Working mothers vs SAHM mothers: the ancient battleground

Let us not make any bones about this: between working mothers and sahm mothers, there is WAR. Working mothers think SAHMs are doe-eyed sappy milk-cows, letting their brains rot as victims of both their biology and the patriarchy. SAHMs think that working mothers are tin-hearted capitalist drones raising kids 98% mental without considerable parental input - and then, if the subject of "really good childminders" comes up, mention that experiment about the orphaned baby monkey hugging the wire mummy monkey, by way of a knock-out blow. The tension arises because, deep down, we all believe that there is a way to raise children that will, one day, be imperically proven to be the best way, and we're all hoping to God it's the way we've chosen to raise ours.
A report in today's Times - will make us all feel tense again, one way or another. Apparently, working mothers are happier than stay at home mothers. "Women with children are significantly happier if they have a job," the report's authors, Alison Booth and Jan Van Ours, concluded.
What vexes me is that having a career and the hands-on raising of children continue to be seen as mutually exclusive concerns. You have to chose one or the other, and that's that. Instead of "working mothers" and "SAHMs", aren't we all working mothers who would like to work a little bit less, and SAHM mother who would like to work a little bit more?

Comments

[J]

KittyM. I would agree with you up to a point.

There is nothing to criticise in a family who pays its way as a whole, deciding that one of them should stay home with the kids. Or indeed, for ever, if they can afford it. A private family decision, I would say, and socliety needs volunteers and neighbours.

I also have respect for parents who need benefits for hard times, such as single parents with no other options for now.

What I dislike is the attitude that nobody needs to work these days. Take benefits when you need them but accept that you have a moral duty to repay society when you can.

[KittyM]

Can I just point out that actual working class couples don't thave the luxury of debating whether or not to go to work or stay at home to look after their children! If you are wealthy enough you can have a choice and if you are lazy, have no commitment to the rest of society and no moral compass at all, the benefits system encourages you to leech off others and contribute nothing to society. It seems to me that actual working class people (who work in average jobs and aren't very well paid but also who arent on minimum wage) are the only ones with no choice.

[J]

L Bentham, do you not believe then in any decent work?

Are the female doctors who helped you through your pregnancies also victims of this consipacy? how about your kids' teachers? if your house catches fire, are the firefighters capitalist drones? Do you want your own kids to have no vocation to do anything?

"Because the government would be embarrassed by starving people in its own borders and the potential for revolution it pays a "Danegeld" to the working/underclass to pacify them.
I'm just taking advantage of a situation that exists, its not of my making."

That money is intended for the truly vulnerable such as disabled or ill people. Of course we dont tolerate starvation in this country, but that does not mean that nobody should bother to work. By all means be a FTM, so was I when they needed me. But when they grow up, contribute a bit.

Will you still not earn once they are adults? Or will you do your share to a fair society?

[Jane]

"Babies are far nicer."

But not, of course, the babies who are raised by the 'feckless poor' who simply reproduce themselves every fifteen years and raise the next generation of guests of her Majesty, ASBO recipients, school hooligans, and parasites on the earnings of tax payers.

Pious-sounding anti-materialism doesn't get children fed and housed. That's what working in the economy provides. Now, fine if you simply want to opt out of the rat race and earn a living in a low-stress, low-financial-reward way, but NO ONE ON THIS PLANET deserves a free ride off the work of others.

[Jenny]

I'm fed up with wealthy, spoiled shrews believing they have the right to tell other women what they should think and do. If a woman can afford to stay at home and raise their children, they should have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps some of these zealots lack the full and happy life they pretend to, and because of that feel the need to try and stick their noses into the lives of others?

Children need their parent's love and care. They are a commitment, and no one should have a child if they aren't willing to put the time and effort in that it takes to raise them. Staying at home with them isn't wrong, nor does it rot ones mind. Nor do the children of stay at home mothers turn out less socialized. I'm fed up with these extremist stereotypes being flung out there to attack women who've made the choice to raise their own children.

[L. Bentham]

I'm not taking your or anyone else's money. The government takes it off you and spends it on worse things like atomic bombs and pointless wars. Babies are far nicer.

Because the government would be embarrassed by starving people in its own borders and the potential for revolution it pays a "Danegeld" to the working/underclass to pacify them.
I'm just taking advantage of a situation that exists, its not of my making. I'd be quite at home in a teepee living a more sustainable existence ( which is what we'll all have to do in the end anyway-if we're going to save the planet.)

I just can't think of a worse way to waste ones life or brain than by running yourself ragged, serving a corporate machine that doesn't really appreciate you. Or serving a system that is destroying the planet or a capitalist establishment that tore to tatters the social contract when it invited foreign coolies into its borders to replace the British working class because they were not good enough slaves.

[j]

Toddler tamer, I think that it comes directly from the type of holiday you arrange.

There is the low key holiday, where you all hang out together and mum and dad both get some down-time (which we all need) by the other taking over, or by the kids just mooching about. Works well by the sea, in a villa with friends, but essentially quite homely.

If you book a holiday which is heavy in adult activity then very often the kids need to do something else.

If we ask, why do people book such holidays, I think there is sometimes pressure on the mother to provide daddy with adult company- he is the one unwilling to slow down to toddler pace and just chill.

[j]

Melanie, not Bella but LBentham, otherwise my views on that post are below.

[Melanie]

I am shocked by Bella's comments. How dare she take our hard earned money to raise seven children without the slightest conscience of contributing back to society and earning a living. Such is her greed, what can she teach her children about the value of hard work, and all the opportunity and achievement in life it brings? Makes my blood boil!

[toddlertamer]

I've got a slightly different question to ask.
If you work and put your child in a nursery up to 4 days a week, is it OK to then go on a holiday where essentially your child is in a creche all week? ie skiing, or Mark Warner type affair with kids club. And I'm not referring to the McCanns here, it's just that lots of people I know seem to do this - their argument being that they need holiday time for 'themself' or to spend quality time with their partner sans kids. I'm all for people going out to work (and work part time myself), but to spend your holiday time without the kids as well seems a tad selfish...it's not a holiday for the kids at all, and it seems more than ever to negate the point of having the kids, and it seems sad as seeing your kids having fun on holiday is, in my opinion, one of the greatest things about parenthood.
What does everyone else think?

[j]

"The government wants everyone working otherwise they'd be thinking. If you are given free money what's the point in working anyhow."

I have much more chance of thinking at work to be honest, more time to do it and also more information coming into the brain.

I think FTM is an honourable and important use of someone's life, but I dislike the POV that says if I can get free money why bother working. There is no free money, it is somebody else's taxes. Which could have been spent on child poverty, disability or decent medical care (eg midwives).

[Bella]

Since there is no definitive evidence (and YES, I have spoken to psychologists about this issue) as to whether mothers staying at home or working is best for children, this "debate" is really just an opportunity for middle-class mothers to bleat on about how their way is the right way, ergo their children will be better than a mother who chooses a different path. I hope it makes them feel better. Isn't that the point of anecdotal drivel?
What is clear is that quality of childcare and parenting is important. A crap mother is not necessarily worse or better than a crap childminder. A child is not necessarily happier with the constant presence of a mother (or a father for that matter). It might be a beneficial thing for a child to know that he can be loved and cared for by lots of people, and not just mummy. A happy secure family unit (whatever shape that takes) with good role models and boundaries is a good thing.

Children are not the means by which we prove our self-worth. They are part of a family unit and what suits one family and is best for their children will not necessarily be what is best for another.

