Mommy dearest, part II

Okay, first let me thank all of you who put some genuinely useful suggestions on this blog in response to my original Mommy Dearest post. Secondly, let me take issue with the people who think I am putting my career before the needs of my children. Lady, I'm here to tell you it's not all about career (not that there's anything intrinsically wrong in that). It's also a money thing: I can't afford to downscale my work commitments. Lots of women are in the same situation, which is why the whole "having it all" label is so damned unfair, not to say inaccurate. Don't be so quick to judge what you don't know.

P.S Oddly, for a seasoned old haquette such as self, I've found the vitriol in some of these posts unnerving. Wouldn't it be better if us women supported each other instead of sticking the knife in to those of us who aren't perfect?

Comments

[VW]

Delilah's post works for me - the rest of the posts seem to be fairly entrenched (and not necessarily contructive) opinion.

If only it were possible for men to bear children - to go through the physical process, and then the time off afterwards to recuperate. Aside from this biological difference between the genders, there seems to be no rationale behind the fact that a woman should be the primary carer, other than that of social stereotype/prejudice.

One of the most fundamental differences and inequalities in the workplace centres around the need for women to take time away from the office in order to have and care for children. When men are in the position of demanding the same time away from work (and this is acceptable in their workplaces) then the pressure on woman will lift: if having a child is a decision, then it is at least a decision made by two parents, and therefore both parents should have their working status affected accordingly.

As for SAHM - well, there are reasons for all the "choices" that are made by all parents. One of the most important is money. There are few adults who earn £200,000 and many parents earn less than a quarter of that sum per year. To work is a choice that is surrounded by the need to keep a career alive, and to keep money coming into a household. For a second parent to work means that the first parent does not bear the sole responsibility of providing financially for all (possibly at the abdication of all other household responsibilities).

If children truly learn from example, then providing a good example is the way forward. To say that another's choice of the way forward is "not good" is a judgement that is almost entirely subjective, and nearly always prejudicial. Subjective criticism is not usually constructive.

[VW]

Delilah's post works for me - the rest of the posts seem to be fairly entrenched (and not necessarily contructive) opinion.

If only it were possible for men to bear children - to go through the physical process, and then the time off afterwards to recuperate. Aside from this biological difference between the genders, there seems to be no rationale behind the fact that a woman should be the primary carer, other than that of social stereotype/prejudice.

One of the most fundamental differences and inequalities in the workplace centres around the need for women to take time away from the office in order to have and care for children. When men are in the position of demanding the same time away from work (and this is acceptable in their workplaces) then the pressure on woman will lift: if having a child is a decision, then it is at least a decision made by two parents, and therefore both parents should have their working status affected accordingly.

As for SAHM - well, there are reasons for all the "choices" that are made by all parents. One of the most important is money. There are few adults who earn £200,000 and many parents earn less than a quarter of that sum per year. To work is a choice that is surrounded by the need to keep a career alive, and to keep money coming into a household. For a second parent to work means that the first parent does not bear the sole responsibility of providing financially for all (possibly at the abdication of all other household responsibilities).

If children truly learn from example, then providing a good example is the way forward. To say that another's choice of the way forward is "not good" is a judgement that is almost entirely subjective, and nearly always prejudicial. Subjective criticism is not usually constructive.

[Claire King]

D - Well the original topic was about women who want or need to go back to work, or indeed start a career after having children. Supermother raised the point that the French have a higher proportion of women active in the workforce, and I responded that French social policies support womens' choices in doing that.

The strong fertility rate in France suggests that the policies are having the desired effect. Women are having more babies than in Britain AND they are also working.

I am not an expert on the civil unrest in the 'suburbs', however my understanding is that it is mainly rooted in the children of immigrants who are frustrated by apparent racism, particularly when looking for work. Benefits to these people are not affected, so really that's off-topic.

[D]

Clare, but how many of those births are actually eligible for these benefits? Wasn't there a spot of bother about this recently in the French city suburbs?

[Claire King]

D - my understanding is that French fertility rates are actually higher than Britain - in Europe, second only to Ireland...

[d]

Clare -the real French Paradox is why the birthrates in France are so much lower than in Britain, when they get all those benefits and handouts.

[Claire King]

Jane - I totally agree with you on work life balance. Isn't happiness where it's at?

Supermother - one of the reasons that the French are doing so well at getting women back to work is that the system supports their choices. Whether that choice is back to work ASAP and childcare (we use an excellent nursery where the rate is around 100 euros a month); a shortish parental (yes, either parent, Delilah) leave of 6 months; or up to 3 years (essentially school age here) of 'time out' to be a full time parent, you are supported both in law and financially. So no need to feel guilty here when you can have your cake and eat it.

