Working mums.... and dads

[Tom]

Has anyone read Kate Figes article in today's guardian? It'a about a "new" report saying that working mothers harm their kids educational chances. This is exactly the kind of thing that really annoys me - it's old research - kids from the 70s - where childcare was poor, working mothers were more the exception than the rule - Kate outlines a few reasons why it is not perhaps the most useful research around.

But what gets me is why mothers are blamed!!!! Why didn't they put anything about the damage "working fathers" do to their kids - presumably, all the research had shown was that where both parents worked (in the 70s), their kids had lower grades - but then they say that it is because the MOTHERS worked, and ignore the fact that the dads were working as well! This kind of thing just perpetuates the idea that children are women's responsibility and nothing to do with dads.

So working mothers get the blame (again)- fathers are excluded from any consideration of their parenting responsibilities (again) and we all get to feel guilty about what we are doing to our kids (again!)

Argh!

Isn't it funny how we always want what we can't have. I remember being really disappointed (once I was about 8 yrs old) that my mum didn't work because it mean't she came to collect us from school and therefore we couldn't catch the bus home. Everyone else always seemed to have a laugh on the bus - I felt like I was missing out.

My mother still used to walk me to school when I was 13 years old. She used to take a friend and I for a 40 minute walk, wheeling her 'sit up and beg' bike. When we got tired, she used to let us sit on the seat or even in the basket(!) and push us along. Then she'd cycle back home and do the whole thing again in the afternoon, discreetly waiting a few roads away, because it was getting embarassing to have your mum meeting you from school, much as I liked it.

There's no way I can live up to this. Times have changed so much. But now with all these mothers working, hopefully our daughters won't have the same guilt dilemna when they have children.

Perhaps some of the problem is that we span two different ways of mothering, the pre and post 70's.

a few weeks ago, a paediatrician (who i have a lot of time for) told me that, in his opinion, children would benefit from going to nursery from the age of 6 weeks. he specialises in babies/kids with feeding problems and he believes that babies thrive when they see, and copy, other babies eating - whereas when they are at home with a mother who gets upset about it (me!), they get even worse. of course, he's not talking about 6 in the morning until 10 at night etc etc, but you get the drift. it's good for them (and us!) even if it isn't a financial necessity.

Did he mean 6 weeks or 6 months? Can't imagine leaving a little one of 6 weeks??

What I would love to see, is an accurate report on how many mums worked pre-victorian times. the majority of the population then were working class, and plenty of mothers (and children!) had to work to keep a roof over their heads, e.g down the mines, farming, domestic staff etc.

Wasn't it that brief spell in the early/mid 1900s when the middle class was invented, when women were expected to be housewives and mothers only?

Could be Lil, I think after WW2 men wanted their jobs back that the women were keeping warm for them. Apparently during this time suicide rate in women dropped because they were happier working, heard this on that programme 1940's house.

Oh I see. So the govnt insinuated that all good women should be at home not working, so the men could get their jobs back. Amazing. If women stopped working though there' d be a massive employment hole. there's only supposed to be 1 million unemployed in the UK at the moment, so the country would grind to a standstill, talk about having the last laugh!

Lil, that programme on BBC2 at 9pm on Friday nights about the Rise and Sprawl of the Middle Classes confirms just the point you raised. It seemed pretty clear that the only period when women whose families were dependent on earned income (ie, not inherited wealth) DIDN'T work outside the home was between the wars, and up to the sixties, which would have been when our mums were growing up/starting families themselves.
It was a sign of kudos amongst the new middle classes that they could afford to keep one adult at home with the children even though they had to earn their crust. There was social pressure on the men to be breadwinners and on the women to stay at home and be fragrant.

the paediatrician said 6 weeks, not months! he was speaking figuratively - he knows that would be v difficult and interfere with breast feeding etc - it was more a point about how much babies can absorb and learn about their surrounding from a very early age, and how good for them being 'sociable' can be.

i have not gone back to work yet but i have been struck by how my friends' new babies have thrived once they started nursery - eating habits, motor skills, the lot. i am v keen for my daughter to start.