[L.Bentham]

I don't think anyone needs to work in this day and age. It just seems mad to me that a woman would put treadmill behaviour over her children. I regard my seven children as gods and treasure every prescious moment with them. They haven't hindered me camping or climbing Snowdon (I took them up there)Life is wonderful and one long holiday!
Remember "tomorrows' world" in the 70's; they said everything would be made by robots by now. The government wants everyone working otherwise they'd be thinking.
If you are given free money what's the point in working anyhow. You just don't need money that much. It doesn't earn you respect, you don't need it for your old age. It doesn't give you freedom and your family would prefer you to stay at home.

[Jane]

"Jane they werent really boyfriends, the men rented the girls by the day as part of an all-inclusive package. The girls were paid to pretend all day every day to find these guys compellingly attractive and then sleep with them as well. The men were, as the guy in charge explained, on the whole very overweight with unpleasant personal habits and poor hygiene- they came to venezuala from the US and the UK for a fortnights holiday."

This seems to tie in depressingly well both with the article about why men pay for commercial sex and the repellent Ted Saffron's assumption that women should spend their lives making themselves fanciable to him...

Personally, I blame these men's mothers! (Seriously, actually - I always feel one of my main parenting missions is to raise a son who will grow up to be a decent human being and a man any woman would be lucky to marry!!!)(mind you, I'll be filtering those lucky women VERY selectively!!!!!!)

[Jane]

!"holes everyone's got one and none is better than the others"

Nonsense! Mine's LOADS better than everyone else's!!!!!

:)

[Mike]

Just to throw in an Australian perspective, I'm one of 4 stay at home dads in my son's "Mother's Group" and that's not at all unusual here, and after all why should it be.

My wife loved being at home with our son, but said her brain had gone to mush and she has enjoyed returning to work much more than she imagined. When our son is a little older we both want to work part-time and have him in care a couple of days a week. I can dream.

A goverment funded study just published here shows that ...
children who attended more hours in childcare are more socially competent and had fewer behaviour problems. They also showed no evidence that longer hours in care were linked to poor outcomes for children.

But the article said this differed from results in the UK and US - so it's either a plus for Childcare standards in Oz or a minus for parenting skills !

The availability of childcare was a big talking point in the recent election and is a major factor in stopping parents getting back into the workforce. Frankly I'm of the opinion that if you want to work as a parent you should be able to and if you want to stay at home you should be able to - opinions are like a...holes everyone's got one and none is better than the others

[J]

Jane they werent really boyfriends, the men rented the girls by the day as part of an all-inclusive package. The girls were paid to pretend all day every day to find these guys compellingly attractive and then sleep with them as well. The men were, as the guy in charge explained, on the whole very overweight with unpleasant personal habits and poor hygiene- they came to venezuala from the US and the UK for a fortnights holiday.

[J]

actually I think the spam thing triggers if you try to post three times in a row.

[Lazy Mummy]

Um, here's another way to think about the WM vs SAHM thing...

Five of my close women friends here in the US are the primary breadwinner. Actually, in three cases, they are the sole breadwinner. They all have mid-senior or executive level positions and all but one work in software (the other's in biotech).

The fathers (not all couples are married) are definitely a bit more laid-back than many of the men I know, and in three cases, the fathers are less educated than the mothers (the mothers all have masters/professional degrees, and these three fathers are all college drop-outs). Perhaps some might describe the fathers as "beta" - and in terms of personality type, I think that's fair. They're not the Type A, go-getter, must be top-of-the-heap people and they're happy being SAHDs or working part-time.

Their children are all incredibly well-adjusted, which you'd expect from nice middle-class families with solid values, etcetcetc.

This suddenly struck me as interesting, as it seems to be the reverse of my parents' generation. But until now, it didn't strike me as odd, eccentric, out-of-place. It still doesn't, though it might to some people reading this post. I think that's because I've lived in the US for so long now. In Britain, it would be less acceptable.

So, Supermother's hopes/predictions about societal redressing of the male-female balance *are* starting to come true, albeit slowly, and not necessarily in Britain (yet).

[Lazy Mummy]

"This spamming thing is a pain - if they are going to insist on shorter posts, then please do the character count thingy that they do on the non-blog comments on this site. Otherwise we can't tell when we are hitting the stupid filter threshold."

Oh, is that what it is? I wondered why my post about Tad Safran never made it in...

[Jane]

"we must not forget what happens when women have no realistic option to leave an abusive relationship and earn their living. "

Yes, it's one of the shameful reasons why women stay with men who beat them up. By the way, surely the programme's title should have been 'my EX boyfriend the sxx tourist'....! Surely no woman would stay with a man like that?

(Anyone read the really depressing article here about the rise in prositution as it becomes 'socially acceptable' to pay for commercial sex?)

[Jane]

This spamming thing is a pain - if they are going to insist on shorter posts, then please do the character count thingy that they do on the non-blog comments on this site. Otherwise we can't tell when we are hitting the stupid filter threshold.

[Jane]

I'd also agree that it should always be a question, primarily, of what is best for the child, as we choose whether to have children, whereas children don't choose to be born (as of course, once they are teens, they will inform you early and often as the ultimate clincher in any argument with them). I think, therefore, in that respect, the issue of the morality of outsourcing child-raising is very similar to the morality of breaking up the family by divorce - I don't think adults should put their wants and desires before the emotional well being of their children.

[Jane]

I agree that in debates about SAHM and FTWMs, I would always make the distinction as to whether it is financial necessity, or personal pursuit of career/loadsofmoney, that is the driver for the full time return to work. BUT, I would also always expand the debate to the issue of FTW PARENTS, not just mothers.

[j]

so (chapter 2) my point from this is: we must not forget what happens when women have no realistic option to leave an abusive relationship and earn their living. Even if you make the free choice to run the home instead, your life is transformed by the fact that you will get treated properly or you will leave.

[j]

Well I shall try again. It was bout the programme last night called my boyfriend the (ahem edited) tourist. Two things stuck in my mind.

Firstly, one girl was upset by the repellant habits of one of her clients, and was told by the madam, you should try being married to my husband and see if it is any better.

Secondly, the guy in chrage was asked if they enjoyde their job. He said, no, how could they, but it's better than anything else they might get.

[Sarah Phillimore]

Jean, how is this helping?

You seem to have many assumptions about working mothers, the primary and most damaging one being that is all about being selfish and just doing what makes the mother happy!

Gosh! As if a mother should dare to do that!

Let me repeat; some mothers work because they HAVE to. Some SAHMs are not all smiles and joy and glitter glue.

What we need are options and better state investment in child care. But while we are all too busy sniping at each other and reveling in our respective moral superiority nothing will change and Betty F will continue to rotate sadly in her grave.

[Jane]

J - did you try and post a long post? I did, and got rejected as 'spam' (gee, thanks), so I split it in half, and then the two halves seemed to go through. I thought it might be because I said 'God' in it, and the filter's trained to keep out 'nutters'??!!! ......

[j]

this is a test because my inoffensive post was blocked by your picky filter thingy, I need to see if it's me or the post

[supermother]

I don't think most working mothers or working fathers are working because it suits them best and is for their indulgence however. And I certainly think it's politically and personally disgusting in a relationship if a mother makes sacrifices and am an doesn't but let's park that one for now.

They are working because it is best for everyone.

On the question of types of care it distracts us a little from the main debate. You weigh up many pros and cons when deciding as a man or a woman whether to stay home 24/7 or not where there are choices at all. It may often be better to have a child in a nursery and work than stay home have no money or mother unable to cope with a baby 24 hours a day etc. So you balance those things out.

But yes I do like the model of a child in its own home environment with care from loving consistent adults. However my twins had 3 full time nannies in 3 years and I didn't feel or notice any difference in how they were compared with their siblings who had the same nanny for 10 years. Of course they had 5 other adults or almost adults to relate to too - 2 parens and 3 almost grown up sibilngs so the nanny was one of the 6 rather than the main person they loved.