[jane]

"Business (and political) empires are created and controlled by people who work full-time or longer."

But surely it is well accepted that those 'at the top' are NOT 'normal' personality types - one study I read finds them akin to psychopaths who are not sociopaths (well, I'm sure we can all name some who are both!!)? NO ONE should take these people as role models, or norms.

Until work-life balance is seen as the ONLY acceptable norm for adults, we aren't really going to crack the problem of how to have happy, well-adjusted lives, let alone how to raise the next generation in terms of time allocation between work/children/me time.

"There is no compelling evidence that a mother is any better than a faithful childminder, nanny, a granny, an auntie, or the father;
but there is compelling evidence that constantly changing care or an emotionally distant or abusive carer can be harmful......a succession of temporary carers who don't replace the mother in the child's affections."

I think this is a very good point, and consistency of care must surely be a 'no-brainer' when it comes to raising children. However, I think the post misses another key point, though it alludes to it at the end of the passage I quoted. This is the issue of EMOTIONAL attachement - we all know that of course there are children who become deeply emotionally attached to their nannies. Indeed, the popular myth is that the entire upper classes ONLY emotionally bonded to their nannies (on account of never seeing their parents - remember Ripping Yarns' and Michael Palin's terror because his mother had spoken to him?!).

But, what is the POINT of a child becoming emotionally attached to someone who is a 'hired help' and almost inevitably transient (are nannies 'household retainers' any more, lasting till adulthood?). FAR more 'point' to becoming emotionally attached to a blood relative, eg grandparent or aunt/uncle and I would unhesitatingly say that IF you ARE going to dump your children on a third party, it's far better for them if that third party is someone your children can make an emotional investment in WHICH WILL BE RETURNED by someone who loves them.

However, the final point - " a succession of temporary carers who don't replace the mother in the child's affections" I completely agree with, in that it makes me want to reach for a blunt instrument! What can POSSIBLY exonerate a parent who doesn't want to spend time with her own child more than what is left after a full working day, and yet resents it if the child starts becoming emotionally attached to their third party carer???!!!!! Beneath contempt!

[jane]

"I am, however, disappointed that Sarah Vine has chosen to post a topic which is little more than a personal attack"

Well, I must say, I'm pretty scathing about FTBCWM (Full time by choice working mothers), so I can understand a FTBCWM being scathing back! However, I do think a very real issue for FTBCWM is that if they only mix with each other, they aren't going to hear any criticism of their choice. So maybe it's a bit of a shock for them, especially if its to their faces scathing? I can still remember having my first big political row with someone who held totally the opposite political views to me - it was quite shocking to me. I mean surely EVERY intelligent person thought like me??!!!

As for the kindly meant offer of a handbag, alas, I could never accept a gift that had been paid for by a child bereft of its mother for the time it took to earn the money to pay for it. But thank you for the thought, all the same! Besides, I can get wonderful handbags from charity shops, and they do me just fine. Wish I could buy my shoes there, but they never have them in my size, damn!

[Delilah, USA]

What a lot of rubbish on this thread. It's quite clear:

Children thrive best on consistent daily nurture (and I use the word advisedly) from a loved adult or small group of adults who remain the same from one year to the next. There is no compelling evidence that a mother is any better than a faithful childminder, nanny, a granny, an auntie, or the father; but there is compelling evidence that constantly changing care or an emotionally distant or abusive carer can be harmful. Despite this, women are still brought up to believe that they must be the primary carer, and can only delegate the role temporarily, perhaps to a succession of temporary carers who don't replace the mother in the child's affections.

Business (and political) empires are created and controlled by people who work full-time or longer. Despite this, British women are being encouraged to believe that part-time work is "family friendly", "the way forward". In reality, it consigns women to poorly-paid, powerless positions and careers; and may increase the likelihood of patchy, inconsistent childcare.

The maternity pay and benefits system harms women's careers. The more generous maternity pay and benefits are, the more incentive there is for well-paid women to take time off when they have children. Some women's careers recover from maternity leave; many do not, particularly if thy opt for part-time working or proceed to take further intervals of maternity leave. Generous maternity benefit and flexible working packages are often offset by low salaries (after all, they are expensive to administer); women are selectively lured into those low-paid sectors and their subsequent dependence on benefits, rather than salary, makes it hard for them to leave. Crucially, there is little incentive for the father to become the primary carer if the mother is eligible to be paid to stay home, but not him. The more generous the package, the less incentive for him to disrupt his career, however lowbrow compared to the mother's.

