breastfeeding, nappy rash and all the mayhem of motherhood, treat me with barely disguised contempt. It's almost as if, by staying at home, I've lost the right to have an opinion, or say anything interesting. It's deeply upsetting.

Life is hard enough as it is, so why can't women be allies at least? Why can't we respect each other's choices? Amanda M, Edinburgh

Dear Amanda

I have heard that cry from some of my "non-person" friends when they decided to give it all up for breastfeeding duty. The reason I would also probably treat you with disdain if I met you is that I am secretly (well, not so secretly any more) jealous.

You are lucky enough to have a husband who makes six times the amount you made and that really irks me, as I'm sure it would other females.

But in your position, I would have worked anyway, as all my self-esteem is stored up in my job. I could never have applied the word "housewife" to myself. I'd rather have put a sabre through my head.

Although I admire your sacrifice to the little one, on the whole, I find women who don't work to be just a teensy bit boring with their obsession with schools and stools. Not all, just most.

Perhaps other working mothers are reminded how guilty they feel about abandoning the home. Perhaps we take it out on you. Enjoy your home life."

Stepford - yes, you are right, the first letter raises a very interesting issue.

On the one hand, babies need large amounts of intense one-to-one times with their mothers; on the other, mothers wish to preserve their careers and earning power.

How does one manage the self-evident conflict of interest between the two?

Denying that babies need that time with their mothers is not helpful, IMO. Denying that mothers need to maintain their financial security for the long term is not helpful either.

there is a presumption of choice there anna - some mothers simply do not have that luxury.

custardo - you have totally misunderstood the point

Stepford, I've read those comments about baby's brain development in a number of articles/child psychology books and it's a very important point not just for the child in question but for society as a whole.

I think Anna was being quite fair and non judgmental in what she said, especially as we are talking about babies here. It's a very difficult issue, women trying to do what they feel is right by their children (whatever that may be) but not ruining their sense of financial security in the process. At the moment the 5 year career break situation that many women would like is a real long term risk as it often leads into further complications in the future with the school run etc.

I thought the Times article about working mothers was quite good as the conditions were not too onerous ie work one hour a week and you will feel happier! I am currently seriously thinking about a saturday job of any kind simply as a ploy to get out of the house and domestic duties on a saturday, as dh works hard all week and gets to have a lie in (quite understandably). It's not really about the money but I could definitely see getting away from it all for a few hours adding to my happiness!

babies do not need lots of one to one time with their mothers. They need a close relationship with adults who care for them. It's a myth to keep women down to suggest they need to be with the mother one to one all day as babies. Many many fathers have sole charge and lots of relatives the planet over now and in the past or other carers and siblings too. By all means stay home before you love it but not because you think it's better for the child because you're just deluding yourself.

Xenia - a lot of posters on Mumsnet, myself included, believe quite strongly on the basis of what we have read (not just on our gut feeling) that babies do need a lot of one-on-one time with their mothers.

That may be inconvenient, but the fact that it is inconvenient does not make it untrue.

Anna then clarify for me

custardo - I am saying that there is a conflict of interest ie two things are true but they are incompatible.

1. babies need a lot of one-on-one time with their mothers

1. mothers need to safeguard their financial position, which often precludes giving up work to care for their babies

So, I am well aware that most women do not have any choice but to make a sacrifice.

The report in the Times this week about working women is a bit different from the one I saw a couple of months back which suggested that full-time working women were lowest on the happiness stakes but part-timers were the highest. SAHM somewhere in the middle. According to the report I saw only 5 or 10% of women actually want to work full-time. We have to bear in mind who finances all these reports though don't we? Researchers are not neutral even if they are academics shut away on a campus somewhere.

The research on children suggest that full-time nursery care is not good for children and that 16hours a week is the turning point at which it becomes detrimental.

Interesting to note that 16 hours is when the benefits rules change isn't it?

Anyway, the compromise surely is to work part-time for 16 hours a week which would be in both the mother and the child's best interests.

There you go, problem solved!

There is another body of research, published by the BBC today, that says part time working mothers are happiest, second are full-time working mothers and unhappiest of all are SAHM. Ironically almost polar opposite to the most recent research focusing on the needs of the child as opposed to the needs of the mother. There is thread about it, started today by Unquietdad. Too lazy (a SAHM ) to find the link.

Thing is, there are so many bodies of 'evidence' which claim this, that and the other. Just because something is written in a report or book doesn't make it true. Gut-feeling is not always the best judgement either!
My personal view is that babies, children and indeed young people certainly benefit from a close relationship with their parents. But I would say PARENTS, not just mothers, because A)from the evidence I see around me, children are more likely to grow up as contented and balanced individual when they have a good relationship with both parents, and B) I adore my children and feel a wonderful bond with them, and it seems the most supreme arrogance for me to assume that my partner loves and bonds with his children any less!

inthegutter - I completely agree that babies and children need a close relationship with both parents.

However, in the early months, the mother is more important for the baby's well-being than the father. In fact, if a baby barely sees its father in its first year, this has absolutely no bearing on its subsequent relationship with its father . What matters is that the mother be contented and supported in order to meet the baby's needs for food, warmth, cuddles, nappy changing etc.

Anna, your post saying

Being at home if you have plenty of money to do nice things is one thing. Being at home with no money to go anywhere or do anything might make sitting in an office with adult company a much more attractive proposition

is very true

entertaining kids when you're skint and down about it is bloody hard

Anna8888 I wonder whether a father not seeing his child for the first year might not have a negative effect on the FATHER though! Because I would have thought for most dads, the lack of a close bond might leave them feeling hurt/upset/angry/bereft. And a less than contented dad probably isnt going to make for a great relationship in the long term

inthegutter - yes, that might depend on the circumstances .