The children ask whom do I love best and I always say it's equal - because it is and it's the same with love. Babies don't have a limited capacity to love and attach to one person only. They can spread it around. Just as men and women who want to spend 24/7 together in some kind of total love in with no other influences or life are stifling so for a baby - it thrives on a few known loved carers and parents surely.

My other problem with nurseries is that if your child is sick you (hopefully always the father but some mothers are stupid enough to be main back up - idiots that they are) has to take time off work. Also it's cheaper to have 3 children at home with nanny as we did than buy 3 nursery places in London. Also you get more control - it's your house, your routine, your regime and if you're working at home you can see the children too.

[Jean Jones]

Just to clarify - 'the children should fit in with what suits them, not vice versa' was what I meant to say. The contraction of vice versa came out looking like a w.

[Jean Jones]

Supermother at 18.41 - now isn't that interesting. You say that your children were looked after by a nanny who was with you 10 years, and you clearly feel that was a good option. So in fact what you are saying is that you agree that the model of childcare where children are cared for in their own home by a key figure who does not change over a very long period is the one you favour. So you do, effectively, agree that children cared for by SAHMs have something going for them. The difference between you and the SAHM camp is that you don't want to do it yourself, so you employ a stand-in SAHM, aka a nanny, to do it for you. So what you are saying is that from the child's viewpoint this model of care is good, but from yours, as mother, it isn't. Which is what, in the end, it all comes down to: ie that there are two people or groups of people in the equation, the child/ren and the mother/father/parents, and that BOTH deserve to have their desires taken into consideration. Not just one lot, ie the parents. THIS is where I part company with a lot of working mothers, ie the point where they seem to think that what they want/need transcends what their child/ren want/need and that the child/ren must always fit in with what suits them, not vv. I am not saying that is the case in your household - I just find it revealing that you are happy with the same model that I am, when I'm quite sure you would assert that you and I have little in common. And BTW 'mother' and 'housewife' are two different jobs. Just thought we should get that perfectly clear.

[Jane]

If he'd said something like 'isn't it a shame when people don't make the best of what they've got physically, and try and be their healthiest and best groomed' then I'd have probably agreed with him - pace, the amount of time and effort involved (no, I'm not going to spend irreplaceable time having my eyelashes dyed, and other 'unnecessary extras' etc). He wouldn't have offended anyone, because he wouldn't have tied it to gender or nationality, let alone what came across predominantly, which is that he's personally miffed that Brit women don't make an effort to be fanciable by HIM....!!! That attitude just makes him a total prat.

However, as usual, the real villains of the piece are the editors who commissioned him, paid him, and published him.

[Mumoftwo]

I don't disagree with Tad Safran's contention that some British women spend less time on grooming than the women he knows in California, I guess his problem is that we don't see it as a problem. Personally, I'm glad to live in the UK, where, if you want to you can take the time to get dressed up and do the whole 'beauty' thing, or not (I've done both). You can still live a happy and interesting life really not bothering that much at all and I guess that's what upsets him the most (and the power balance that this implies).

[Jane]

Re that Ted Saffron article, I was browsing through the comments (looking for mine, which, like Margot's has not been chosen - chizz!), and was VERY struck by the one below, which I think is the best retort yet to this obnoxious person (obnoxious not because he slags off any nationality female, but because he genuinely seems to think that women should make an endless effort to be desirable to him....in your sad little dreams, chum!)(my unpubbed comment pointed out that women only make an effort for men they think are worth it.....which clearly doesn't include him....)

But the comment below really struck me.

"You are in a position which allows you to air your views when far more intelligent and less bigoted individuals are denied this privilege. People like you set poor examples to our children when you say that image and glamour is all important. Its a real shame, especially since you are hardly likely to win any modelling contracts. You should remember that many people can't do anything about their looks, but you can do something about your personality which is far uglier, and your ego which is much fatter, than any British woman."

I think that sums it all up.

[supermother]

But you should let yourselves off the hook. It's the guilt guilt guilt thing that keeps women down so much. Ditch the guilt. Genes are important. It's not that we've swung in fashion to Genes. It's that we are finding so very much out through the human genome project and spin offs. It's very very exciting.

As for the stranger word it's just used by some stay at home mothers and best ignored. If I return to work at 2 weeks how is our nanny who stayed 10 years any more a strange than I am or the children's father was? We all knew and bonded with those gorgeous babies from day 1.

We had three children under 4 at one point 3, 1 and baby (and later twins too). It was very hard looking after them alone at weekends. I agree with whoever said it is hard but then women used to look after more. My great grandmother had 17 children. I doubt she made what some mothers do now of the job however. Siblings would look after children and children would play out and go out.

Women have always sought help. Even tiny London terraced houses have an ex servant's room from the 1930s because no one in their right mind who can afford it looks after their own children 25/7 except that strange housewife class of 2007 but they are on the way out anyway.

[Lazy Mummy]

Jane,

Agreed about the need for flexibility, support, etc. being the real issue, not SAHM vs FTWMs. But there's one thing I disagree with: the idea that a regular child carer who's not a parent is a stranger.

It's a fallacy to believe that a child carer remains a stranger to the child they care for every day. Of course, at first, the carer is a stranger to the child, but like anyone, they build relationships and often you see carers & children becoming quite attached to each other. Admittedly, they won't love them the way you do as the parent, but that's doesn't mean it's not a great, healthy, loving relationship. It also gives children the opportunity to start learning about and exploring their emotions in the context of other relationships - something they need to develop to be successful children and adults.

[J]

It's so difficult as a mother to justify anything for yourself. When I was a FTM (7 years) I not only didnt feel I could justify a cleaner, or any nursery care for my three aged 0,2 and 4 but I also didnt buy clothes (charity shop), haircuts (it was before I went grey)or convenience foods or a tumble dryer. OK we were living on itsy bitsy salary but even so.

I did eventually send my eldest to state nursery and his sister followed when she was 3: there's no doubt it helped. Now there is a bit more funding and entitlement out there.

I think we are too hard on ourselves about the sheer workload. Sure, if you have one child, or they are all at school, then it possibly is fair comment that you dont need another pair of hands. But Sarah's mum- and many other posters here- deserve "me" time.

[Mumoftwo]

I agree with Sarah's eloquent comments and the last post: personally I have always needed an extra pair of hands whether a full-time working mum as I am now, or as a stay-at-home mum which I was for nearly three years. I have many friends having a hard-time doing the early years child-rearing, and without exception, the ones finding it the hardest are the ones without any extra support or mum around the corner. This transcends working or not-working.

[Jane]

" she was very unhappy looking after three children under three and I know that she and I would have been happier if I could have spent at least part of the week in a nursery."

She must have been on her knees with exhaustion!

I quite agree that what is so bad, I think, is that it is this wretched 'all or nothing' which the original blog article brings up. I don't think a 24x7 SAHM of more than one (if that!) pre-schoolers can actually stay sane, and that some kind of 'respite care' (!!!) is an absolute necessity, which the kiddies are in nursery/with granny/dad, whatever.

I do think we have made a huge mistake in the west of making child-rearing a one-woman job, instead of a communal one which is, I would say, far more of a 'natural' one, where extended families etc share the burden out. I'd say it's far less exhausting for two people to look after two children than one person to look after one, if each of them takes turns to look after the children while the other one has her me time (or sleeps.....)

From a work pov, flexible working is an essential requiremetn for any kind of sanity, and, again, the big problem we have in the west is forcing parents to behave like non-parents when it comes to working lives. I do think things are genuinely changing in the workplace however, though there's a lot further to go by way of culture (and c.f. the 'double standard' blog where hurrah, yes, if men really are sporting their halos for leaving the office to go to the Nativity play etc!)

[Sarah Phillimore]

I think Jane hits the nail on the head with great precision.

There will never be detente between those who think only a mother's love will do and those who don't.

