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."

Agree LoveAngel. Especially the bit about family friendly policies for both men and women.

To your "Patronising, guilt-tripping and attacking SAHMs into going back to full time work as soon as possible is not family friendly and it certainly isn't feminisim.", I would add:

Making mothers who wish/need to go back into employment (fulltime or otherwise) feel bad about their choices and guilting them into thinking they are irretrievably damaging their babies because their babies are not being (primarily) cared for by their mothers during the day, but by another equally caring person (could be father, could be grandparent, could be nanny etc) is not helpful, nor objectively borne out by evidence.

"Making mothers who wish/need to go back into employment (fulltime or otherwise) feel bad about their choices and guilting them into thinking they are irretrievably damaging their babies because their babies are not being (primarily) cared for by their mothers during the day, but by another equally caring person (could be father, could be grandparent, could be nanny etc) is not helpful, nor objectively borne out by evidence."

Too PC for me

well, i cannot believe that you cannot accept that in my family we are equal. we share the care of our children irrelevant of their age equally. that is our version and we are happy with it this way.

I prefer to call it "accurate" and "precise".

Accurate - very debatable IMO

Precise - no - all those parentheses

Ah, so you were commenting on my writing style - I can cope with parenthesis. Appreciate that not everyone can.

When you said PC, I thought you meant something more substantive.

Accuracy - about content (way too PC for me "let's sit on the fence and hurt no-one's feelings even if that means fudging the truth)

Precision - about form (expression)

Anna, as I keep asking for without success, I am still looking for the truth. As you said, highly debatable - I will accept that, not absolute truths in either camp.

I am as much for not hurting SAHMs' feelings as WOHMs. I am open to all debate, on substantive points, as opposed to writing style, which is a bit of a distraction.

blueshoes - I found my truth - through my own life experiences, discussion, reading etc. I'm not going to change my mind on that special mother-baby bond - and I'm not going to change my mind on women's need for financial independence and security either . I actually find it personally much more helpful to acknowledge the conflict of interest than to try to pretend that the two positions are easily reconcilable.

Oh no, anna, not to change your mind. But glad you acknowledged it is your personal truth.

FWIW, I agree about the conflict between the need for a baby to have consistent care and the need for the mother to have financial security. Most times, mothers are the ones best placed to provide that consistent care, the opportunity cost being the consequent erosion of their earning power. But for (admittedly fewer) mothers who have fathers/relatives who are happy to step into the role of primary caregiver or who can afford quality care for their babies (usually means a nanny for a very little baby), I have yet to see the evidence that this separation from the mother is detrimental.

Some women just marry duff sexist men so have no idea what normal parenting is where both parents work and the father properly bonds with the baby, surely.
They then try to justify their defective choice of man by a spurious argument about womenbeing better suited for dull domestic tasks than men like 24/7 childcare.

I like the comment above "here is the social phenomenon of the cult of motherhood. Media, a lot of childcare books (including Deborah Jackson) is written from the premise (or ideal) of one mother, looking after one baby, and staring into each other's eyes and feeding on each other's needs and feelings, to the exclusion of the external world. This is because these books are largely written for first time mothers.

Fastforward to dc no.2. No time to read. Firefighting. Baby cries anyway, because mother is tying shoelaces of other dc."

Anyone with more than 1 child (and I had 5 including twins) knows that the first child is a kind of rare exception and doesn't really count in a sense as they'r enot the real world of mother hood.

If we are harking back to an earlier time in human development, then wouldn't children have been cared for in large groups of other children and caring females? Ie - a nursery!!

My ds' experience of nursery did really bring home to me how much children enjoy just spending their time rubbing along with other children and that nurseries are perfect for this.

Blueshoes - totally agree - I had similiar experience - DS was a nightmare baby (colic, reflux, cried alot, unhappy being a baby basically - maybe something to do with why I was desperate to get back to work!!) and so I was worried about leaving him at nursery but he loved it. He was totally distracted by the other kids.

I can't believe the posters on here asking Anna "whats so special about the mother to a baby"

do you really think you are so replaceable to your baby then?

I can't believe these posts, is it because so many of you went back to a full time job when your baby was a few months that it suits you to think you can easily be replaced?

I've worked in childcare for about 10 years and have seen too many angry, aggressive little toddlers and pre schoolers who have been at nursery/childcare for years to believe replacing the mum has no backlash

Actually there is a substantial body of research that shows the benefits to babies of high levels of paternal involvement in the early months of life. In addition there is evidence that highly involved fathers can prevent babies suffering some of the negative impact of having a mother with PND.

As well as the benefits to babies highly involved fathers report higher levels of bonding and greater enjoyment of the role of father. Men who spent a lot of time with small babies develop the same levels of responsiveness as women.

this report by Adrienne Burgess gives a good overview with references.

well, the trouble is that if you accept that dad is just as important in a baby's life, then there really aren't that many good reasons why he cannot give up work and become a SAHD or they both work and share the childcare together. I am guessing many men would love some of the pressure of their job taken off so they could spend more time at home. I think we have to read between the lines that many women simply don't want to work and so holds onto the argument that they must stay with the baby or baby is doomed to a life of neglect and asbo at the age of 2.