Working class women have always worked, both my Grandmothers worked in the mills. In Lancashire potato pie is the food of the working mother, prepare it put it in the oven and then you could go to work.
In the 1920's and 30's women who married who worked in middle class jobs ie teaching,civil service etc were forced by law to give up their job. It's strange there were no laws about cleaners and maids not working once they were married.
After WW2 when women were forced to give up thir jobs there was a rise in the incdence of depression.
Anyway not to worry 'cos breastfeeding gives your child heart problems in later life - a (another) report on the news this am.

Oh well, then that will be my excuse when I pop my clogs, my mother breast fed me, absoloutely nothing to do with the fags I smoke, the red meat I eat, the alcohol I drink, the butter and other naughty dairy products I eat as well. Mind you saying that, I've lost nearly a stone in weight this past month, so I must be doing something right. Must pass this one on, try Onken Strawberry Mousse, they are to die for, just thought I'd share that useless piece of info with you all.

I did not just get annoyed by the way the report's findings were reported but also by the way Kate Figes covered it. She totally missed the point by saying that this was another assault on mothers and then delivering an article as if fathers did not exist. By passing over the fact that fathers exist, she simply reinforces the fundamental problem that Tom pointed out at the opening of this discussion - if we discuss childcare as a women's issue only, then we create ridiculous burdens on women and push men out. So nobody is happy. And this is NOT GOOD for kids: unhappy parents = unhappy kids.

There was another example of this, also this week - an article in the Indie by Rebecca Abrams on second children. Another classic example of the "fathers don't exist" paradigm. I got her book subsequently (Three Shoes, One Sock and No Hairbrush) - some nice bits in it, but sprinkled liberally throughout it are the most outrageous statements about fathers. Now I don't mind women getting really pissed off with their lot. But to do this by slagging off fathers in a book that is meant to help parents at a difficult time when they really need to be working together (and, having just had number 2 I KNOW how you have to stick together!) is downright irresponsible. Perhaps it makes the author feel better, but it does NOTHING for the wellbeing of children. I find it incredible that the only book in UK on second children should be written in this way - it is the worst parenting book I have ever read.

Time for someone to write something positive about the role of fathers with second children....! Research shows that if the first child has a good relationship with the father, the child handles the transition to having a younger sibling much better. Obvious really. So how can one write a whole book on the subject without referring to this?!

Lil - you have hit the nail on the head. It is only comparatively recently that is has become difficult for women to work because of the childcare issue. As you say there was all the farming work and the various cottage industries. The women would just strap the babies to their backs and stop to feed them whenever necessary. And the older kids helped out.

In modern society we are compartmentalised into little boxes of work, home, nursery, school etc. It is almost impossible to bridge the little boxes. Instead of making it easier to spread the load we get told we are doing the wrong thing by going out to work. This is because any decent work represents a full-time job, often with commuting and hence long hours away from the children.

It is not easy on the converse side staying at home because all your friends either work full-time and the ones who are full-time mums have their hands full with their own kids. This means it is impossible to get a break from your kids. With extended families living far away it can often mean spending nearly all your time with your child. I don't think this is necessarily right all the time - it is the opposite extreme. I do my best by going to playgroups and a drive out to my parents every week. However I often feel that I don't put enough energy into sitting down with my child and reading him books etc which he may get at nursery. I'd like the best of both worlds with a decent part time job and a few hours in a nursery every week. That isn't too much to ask but no job is available that pays enough for this.

Duncan - and of course my previous message impinges upon fathers too. As I said why not allow parents to share the load. I think it is tough going expecting one person to do all the childcare and education of a small person and the other person to do all the earning of money.