But I think its an interesting assumption you (appear to )make that a mother who choses to stay at home will always be able to express her love. i don't think that reflects reality for many mothers, particularly if they have health or money issues or other children to look after.

I'm sure my mother loved me but she was very unhappy looking after three children under three and I know that she and I would have been happier if I could have spent at least part of the week in a nursery. But it was the 1970s and not much was out there. (my first word(s) were apparently 'Jesus Christ!' because thats all my mother said, when she wasn't crying...)

So lets move the debate where it should be. Some mothers want to work, some mothers have to work. Unless one advocates sterilising working mothers or taking their children away, why aren't our energies being devoted to providing an environment where as many children as possible get the best upbringing available, be it at home or elsewhere?

Why aren't people angry about this?

[Jane]

"A good nursery can give excellent care."

.... buty it is the kindness of strangers.

I think this is the crunch point for SAHMs, that they feel that however educationally excellent nursery care may be, the point is the child is not spending the majority of its waking hours with someone who loves them. And that is the source of the deprivation which SAHMs feel is the lot of the children of FTWMs. I don't think this is a reconcilable divide - either one thinks a child should spend the majority of its time in the very early years with someone who loves them, or one doesn't! I might also add, that the 'love' is a two-way street, of course - I'd say the SAHM mum recognises that there is little point in having children if you don't actually spend much time with them. However, I really, really, REALLY don't think that either 'side' will ever convert the other, as it's a question of individual personality and character and moral values. FTWM(by choice) just don't see it as a big deal, and SAHMs do.

Speaking of moral values - "Ah but Jane, don't you then pose the delicious question - whose moral values?" - it can really only ever be one's own! By definition, I am not about to teach my children moral values I don't hold with. However, how that relates to the wider context - eg, is it 'right' to genitally mutilate women because otherwise they'll grow up to be whores (etc etc etc)- is more controversial, though I am of the opinion that there is a very wide 'base consensus' of morality that society as a whole shares (eg, don't beat/rape children , don't kill daughters who have sex outside marriage, don't punish people for a sexual orientation they can't help (unless it's paedophilia!) etc etc) that should in fact be imposed on those who may disagree with it!

"If children are important to society why doesn't society do more? If I'm constantly being told that looking after small children is v rewarding and stimulating why are people working in child care paid very little and accorded even little status?"

Completely agree!

[Sarah Phillimore]

Ah but Jane, don't you then pose the delicious question - whose moral values?

Isn't the more interesting question than the working mothers/SAHM blah why we constantly turn this inwards and there isn't more of a push to find a better way, to help the mothers who have to work. If children are important to society why doesn't society do more? If I'm constantly being told that looking after small children is v rewarding and stimulating why are people working in child care paid very little and accorded even little status?
Judith Warner discusses all of this in Perfect Madness, a v good read.
BTW Kim, and I appreciate this was several posts ago - did you ever read any of the research you mention? Or did you just rely on what the media wanted to conclude about it? As I understand the conclusions whether a mother worked or not made not a jot of difference. What matters is the quality of care a child receives. A good nursery can give excellent care. Pity there aren't more of them that are affordable.

[Jane]

So, it's all just genes and peers? Oh good, that lets us off the hook.

I think the problem we have is that currently, biology is triumphing in the genome project etc etc, and having had 50 years of anti-genetics (shades of Hitler etc), there's a backlash in favour of genetics. Everyone is busy coming out with 'genes for everything' (cancer, gayness, Alzheimers etc etc etc). I'm reminded that when your brand new tool is a hammer, the whole world becomes a nail....

My bottom line is that nothing lets us off the hood as parents. It's not really something we can afford to take a risk on, is it? Not teaching our children moral values (which is what, in the end, child-rearing all comes down to)

[supermother]

Goodenough is right. Child outcomes are often matters of their genetics and influence of their peers as much as anything you might do to them.

We need more of a relaxed attitude towards them. We borrow children for a short period and they are wonderful but we don't make them and we don't own them and we don't put in X effort and get Y out.

I love it when they say they're bored. I don't see it as my responsibility to fill their hours for them. I do talk to them a lot and I am glad that the older ones stick around a lot too even at university stage but whether the parents work or not does not have a huge impact on how they turn out. I like the fact mine have an independence and ability that some (not all) chlidren of stay at home mothers don't because they've had to get themselves out of various scrapes over the years on their own. That gives them skills which are at least as valuable as the life my earnings has bought for them. IN other words benign neglect is a gift you can give them but if you've made them your all and invented a career out of something that isn't a career you doubly damage them perhaps, a lose lose situation including your own losses of career and fun outside of the children. They need to know you love them but they also need to know you like doing other things too. I just told one of them I didn't want to be with him all day when we ski (It's true, I don't). That doesn't mean I don't love him - it just means I like a variety of things and children although a big part of my life are not the be all and end all of it. In Turkey 4 or 5 of those people I was with in the last few days, Turkish, male and female, had children and worked full time. Every single one had an only child which was interesting. Having siblings also makes chidlren learn about sharing and not being the little emperor.

[Goodenoughmummy]

Wow, we really have become very precious about bringing up our kids, haven't we? I just finished reading a book called The Nurture Assumption, which seems to suggest much of the effort we put into our children is - not exactly wasted but not as important or vital to their development as we like to think. Children's characters take on a lot more from their peers and their genetic make-up than from their parents' behaviour (says the book). Imagine if this were to be true, all that agonising we've done - for nothing! Then again, we could finally stop feeling guilty about every little thing we've ever said or done that we thought might leave a lasting trauma in our little darlings' brains.

In any case, I do think we have a tendency as parents (maybe as mothers even more) to think every aspect of what we do is of vital significance for our children. Never mind children chilling - perhaps we should be a bit more chilled ourselves.

[Annamac]

For me there is no war, either. Frankly, I feel that life is too short. If it feels right to work and have your child looked after by a nanny or in a nursery or wherever, do it. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it - or at least try to find a way to manage the situation so you, as a parent, don't feel constantly unhappy. Things are usually not as black and white as may first appear and sometimes a few lifestyle alterations can enable you to do something you thought you absolutely couldn't (i.e. work part-time, from home, not at all...). It's yourself that you have to live with for the rest of your life, not - in most cases - your children - so make decisions that you can live with. Do your best - what more can anyone do? Careers don't have to have a linear progression or immense financial rewards to be fulfilling. There are times when the work/life balance is very hard to achieve - small children have an evil habit of getting horribly ill just when you can least deal with it, for instance. Well, you can't control everything and you can't get everything right all the time, however hard you try.

[margot]

"Can't find enough venom to comment on that awful article about british women."

I did post one, but I must have used Some Words which The Times didn't like, as it never appeared .... can't think why!

[Jane]

Who is Ted Safran? Sounds like a Cornish cake to me.

[J]

well I agree with both points- I think Caitlin is getting her shopping done over a latte while we are busy writing her Christmas special column for her, and I have before now dared someone to look a real human in the eye and repeat what she just said.

Season of goodwill, anybody? how about an agreement to stop exaggerating our positions for effect, a nice Alpha new year resolution?

[Melissaria]

Late to the party again, (I blame Christmas) but honestly, am I the only person here who thinks that actually, there is no war?

Not in real life. In real life, mums of varied backgrounds, and with a diverse range of lifestyle choices are able to get along with each other perfectly well, like the grown up adult role models that they actually are.

In my view, this war only occurs when people are given the cowardly safety of online anonymity behind which they can dip their virtual pens in bile and vitriol, and indulge nasty sentiments that they almost certainly wouldn't bother (or dare) to voice in front of a real live person.

There's a reason you wouldn't bother either - it would make you look like an idiot. And an unpleasant one too. If I meet someone like that, then I don't bother with them again. Still no war...