BTW the report is for Fathers Direct - but the research it cites is largely (I've not checked every reference) from peer reviewed journals and there is a long list of well established academics on the review panel.

And Fathers Direct is a sane organisation - nothing to do with Fathers 4 Justice!

"Men who spent a lot of time with small babies develop the same levels of responsiveness as women. "

Of course. It is not biological, but cultural.

fairymum, I'd bet my right arm you work full time?

you seem very sneering and defensive

I adore my children, I have a close bond with them, I would lay down my life for them. So would my partner, ie their father. I am NOT,and never have been,more important in their lives than he has. He is in every way as important in their emotional and social development as I am. Sorry Anna8888, but no amount of books, surveys or 'professional opinions' are going to persaude me otherwise.

I am very sure that there are plenty of men that would love to stay home with their children. I am equally sure that there are plenty of women who would love to stay home too and can't. It isn't about what people want in a lot of instances but what makes the best economic and practical sense for a family and what feels right for them.

Part of the reason that more women stay at home than me is that you can't alter the fact that in the first few months of life it is only the mother that can breastfeed and so will be the one who stays at home. Not only that but she is the one with the automatic right to maternity leave for a year (subject to length of employment and all the rules).

I don't think it is about mothers using the 'bonding' card to stay at home at all. Of course men can and do form hugely strong and important bonds with their children but society and employment legislation men that it is very difficult for men to do that in the first year of a child's life.

I also think that we should be taking into account that there are different kinds of bonds. We would all lay down our lives for our children and do anything for them but from a male point of view often it is the case that the best way that they feel they can fulfill their role as fathers is to go out and work. It may be traditional, cultural, genetic emotional, who knows. I know that it is certainly true of my DH and for a lot of men he has spoken to. Women aren't necessarily the same. Some may think that they should go out to work but others feel that they are better at nurturing than their partners. This isn't a good or bad thing but just shows the differences between the sexes.

As Loveangelgabriel said earlier equality isn't about being the same as men. To my mind it is about having equality of opportunity. So in this case it is the ability of women to have the same breadth of choices as men and not to be treated as less than men in the workplace. Similarly it means that men have the means and opportunity to stay home and take a year of paternity leave if that is what a family want. As a society it seems we are still working on this.

I don't think anybody should be criticising anybody else for the choices that people make about what is best for their children and their family. It is tied up with practicalities of life, with the economics or running a home and with emotion. Nobody should be questioning how somebody else feels about bringing up their children. How can anybody on the outside judge that in another family?

s/b more women than men not me.

snowfunwhenyoureknackered - "I've worked in childcare for about 10 years and have seen too many angry, aggressive little toddlers and pre schoolers who have been at nursery/childcare for years to believe replacing the mum has no backlash"

What do you do snowfun? It sounds like you have an awful lot of experience to go by

Hi! well I trained as a nursery nurse, then worked as a nanny abroad for 18 months, then in London for a year. I also worked in a couple of private day nurseries with children from 6 weeks to pre school age. Recently I was a childminder for 4 years. I also work as a babysitter!

I do have loads of experience, but I always think this counts as very little compared to actually being a mum and having a mums instinct for your children

Of course I've seen many many children that have thrived in nursery/at a childminders etc. but of course with kids one size doesn't fit all and I've seen quite a few children that obviously (to me at least) need to be spending more time with their parents that are denied this and gradually over time the children become very aggressive and unhappy which breaks my heart.

I think it does suit too many parents to think "oh little xx is really happy in childcare" and as the children are used to being left in someone elses care (and trust me, nurseries usually have a high staff turnover, too many children are used to being left with a different carer too many times) these children learn to accept being left and don't make a fuss about it and so the parents think the children are fine with it and so gradually leave the children more and more, eg. nights away for work, nights out at weekends, weekends away as well as working long days usually for most of the week. These parents and children get hardly any time together, parents get more distant and children get more aggressive and needy of the parent's attention, although this usually appears in the form of being very almost defensive of the parent to the caregiver eg. my mum can do that better than you, my mum reads better than you, almost as if the child is scared to criticise the parent incase they don't return

Hope this isn't too long winded - its a bit early for me! Been up since the crack of dawn with my little one!

Anything, thanks for the interest!

snowfun - gosh yes, you do have a lot of experience

I also think that the lack of consistent one-to-one care in nurseries is a big issue. Children, like adults, "get used" to lots of things but that doesn't mean that what they are used to makes them happy or is good for them. Of course, we all have to put up with things that are sub-optimum in life - the question is, when does sub-optimum actually become harmful? And, as you so rightly say, different children have different thresholds; some children who are in childcare while their parents work spend every other minute of their lives with their parents while others are also not consistently with their parents at weekends and in the evening.

yes, that's what I was meaning

it's a hard balancing act, I chose not to work and look after my kids and now we are suffering financially

but the kids are very secure and grounded and I know thats because they have had me constantly there for them and they still have me at the school gates etc etc

we all make choices and our choice was right for us, I suppose thats all you can say at the end of the day!