FYI, both I and my sister have experienced this - my partner hardly saw our daughter for the first 11 months, and my BIL barely saw his second son for the first year, both for unavoidable and understandable reasons.

Hasn't made the slightest bit of difference to anyone.

I did consult professionals about this, btw (even though my sister had already had this experience) and they all seemed to agree that for the first six months a baby doesn't care less about its father , that there was no long term danger for the subsequent six months, but that after one year a child really needed to see both parents together and regularly.

Glad it's worked out for you and your SIL. My partner would definitely NOT have been happy to not have a close relationship with his children from birth. I think it would have left him feeling far from contented.

inthegutter - oh, I can understand that very well. It is quite normal for fathers to wish to be very involved from the start.

As I say, it depends on circumstances, and it doesn't cause the baby any long-term damage - it's neutral, providing the baby sees its father subsequently. Whereas a baby not seeing its mother like that in its first year is potentially very dangerous for attachment and long-term security.

You Anna and those mothers might well believe it but you're all wrong. You believe it because it vindicates your position as stay at home mothers and it supports that life choice but it's not true. Babies certainly need people who talk to them and they need consistency and care.

I don't agree either that a baby is damaged if its mother returns to work which is what you just posted. I haven't found in any of my 5 children any non attachment or long term security issues. They had two very involved parents and a nanny who stayed for 10 years when the youngest were little. I think they benefited from that care and are benefiting now 3 are at university having a mother with career stability and able to give them both emotional and practical support and also financial.

I would agree with you however that if a baby keeps losing those its attached to it can be hurt by that. Bowlby examined children taken from their parents - not just a baby apart in the day but losing that attachment entirely and we all know how babies in ROmanian orphanages are. That's where you cause damage and also if a mother or a father if bonded with the baby dies too that's very hard for the baby too.

Anna, I wonder what the studies say that is so special about the mother? I mean apart from the ability to breastfeed, which not every woman does - and which a woman who is working during the day can continue to do at night anyway?

If long term bonding and security is not dependent on bf-ing per se (I assume that is not what the studies say), then why can't the lion's share of the care be provided by the father (eg SAHD) to the same effect as the mother?

If the baby is equally blessed whether it is mother or father looking after it, how about extrapolating that to include situations where the primary caregiver during the day is a grandparent or relative or even nanny?

I have no axe to grind as I took a year off for both my dcs.

I have always interpreted the studies as saying it is fine for a young baby so long as it has one or more loving and consistent caregivers. In most cases, that would be the mother. But if circumstances dictate that the primary caregiver was not the mother, assuming similar loving care and attention, the outcome is the same?

I have to be honest, here: I couldn't give a toss what any 'study' says (fuck statistics - we can use them to prove any point we want, let's be brutally honest...).

I did what felt right for 1) my child 2) me 3) my family as a unit. Doesn't everyone, in their own unique and equally fucked up ways?

Xenia, I wish you would stop pretending everything is perfect in your life - or for working mothers in general! We all have our struggles, our insecurities, things we sacrifice and compromise on. To pretend otherwise? Well - I simple do not believe you.

Actually Anna, that is crap even if you consulted experts. How can you be experts on this anyway? Yes, if you have the sort of father who is happy not to see you much at all in the first year, you probably would not benefit fromhaving him around much anyway. My children love and need me and DH equally from birth. I think you are constructing a need your child has to be with only you because it is YOUR need.

Excellent post fairymum.

what I think is this: those people that keep reiterating one and one only opinion over and over again at nauseam are IMHO the most unsatisfied and insecure. they are the ones who needs thir choices to be validated and constantly be reassured that what they have been/are doing is the right decision.

whether they are sahm or not is insignificant.

I think it is misleading to keep bringing Bowlby into discussions about attachment theory as his work is over 40 years old and things have moved on.

Margaret Ainsworth tested attachment using the 'stranger situation' where the mother left the child and the child's reaction was recorded. The results showed different types of attachment but we aren't talking about children who have been forcibly taken from their mothers and taken into hospital but children who are left for 10 minutes. The findings build on Bowlby and are supportive of him but denying the importance of attachment theory by harping back to his extreme examples is not helpful.

Children need the one-to-one attention of one primary carer-giver ideally up to the age of 3. That could be mother, father or any other person but the child has to be secure in the knowledge that that person is there for them whenever they are needed. There is no evidence to suggest that denying this attention makes the child more independent and tougher, quite the opposite, it leads to insecure attachment.

I know some of us, like Xenia, are lucky to have had a nanny from the first weeks of our children's lives and who stayed for a considerable time, but a huge majority of people don't have that. Children go to nurseries and child minders and the care is not necessarily consistent over a longer period of time. Young children on the whole are better off with their parents, or their family. That is just the way it is. It is the best way of ensuring continuity of care and that the precious one-to-one relationship remains in tact. If you are lucky enough to have a nanny who can substitute for the longer term you are very lucky, although it must be hard for the children when that person leaves their job and the day to day lives of the children.

Lets not pretend that women working is the best thing that happened to children. It isn't. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is damaging to them, if their needs are considered throughout, but I don't believe that it is in anyway better for them. There is always the exception of the really bad mother but most of us, in fact probably 99% if us are not bad mothers, are we?