Just because you *can* say something online without getting a good slap (verbal or otherwise), it really doesn't mean that you should. Now grow up, and play nicely! That means you too, Caitlin, with your deliberate flame fanning...

[kieransmum]

Yes, they are lucky, Supermother, and I love ski-ing! (Have super-alpha City banker relative who has offered to lend us their Swiss chalet though, does that count?)

Can't find enough venom to comment on that awful article about british women.

[supermother]

I love them having empty time (question asked of me below). Love it when they say they're bored because then they go in the garden or out on bikes and just be.... that's when you invent things and think and relax. So my 9 year olds are probably the most unorganised in terms of activities of any of their peers. They have a music lesson in school time and that is the sum total of all activities. It's great.

The older ones are at univesrity. They did learn 2 instruments but we're a very musical family and they chose to take part, some of them, in some school sport but it was all school stuff (except I made sure they all learned to swim so they had classes until they could do that).

Most of this week and next they're off school and they aren't doing anything and I'm working. They will be playing board games, going out down the road on bikes with their friend, walking in the woods, playing on the computer, watching TV - and 4 of the children are going to the King Tut exhibition but that's it (until I take them all skiing of course... very soon (over Christmas) and we can only do that because I am super alpha and aren't they lucky... laughing as I type)

[DELILAH]

I read that revolting article by Ted Safren - AKA God's Gift To Women (NOT!) - but the last few paras WERE very telling. He likes British women because they make HIM feel good, they amuse him and laugh at his jokes (and then he can write hurtful, bullying articles about them and still feel good about himself). He doesn't like American women dbecause they don't set out to amuse him, they make him feel uncomfortable by grilling him about what he can do for THEM(he calls this "grasping") and then heave him out of bed early so they can go running. There is a real assertiveness problem between the sexes in Britain which affects everything, from social relationships to work and fulfilment. It's OK to want to be rich, or beautiful, or successful, and to expect men to pull their weight. But sadly if you try it on your average British men, they react like Ted Safran.

[DELILAH]

Helloo? Do any of these kids have fathers? Incredible how the men are completely let off the hook in these British debates - and believe me, if this was a debate between American women that wouldn't have happened. Which is why so many more American women get to be the primary breadwinner while their men to sort out childcare and meals. I'm not kidding! I was STUNNED at the difference when I moved here.

And Supermother, I'm sure you'll agree that part-time work is the most inefficient conversion of skills into cash you can think of - full-timers end up with higher salaries, position, and clout (including the clout to take time off work) at the lowest expenditure (think of child care, household services, commuting costs and general arsing about). So getting all parents to work part-time isn't likely to do anything except help the full-time childless get richer and more powerful. Which isn't good for parents, or children.

[Mrs L]

I know!
Lunacy

[Jane]

I hope the cafe staff reported her to the police. Next time the poor little kiddy might not be found in time.

[Rachel]

"Being at home with a small child is lonely, boring and frustrating." Um, no it isn't! It's the most stimulating thing you can do.
"We're all either working mums who want to work a bit less, or SAHMs who want to work a bit more." Eh??? Nothing on earth would make me want to go out to work, even if I didn't have children!!!
I'd rather advertise in Private Eye for an eligible millionaire...

That's pretty crazy, Mrs L.

[Mrs L]

My friend's sister in law refused to move house because her son (aged three) wanted to go to the same shop every morning to buy milk and wouldn't be able to if they moved.

Same woman once took him to a soft play cafe, and then left to go shopping, leaving her toddler alone there. When he was found escaping into the car park (is part of a big shopping centre, and is NOT a supervised play area), she went crazy, accusing the cafe staff of being negligent!!!

How dotty is that?

Oh, forgot to add, that mortgage is going to go on for another 20 odd years.
Criminal that they were allowed to do it, really, but that is another discussion.

[kieransmum]

Yeah. And they had remortgaged their teensy terrace house so many times that despite having bought it 18 years ago for less than £30,000 (sighs, those were the days) they were now paying £900+ per month - and on one salary. Actually, they didn't have one salary because poor hubby was doing an evening job as well.
Oh, and despite all our gentle suggestions to the contrary, she was and is convinced that the house will be where her daughter wants to live so much (it's a little terrace in a shoddy area, no back garden) as an adult that she will BUY it from her parents for more than the market value, hence they will be able to retire to a nice bungalow.

Come on, anyone got a better example of dotty parenting than that?

[j]

KM £127 for a cake is just weird, try to get her to ask little johnny to sponsor a child in a poor community, it will be the best supported kid in the village.

LOL and thanks on your kind words, I find it helps to remember your own childhood and not to forget that despite the evidence, they are humans underneath, and they are due to grow up into adults similar but not identical to you!

[Gipsy]

KM - excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor. Is that a typo? £127 for a flippin cake?!

Jean - I'm not too worried. I know he'll be fine. And really we've got it easy - his cousin was obsessed with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. When she had chicken pox she made my brother in law watch it over and over all day. I don't think I could take that much Disney.

[Jean Jones]

Gipsy at 11.42 - I really wouldn't worry about it. My elder son at the age of 2-3 used to watch Dumbo, in its entirety, every single day. Every day. He later moved on to Nintendo games and thence to Playstation, watched copious TV and all the rest of it. Not all the time by any means but quite a bit. He is now 20, doing well on a law degree at a Russell Group university, got As in all his exams all the way through school, does drama and football, has a longterm girlfriend and lots of friends. ACTIVITIES are so much less important than today's hyper-anxious middle-class mothers think. There were plenty of kids at his school who were hustled from pillar to post with classes in this, that and the next thing and they didn't end up doing better than him. Being available for your child, providing books and reading to them and talking to them are the important things IMO. But then, being a wicked idle ambitionless SAHM I would say that, wouldn't I? (cackles evilly)

[kieransmum]

Gipsy, yes I can see where you're coming from. In many ways you have more opportunities to be flexible re: cars etc (with us it's Thomas), because you know he doesn't get to do it all day every day. And I see the point too of home time as down time.
Some mothers I have known seem to spend their weekends frenetically trying to 'make up' for the time spent away from them in nursery by constant activity, that is where it gets silly I think.
But then the barmiest mother I know is stay-at-home. She is pushy and dotty like you wouldn't believe, and I'm sure her child will be damaged. And despite her husband having a manual job and they being in oodles of debt she managed somehow to splash out £127 on a 3 year old's birthday cake. made me think I ought to go into the cake business.

J - those are interesting points. I love the way you can look back with an experienced perspective and offer sage advice on stuff most of the rest of us can only theorise about!

[j]

Kim, glad you posted on Td's article though we now need Caitlin to post to say what she thinks of it too!

I suspect he's just a bit short of work at the minute and needs to keep his press cuttings up.

What might be interesting is to think if men are under social pressure to pretend that they want perfect grooming ( the middle class vesion of requiring big hooters) when in fact they want nice people to love. What do your men think of this article?

[j]

"Perhaps now we can put the tired old cliches to bed and talk about something more interesting like the empty time issue? I'd love to hear the perspectives of J, SM and Margot on this one, as they all have older children, I think. How have you handled this? Have your children been in a flurry of non-stop extra-curricular activities, or have they also had lots of free time to just "be"? And how has that affected them?"

When I was a child myself, I discovered music for myself and it made me very happy- so much so that I was at music college by the age of 13. So I hoped my kids would take it up and I dragged child A to keyboard lessons.

I asked him the other day if I had done the wrong thing letting him give up a year later.

Absolutely not, said he, I was bored out of my mind. He was never bored in his down time, doing his own thing, only when I tried to second-guess what he would find interesting. By 9 he was reading A level chemistry text books which he paid 25p for in the local library. Not exactly what I would have thought up for him.