I found one of the reported Mumsnet facts interesting from the point of view of men. It said that only one in 5 men help with night-time feeds. This was presumably saying that more men SHOULD help out. At the same time as this women are told they should breastfeed. How confusing is this? Very few women are going to bother expressing milk just to hand it over to someone else who has to wake up and go through all the heating it up etc. Far easier for the woman to just use her boobs for what they were designed for. Most men have to go out to work the next day so why should they have interupted sleep too? Far better for them to bring a cup of tea in the morning...

That's exactly my feeling Eulalia - one fact in the survey that wasn't reported was that only 1 in 5 men didn't get up in the night. But the point is that many couples decide that this is how they want to do it, especially if mum is breastfeeding. Dad has to work and isn't able to nap in the day, whereas mum is.

Personally, I always got up in the night to help - my wife had a caesarean, so from the off I had to get up with her. After breastfeeding difficulties, at 2 months, his night feeds were always bottles (datime - breast), and I did all of these. But as long as there is discussion and choice about arrangements, it's fine. I wonder if the survey asked whether the couple had discussed and agreed how to handle things - that would have been more interesting - as it was, it just looked like an opportunity to slag off dads, which is about as unconstructive as you can get.

Share everything, I don't know why people think it is so hard. If you can manage on one wage, both work part time.

Surely it is important our children don't get sexist ideas? One little girl won't play football because it's a "boy's game". Did anyone see this in the news? That must be the product of sexist parents.

Eulalia and Tom - quite. What a stupid way to report the study, 20% of men never get up. I find the fact that 80% do quite amazing! The way the report is made is specifically designed to cause as much dissension as possible between the parents (and will this really sell more copies of Mother & Baby magazine? - I suppose the editors know what works). As Tom says, the significant thing is not how parents organise night-time feeds, but whether they have decided by mutual consent. I am one of the "guilty" 20% I am afraid, and I DO feel guilty! But my wife has been absolutely clear - she wants me to be feeling less dead than her during the day because someone has to look after our older one!

has anyone else found that their childcare problems doubled when their kids went to school? I work part-time and my eldest now goes to after-school club Mon - Wed. I find that it's almost impossible to get everything done in the evenings before she goes to bed (about 7:30) given that we don't get home until 5:30 earliest (usually nearer 6). She's also quite often too tired to do her reading. In the light of this (and this was before I read the report) I'm seriously considering reducing my days to 2, hopefully splitting them over a few more days in September, when my youngest goes to school.

DebsB, I too have similar thoughts on childcare and evenings. Just started a new board here to find out what others think - and do.

GOT A JOB!!!!!!!!

I can say this on here without anyone saying I shouldn't work because I am a woman LOL!

I have an admin job 3 nights a week in a care home and I have managed to get my little boy into the local nursery 5 days a week during the day. He will be starting school soon, so it's good preparation!

I don't know what I am going to do all day, it was boring before to be honest but now Jack won't be there during the day, I am out of ideas altogether. Except I will have to sleep sometime. I am going to be knackered!

Did anyone else get annoyed at the way the recent census form seemed to ignore unpaid work such as voluntary charity work and looking after a family? All the questions about work seem to assume that work can only take place in the context of a business. Having no paid job at the moment I am responsible for pretty much all the work of daily childcare and home management in our family plus some outside voluntary work and I DO WORK! So I filled in my hours and place of work as the questions requested, but I have a feeling that's not what they had in mind.

Numbat, you obviously know what info they needed. Why make life harder for them by screwing up the answers. Its not meant as an insult, so why take it as one?

They don't want to know about a voluntary job as far as I know. I can't remember what it actually said now.

And as for what you do at home, that's your private life and everyone does that working or not. People who are officially "unemployed" have to do that, it is normal to keep your house tidy etc and play with your kids if you want to. In fact, that is housekeeping is normal even if you have no children. By your reckoning, everyone who has a job should write what they do in their spare time on top in the census as well.