Finally, the loss of transferable tax allowances between spouses in Britain has made it unecessarily difficult for couples to survive on one salary in order to allow a SAH parent of either sex to provide consistent, loving care for their children. In fact, at the moment the most practical way to support a SAH parent, at least in the early stages, is to maximise maternity benefits which means - you've guessed it - fewer househusbands and more women with crippled careers. And probably, worse care for the children than if the husband had stayed at home, supported by his wife.

The choice of which parent works, and which looks after the kids is therefore far from free or fair. None of this is a good example for our daughters. These glaring inequalities are the things we should be getting mad about, and the person we should be getting mad at is not, I believe, contributing to this thread.

[supermother]

The French aren't better on all counts by any means (see housecleaning thread) but they seem to have a better balance of men and women working without all the stupid guilty angst the British women seem to load themselves with.

[RubbishMum]

Should us working mums have a whip round and buy Jane a handbag?

[Claire King]

'supermother' you often make references to the French, and how it's 'done better' over here. I'd be interested to know what you think it is about the French system, or culture which fits more with your ideals.

[supermother]

I don't get angry.
On stay at home fathers I think there are about 250,000 in the UK and I don't like them being ignored any more than anyone else but it's still the case that for most couples the woman sacrifices here career to her detriment and often the detriment of her family and until we have a more equal distribution of power in the UK between men and women at the top I would prefer if there has to be one at home at all that it be the father. That would do other women a huge service. When as many men as women request flexible working women may not be discriminated so much. As long as the message out there is women don't want to work properly and only want hobby jobs (which is why in the 1940s etc they got paid less than men because their income was pin money for holidays etc) then what sensible employer is going to choose the fertile newly married woman over the 50+ woman, gay man etc etc. Mind you that might help ageism as it is so perhaps now I'm 45 I should move into the ageism arena. more women over 60 - 70 needed in powerful positions in the UK. The French seem to do it better and more women work there.

[Rhi]

Gosh, people are getting so ANGRY.

I have found this site today and it is genuinely interesting. Jane is lucid and polite; Supermother is amusing and thought-provoking.

I am, however, disappointed that Sarah Vine has chosen to post a topic which is little more than a personal attack. Surely if one posts a question, all reasonable answers, including criticisms, are valid? I have the utmost respect for Sarah as a journalist, which makes this post even more puzzling.

[kieransmum]

But Supermother, I know lots of stay at home dads. They come to toddler groups. You probably don't meet them because you are working. So you only meet working dads.

[supermother]

Heather, what a huge coincidence then that you're at home and surprise surprise you happen to be female and yet you and your husband were both choosing. Why couldn't it be him? Because it never is. Because many couples are sexist to the core and don't even realise it. If it should be either it should be the man until we have more women in power, better for everyone all round. The default position for now if any parent can stand the tedium of domestic service (God knows how they can) should be men at home.

[Heather, London]

Supermother, you misinterpreted (deliberately?)my reference to my husband being "(needless to say)delighted "at my decision to stay at home. It was precisely because he wasn't sexist that we had the ongoing discussions as to who should take time off for the children's needs, if he had been sexist there would have been no question would there? If the roles had been reversed I would have been equally delighted! He was highly appreciative of my career and recognises that it was invaluable in now allowing us to make the choices we have done. The position now is that he knows how hard it is for me to be at home and is the first to scotch any idea that it is the easy option.

With regard to financial security I have to agree with every word that has been said-always ensure all the bases are covered before you make such a huge commitment, you never know what might happen in the future. We are in a privileged position and appreciate that fact, I would not advocate SAH for anyone who has doubts about their future finances as it can put a huge strain on relationships.

[jane]

Ah, it's shoot the messenger time I see! Good for Alpha Mummy blog! Don't like criticism? No probs - we just close it down. Look, if you haven't got a rational comeback to my criticism of FTBCWM, have the guts to say so. Don't just block your ears to it! Besides, maybe some FTBYCWM posters here DO have great counter-arguments! One that's tough for me to counter is the 'I didn't realise I was going to be so unmaternal until I already had kids and it was too late'. My only come back is 'Try harder for the sake of your children'. But that hardly solves the underlying problem!

"Quite the Damascene conversion, I'd imagine."

More like finally having the courage of my growing convictions. In the 90s there was far less of a SAHM acceptability, and it was assumed you'd work full time 'as normal' again. So there was that social expectation on us, plus, as for many women I suspect, my OH was scared of being the sole breadwinner after years of us being dinkies. Plus, too, the drive for part time and flexible work-life balance was nowhere near as growing as it is now.