Generally, as my first 7 years of parenting was spend fulltime with them (3) at home, I did go to tumbletots, but mainly so I could goss with my friends while they mucked around. Child B goes to Guides which she adores. But they have had enormous wodges of time to do sod all in. As I speak, child A is on his massive long school holidays and I have arranged nothing, nada, for him. I never do. Sometimes he arranges something for himself, like making films with his mates.

When he was 11 he took the 11 plus from his state primary alongside hordes of scrubbed little angels from fee-paying schools with literally files on all their extra curricular activities. The school- feepaying, I'm not against them- was looking for original minds so it took him.

My other children are more vulnerable, so in their case I have tried to set them up with hobbies so they wont be lonely, but they dont have the skills to learn so we havent got too far.

So I think a hobby can be a great insurance for your kid against future loneliness, and a good way for him/her to make friends. But it's not a short-term investment and you cant expect them to have ten hobbies, or to pick the ones you like yourself. So if you dont give them any down time they will be frankly too knackered to care and they may also lack the confidence to put their little half-formed ideas up against your great big adult schedules of Improving Activity.

So I say: you have plenty of time, give them some gentle tasters of different activities to stimulate their thinking, give them space and dont panic. When they find what they love, then that is the time to sacrifice yourself and support them.

[Gipsy]

>>given plenty of time every day to 'wander and wonder,' as a friend of mine puts it.

I totally agree with you there. And I don't think that it isn't possible for a parent to allow this with child while sending them to nursery. Just following son on his pottering about is great and one of the best joys of being a parent, for me. And it is something I tend to do a lot of. Son going to nursery frees me up a lot in that respect. He gets a lot of drawing, wet play, sandpit time, slide time, singing songs etc there. So I can just let him go with whatever he wants at home and know that I'm not inadvertantly failing to develop him properly.

Of course if you came to our house at the moment you'd think I was a terrible parent. Son is utterly and completely obsessed with the Cars movie after my brother bought him the DVD. It is all he wants to do. He has to watch Cars as soon as he gets up (I've trimmed the watching time down by memorising a few key scene numbers and using the fast forward on the remote - luckily he doesn't follow narrative yet) and will run around the living room asking 'cars mummy pweeese, cars on now mummy pweese, cars pweees), and all his games are Cars oriented - he has a toy car that he never lets go of. If I say to him - what do you want to do? He will undoubtedly answer 'watch cars pwees'. I am sure that someone who didn't know us would leave convinced that we just leave him in front of the TV all day!

But there's all the other stuff that is really quite fun too. Obviously it is impossible to get serious housework done with a toddler around, but as long as you've got no expectations about what you'll get done, it isn't so bad. So I might just get to dust, for example, beacause I have to let son have turns with the duster (I get 'cleaned' regularly), and he loves vacuuming. So it is also nice, I think, to let your child potter about with you, as well as just pottering about with your child.

BTW for some reason part of what I wrote in my previous post didn't come out - the first part of what you wrote was utterly spot on and I totally agreed with that.

[Mel]

Good thinking Kim - surely we can all agree that Tad Safren is a vile, shallow, hollow, pathetic excuse for a man who is unable to tolerate women who are, like us Brits, REAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! I did read this and have been quietly seething ever since. Particularly where, as the article comes to the end, he admits that American women tend to be obsessed with earnings and lacking in social skills! I know how I'd rather be.
If I ever have the misfortune to meet this Safran person I'll gob in his eye.

[Mumoftwo]

Kieransmum, I'm completely behind you on the idea of empty time, I had huge swathes of it as a child, plus lots of things to make things with (materials, boxes, glue) and not too many actual toys (I did tell you my mum was an ideological educationalist- she was also into free play as an learning tool). I spent hours and hours making dolls, making houses, making radio programmes on my tape-recorder, writing little books, and just sitting around on the grass staring up into space, watching insects etc. I like the same for my children, so when I'm home, we just hang out a lot, doing housework together, making stuff, watching TV. My husband is the opposite, however, he feels his parents never did anything child-oriented with him, so he takes them on a whirl of play-centres, parents' groups, pre-school, ballet/dancing which I could never be bothered to do. I guess it evens out, though he thinks I'm a bit lazy and I think he's a bit manic!

[Kim]

I posted a long reply last night but something went wrong and it hasn't appeared this morning, so rather than prolong a discussion we're never going to agree on, I thought I'd post something we could unite on!

Anyone else read this?

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/beauty/article3029451.ece

British women are unkempt and slovenly, apparently. I was kind of expecting Caitlin to blog about this...

[kieransmum]

Gipsy, I think what I was trying to say was that there was a difference between bored/ignored/neglected children, who would obviously be better off in a structured nursery environment, and children who are well nourished emotionally and given plenty of parental attention, as both of ours as, but also given plenty of time every day to 'wander and wonder,' as a friend of mine puts it. That may well be possible at a nursery too, I haven't had as much experience as you so it is hard for me to judge.
But I think it is often overlooked in our society where we seem to feel the need to fill our children's time with supervised or adult-led activities. For me, "free play" at the playgroup my son attends isn't quite the same thing. There's too much noise, too many children trying to play with the same thing at once. I suppose theoretically what i'm thinking of is the kind of empty time that leaves room for the imagination Peter Brook describes in his book The Empty Space, or Augusto Freire when he talks about not seeing the child as an empty vessel simply to be filled up. I see no reason to believe that this kind of nurturing empty space is not POSSIBLE in a nursery environment, I just think it is one area where it is EASIER for stay at home mums to provide.
But obviously there are other advantages full-time nursery will give that my son doesn't get, as you point out. It's all swings and roundabouts.

[Nirmala]

Here's another fact to fuel the debate (but does it need fueling??): here in France we have a skyrocketing birth rate, and also one of the highest rates of working mums. So I guess the idea that having kids (and having more than 1) doesn't mean being a SAHM is quite an incentive to have more kids for many women. I think this is also quite a recent debate and that in more "traditional" or "ancient" societies women live(d) more in groups where everyone takes (took) care of everyone's kids as well as participates(d) to supporting the community, with the mother being of course the main person to take care of their offspring. This way I guess kids have (had) an ideal mix between exclusive care by their mother and interactions with other familiar adults and kids. However it seems difficult to replicate in modern western societies (in France we have so-called "parental nurseries" where parents take turns to watch all the kids with the help of professionals. but it means working part-time and being ready to cope with all the other little monsters ;o)).

[Mel]

"In other words, what I am saying is that it is no-one's business but your own how you raise your kids..."

Careful, Gipsy - you'll be accused of sticking pins in them and find yrself being shopped to social services!

In all seriousness, if this was started to provide Caitlin with some good copy as was suggested by a poster earlier on then it's most definitely worked, hasn't it? Bearing in mind the way that contemporary society seems to work against women in so many ways, wouldn't it be nice if us women could work together on issues that matter to us, rather than all the ideological one-upwomanship??

[Jean Jones]

Wow, SM. You think £30k a year is beans-from-Lidl level? I must be Budgeter of the Century then, because I've been exactly that, a SAHM married to a teacher, with intervals of part-time work from time to time, for my children's lifetimes (21 years and counting - the youngest is severely mentally handicapped and my SAH lifestyle has been vindicated only today when he was offered a placement at an excellent place, 2 days a week for the whole of January, as long as I can take and collect him and stay with him one afternoon - this may well lead to a full time placement when he leaves school next summer and if I were working he couldn't go, but I digress...). If you ask my older children, they say they had a great childhood, and remember individual toys they were given (the baby doll 1989, the Nintendo 8-bit 1993) rather than lavish piles at Christmas, and individual holidays (the camping trip including Alton Towers, the caravan in Brittany, the farm cottage in Derbyshire) rather than them all blurring into one sunsandandsea extravaganza. And growing up in a modest 3-bed Wimpey semi doesn't seem to have scarred their psyches too much. Once you're off the breadline, money can be overrated. IMO, naturally.