So, after three years of slogging it as FTBCWM, I finally got brave and said I wanted to drop one day a week. Then I fixed a part-time home working deal with my (very good!) employers, and manage now to work almost entirely around the school timetable. Less money, more time with family. As for handbags, well, I recommend Oxfam.

"without being judged by people who know next to nothing about our personal circumstances" - what personal circumstances would exonerate a mother who put her career or her ability to buy expensive handbags with her full time salary over spending more time with her children? Remember, it's ONLY FTBCWM (full time working by choice mothers) that I am taking issue with! No one else.

"Unless only those mothers committed to working outside the home are allowed to comment" - I'd simply point out that to reflect the opposition to my postings that should say 'working full time outside the home' !

[supermother]

I'm very happy all kinds of mothers post. Women as well as men need to fight censorship. I am appalled at what this Government has done and plans to do even more - yesterday's news perhaps even censorship of the internet along the lines of the Chinese Great Firewall.

Most media in the UK supports and assume superiority of stay at home mothers as some kind of blessed God like creature, who either enjoy it or are making a supreme sacrifice which benefits their children (when in fact it doesn't). So we definitely need outlets to put the position that for the reasons mumoftwo and others have put women working is a good thing, rather than women withdrawing to some kind of purdah leaving men in mid life to run things, the country, companies etc.

On under 2s yes, I agree - all the more reason to be alphas. Get your daughters to be bankers, actuaries, lawyers, alpha jobs which are intellectual challenging and fun anyway because they owe it to their children. Then they can afford to buy good childcare and it's win/win all round.

[Mother at Large]

Don't know about freedom of speech, but the freedom to make the best decisions we each of us can about how to bring up our children, without being judged by people who know next to nothing about our personal circumstances, would certainly be good.
Disemvoweling, eh?!
Let the punishment fit the crime!

[L]

Freedom of speech? Absolutely! Give Jane back her vowels! I like hearing what she has to say and she doesn't irritate me nearly as much as Supermother who seems to suffer from a sense of humour failure every time she posts. At least Jane isn't boring, only provoking. What Jane says is not unthinkingly offensive, is often well-argued, and is surely the point of having a comments section at all. Unless only those mothers committed to working outside the home are allowed to comment - maybe the thinking is that they are the only ones whose brains aren't atrophied enough by motherhood to put a coherent sentence together.

[RubbishMum]

What's happened to Jane's vowels? She hasn't lost them as well as her marbles has she? I'm probably not clever enough to understand but if her vowels have been removed by the moderator I say they should be put back in. I'm sure I speak for all or most of us working and non-working and somewhere in-between mums when I say that despite the frequently deranged, judgmental and vitriolic content of her posts she shouldn't be censored. After all free speech and Britishness and all that?

[Mumoftwo]

Funnily enough I find myself sympathetic with the positions of both Jane and Supermother to some extent (!) I do agree with Supermother that there are political issues concerning a whole generation of women of child-rearing age withdrawing from public life. I'm glad that there are women out there in politics, business and the public sector who see fit to juggle kids and their work in some sort of fashion, otherwise the needs of women, families, and also men, in the workplace go unheard and unrepresented. I also agree that alongside the financial dependence of stay-at-home motherhood, there is financial vulnerability for the woman; both my cousin and I have watched our mothers divorced and poor in their late forties, having devoted their lives to child-rearing and part-time jobs which were not careers; hence they have to keep on working as they have no decent pension. The wise SAHM insists on having a private pension/equity in financial matters.

However, I also share Jane's concerns that children do need stable carers. I don't think poor quality nursery care offers the kind of stability and constancy which young babies and children need, nor the sheer quantity of one-on-one time they desire (I'm talking about very tiny kids, under two's not older ones going to school). However, unless some women take up their place in wider society at the top levels and demand change, the type of longer maternity and paternity leave and flexible working which is highly desirable for both parents and children, is unlikely to materialise.

[Lazy Mummy]

So, Jane, when you were a FTBCWM, you had no "maternal emotions" but the instant you changed roles to being a FTSAHM your "maternal emotions" kicked in? Quite the Damascene conversion, I'd imagine.

Does your husband/partner work full-time to support you & your family? If so, I imagine (by your criteria) that he has no paternal emotions whatsoever (how could he? He prefers to work). Could you comment on FTBCWFs for us please? I'm sure it would be enlightening.