[Gipsy]

>>I don't believe in battery-rearing children, but the good nurseries don't do that. I also don't believe in bored ignored children at home, but good SAHMs dn't do that either. >Where I think home-rearing CAN have the edge, however, is something about empty time. Nannies, CMs, nurseries, they all occupy the child's attention by doing stuff with them, entertaining them. There is always something happening, someone to play with, something to do.

OK I'm not sure I get the point you're making here. If you're at home with the child doing something with them all the time, isn't that still filling up their time as it is doing structured play at nursery, or simply unstructured hanging with my friends play at nursery?

I know that my son needs to haves his 'me' time - he is quite assertive in letting me know. And I know he does this at nursery too because his key carer there has told me he does exactly the same thing, and when he does she just lets him get on with it and makes sure that all the other carers do too. If he wants to immerse himself in pretend play with the dolls house instead of story reading/fingerpainting/dressing up play etc, then he's left to do exactly that. I do the same thing at home.

Weekends are also fairly unstructured. Yes we do things, but then we often don't do anything for hours as well. He can just play all the games he wants to play, with or without me, as he sees fit.

>>I think they need 'just-hanging-out' time in order to develop naturally

I don't disagree with that at all. I give my son all the hanging out time I am capable of. If I was capable of more, and I didn't need the money, then I would cut back the working time and increase the stay at home time. But I know I'm simply not capable of that. When my mother was at home with us, she never did anything like that. I have not got a single hanging out time moment memory from my childhood. I was always so amazed when I went to other people's houses and their parent's did things like play board games with them. That said, it was just my mother's personality, her genetic makeup. She simply doesn't have that hanging out time in her. She was, for my childhood, the best mother she could possibly be, and she loved us a lot - unconditionally. Those are the only two things kids really need to grow up into healthy, functioning, successful adults. A parent who cares is one who makes sure that the nursery is good quality, who takes the time to monitor the other adults in a child's life, and who gets to know their child well enough that they can tell when something is bothering them or not, and so forth.

In other words, what I am saying is that it is no-one's business but your own how you raise your kids as long as it is done to the best of your capabilities, and with a lot of unconditional love.

I guess that why I'm getting so angry with a few other posters here is that what I feel they're saying is that I don't care about my son and I don't love him as much as they love their kids, becuase I send him to nursery instead of staying at home with him. Which is as ludicrous as me saying that SAHM's are depriving their kids and don't love them enough because they're not giving them enough social interaction with other adults and children etc.

[Lazy Mummy]

KM,

Empty time...I think you have something there; there's been a lot of talk State-side, over the last couple of years, about the Over-Scheduled Child, and I agree that children need time to be bored, do nothing, work out their own games, etc. Otherwise they don't have appropriate opportunities to develop their creative side, or to just daydream, think, ponder.

I remember many happy hours doing that as a child, and I think it's very important, a good way to recharge for both children & adults, to just do nothing for a while, on a fairly regular basis (of course, I fail to practice what I preach most of the time these days).

On the subject of nurseries, let's just lay this baby to rest for one last time and move on to something more interesting. Kim is wrong in her understanding of the science and Gipsy is right in hers. There is empirical evidence from BOTH sides of the Atlantic and it states (paraphrasing here):

--The difference in the academic & emotional development of children brought up at home up to the age of 3/4/5 vs. those in any childcare situation *other than parents* (ie: other relatives, nannies, au pairs, daycares of whatever type) is statistically negligible for children whose parents are (basically) middle class professionals. There is a very slight tendency towards slightly more assertive behaviour from those who had carers other than parents, in the early (kindergarten/1st grade) years, but by 9 or 10, this has evened out. And it's not a statistically significant difference anyway.

--HOWEVER for children whose parents are less educated themselves, there is a clear advantage for them if they're in a quality daycare. Their vocabulary, behaviour, etc. is more developed, and it's basically this that's the indicator of later academic success, economic success, tendency to fall into crime, etc.

--The key distinguisher seems to be vocabulary & communication. There's clear & compelling evidence that the amount a child is talked to from the very beginning will influence their vocabulary, which influences their ability to express themselves/communicate in pre-school & that has a life-long effect on their development. I think the data was something like children of highly educated professional parents are exposed (on average) to three times the vocab of children of uneducated parents (can't remember if they were identified as high-school drop-outs, or high-school graduates) and their own language skills develop at corresponding rates, at the various different pre-school ages they tested at (infancy through about 6, I think).

I have a lot to do today and don't really have the time to go & look up the citations but I went to a series of public lectures by some of the PIs, who are professors at the local, top-ranking research uni & are leaders in this particular field of research. However, here's a link to some of the main research findings (which you can order if you want to): http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs_details.cfm?from=&pubs_id=5047

Perhaps now we can put the tired old cliches to bed and talk about something more interesting like the empty time issue? I'd love to hear the perspectives of J, SM and Margot on this one, as they all have older children, I think. How have you handled this? Have your children been in a flurry of non-stop extra-curricular activities, or have they also had lots of free time to just "be"? And how has that affected them?

[Jane]

Don't think it's mad at all - think it's very reasonable. Applies to children when they are older too - though I expect they call it 'chilling' by then. Applies to grown ups as well.

After all, life isn't a project, full of nothing but milestones (typed milstones....!) and progress reviews and goals etc etc etc. Yes, we want those as well, but we also just want to 'be' in a non-specific sort of way. The joy of ordinary life really.

[kieransmum]

But seriously, folks, anyone want to comment on this mad idea of empty time?

[kieransmum]

Ah, I think this might be where you and I have different views on what is a suitable lifestyle, Supermother. The more I think about it the more I am sure that I really really don't want my children to grow up rich.
Not sure whether this is wise or not. But it seems to be something very important to me. Perhaps I am very anti-materialist, more so than I hitherto thought? Or perhaps I just enjoy the occasional hunt for baked beans?

[Supermother]

Let's not discount money though. I didn't say leads to happiness. I said leads to better outcomes. Most working mothers have happy adjusted children like mine so let's assume there is no difference in emotional/pschological outcomes and then let's fee money into it. Say 25 years ago I had given up work to be a teacher's wife family income in today's terms about £30k a year rather than working full time family income...well quite a bit, enough to pay 5 sets of school fees, nice house etc... surely the quality of life of those children up to age 18 and even beyond is so much better because the mother worked plus the mother is happier and you can afford things like cleaners and stuff lie that too so that the time is free to spend with children not wandering round Lidl to find the cheapest baked beans.

[bushra]

Seriously. I'm not going to go there. Why can't we all just get along? I'm currently on a years maternity leave with my first child, loving this stay at home mom thing but as a Bradford Wife/Daughter In Law there's only so much home life you can take. So please don't hurt me if I go back to the office, mmkay?

[kieransmum]

Supermother - agreed about the lack of science. Not agreed about my lack of humility, not agreed about high levels of abuse. Not agreed about money making children happy. Not agreed about PND or depression in general only happening to SAHMs.
have told you reasonswhy before so will not bore all further by repeating self.
centre of universe point is interesting, and i think you are onto something but that is not what empty time does. That is what over-obsessive parenting or over-active nursery does.

[Supermother]

I find the converse - that it's extraordinary any one should be so full of self importance and certainty that they are sure no one on the planet can understand and look after their child as well as they can. How can anyone think that? They need a dose of humility. My 5 children have benefited hugely from the variety of adults who have looked after them and I am sure they are better for having more than one relationship as under 5s - with their nanny and also both parents.

There are no proper convincing studies to show children at home with a mother 24/7 are better off than those who aren't so we don't really have any science on this at all to help us.

But let's turn it round. Let's look at the damage a mother at home can do to her child emotionally and in other ways - perhaps that's the abusive dynamic? What about that. Let's list a few reasons...

The child gets the one adult 24/7 so much more scope for abuse - no checks and balances. Most abuse is by parents.

Many women resent it and here is more PND amongst non working mothers, or G&Ts valium etc in the old days.

Less money which has a huge impact on children throughout their ages - economics is one key indicator for outcomes of children.

Children become a kind of centre of the universe thing they never were. You see it's not an ancient debate at all because anciently all women have always worked. It's a modern debate since women got domestic applicances. When being a housewife was a proper job the baby was parked in the pram whilst you scrubbed the husband's shirts etc. Only recently has chidcare become some of pretend sort of job and women have to suggest they are doing a job and make something of it.

[Supermother]

I find the converse - that it's extraordinary any one should be so full of self importance and certainty that they are sure no one on the planet can understand and look after their child as well as they can. How can anyone think that? They need a dose of humility. My 5 children have benefited hugely from the variety of adults who have looked after them and I am sure they are better for having more than one relationship as under 5s - with their nanny and also both parents.

There are no proper convincing studies to show children at home with a mother 24/7 are better off than those who aren't so we don't really have any science on this at all to help us.

But let's turn it round. Let's look at the damage a mother at home can do to her child emotionally and in other ways - perhaps that's the abusive dynamic? What about that. Let's list a few reasons...

The child gets the one adult 24/7 so much more scope for abuse - no checks and balances. Most abuse is by parents.

Many women resent it and here is more PND amongst non working mothers, or G&Ts valium etc in the old days.

Less money which has a huge impact on children throughout their ages - economics is one key indicator for outcomes of children.

Children become a kind of centre of the universe thing they never were. You see it's not an ancient debate at all because anciently all women have always worked. It's a modern debate since women got domestic applicances. When being a housewife was a proper job the baby was parked in the pram whilst you scrubbed the husband's shirts etc. Only recently has chidcare become some of pretend sort of job and women have to suggest they are doing a job and make something of it.

[Supermother]

I find the converse - that it's extraordinary any one should be so full of self importance and certainty that they are sure no one on the planet can understand and look after their child as well as they can. How can anyone think that? They need a dose of humility. My 5 children have benefited hugely from the variety of adults who have looked after them and I am sure they are better for having more than one relationship as under 5s - with their nanny and also both parents.

There are no proper convincing studies to show children at home with a mother 24/7 are better off than those who aren't so we don't really have any science on this at all to help us.

But let's turn it round. Let's look at the damage a mother at home can do to her child emotionally and in other ways - perhaps that's the abusive dynamic? What about that. Let's list a few reasons...

The child gets the one adult 24/7 so much more scope for abuse - no checks and balances. Most abuse is by parents.

Many women resent it and here is more PND amongst non working mothers, or G&Ts valium etc in the old days.

Less money which has a huge impact on children throughout their ages - economics is one key indicator for outcomes of children.

Children become a kind of centre of the universe thing they never were. You see it's not an ancient debate at all because anciently all women have always worked. It's a modern debate since women got domestic applicances. When being a housewife was a proper job the baby was parked in the pram whilst you scrubbed the husband's shirts etc. Only recently has chidcare become some of pretend sort of job and women have to suggest they are doing a job and make something of it.

[kieransmum]

Hmm, the more I think I find my thought developing. I'm going to need to phrase this very carefully, because I don't want to sound unreasonable.

What every child needs is love, but beyond that, time and attention. That can be ANYWHERE, and from anyone, as long as it is stable and consistent. I don't believe in battery-rearing children, but the good nurseries don't do that. I also don't believe in bored ignored children at home, but good SAHMs dn't do that either.

Where I think home-rearing CAN have the edge, however, is something about empty time. Nannies, CMs, nurseries, they all occupy the child's attention by doing stuff with them, entertaining them. There is always something happening, someone to play with, something to do. So do many well-meaning SAHMs, we all know the treadmill of after school clubs etc.
But I think there is a joy in boredom which the frenetic pace of modern living often misses. This is something that by spending large tracts of time with small children, just messing about, you and they can both benefit from. They learn something about the bigness of the world and the fun to be had in very little everyday boring things. You learn how much more interesting a world is seen from a child's viewpoint. Call me a soft-head, but I think that our culture has got it all wrong in our focus on targets and entertainment. We need to slow our children's development DOWN where possible, giving them time at home to play at nothing much or copy mum with the hoover is a big gift to them, in the way that a toddler group or a nursery class is not.
Which brings me to my second point, which probably does sound like I'm having a go at working mums (I may be, but feel free to come back at me if you think I am being unreasonable). I want my children to have time with me more than I want them to have the money that I can earn (I am very fortunate as said before to have the choice, many posters here do not). I prioritise that, not because I am Mrs Fabulous but because I think they need 'just-hanging-out' time in order to develop naturally, and I don't see anyone else, with their OFSTED targets to worry about, offering to do that for me. I also think that the more time you spend with your children the more you appreciate them, that has been my experience anyway - something about the more you put in, the more you get out, and in that sense I think quantity time can beat quality time. I think that today, anyway.

BUT I can see that giving your child quality time as a working mum may actually provide the same gift of time and attention and slowing-down-together in a different way, so I really don't want to slag off working mums. Also, that gift of empty time is not one that every woman wants, so why force it on those who prefer the fun and energetic pace of working?

Remember I studied fulltime till my oldest was eighteen months old so I do know what it is like to be in both camps!

Do, please, feel free to disagree with me. This is more my thought developing than my attempting to be strident on one side or another.

[Jane]

"details of personal choice"

I wouldn't call handing your children over to a third party for 90% of their waking lives a 'detail'! It's a major decision.

"I felt I'd done a complete days work before I began!"

This is completely usual. (I'd add a smilie, but it's not really something that raises a smile....)

[kieransmum]

Don't be upset, Gipsy, this stay-at-home mother thinks that J is absolutely right, and that the most important, indeed the only important, thing is love.
We show that love to our children in different ways.
Where is the terror generation of children destroyed by nurseries? I don't see them.

[Gipsy]

Goodness me, look at how some Stay At Home Mothers (not thankfully all of them, in fact not even the majority) seem to treat this subject. We working mothers are being told that leaving our children at nursery is equal to the suffering inflicted on Romanian children in orphanages (which really belittles what those poor kids went though), child abuse (ditto re: those kids who are abused) and that they aren't being loved.

Kim - show me those studies. No really, please do. Because the only studies of any scientific worth that I have seen have not shown anything of the kind. In every instance they show that good quality childcare, whether it is in a nursery or at home with the mother, results in a healthy, well balanced child. And the most recent study which was widely reported wrongly (the media picked up on the part about poor quality nurseries resulting in children with behavioural problems) showed that those in good quality nureries did better long term both emotionaly and intellectualy than those kids who stayed at home with their mother. I know that my son's nursery is a good quality one, and I know that the staff there all love being with children.

As for the idea that children under the age of two aren't social - what absolute poppycock. My son loved being introduced to new people from the time he was born, and he developed a close and loving relationship with a best friend at nursery when he was a year and a half. My friend's daughter doesn't like being introduced to more than one new person at a time, and never has. She hates being in crowds of strangers, and has always liked to get to know people slowly even when she was a baby. My sister's younger son adores his brother, and recognised him as an individual whom he preferred being with as opposed to a complete stranger from the time he was a baby. What absolute nonsense that babies aren't social beings!

[Loll]

I agree, Kim, I don't think we've got early childcare right in this country. The care a child receives in the early years shapes his/her emotional development FOR LIFE.

It is so important, yet we hear the same justifications for women working and leaving their babies and children in the care of people for whom it is just a job. They don't love your baby! We need to start incentivising women to spend at least the 1st year with their child instead of rushing them back to work - especially those on lower incomes. And as for those on higher incomes, stop making excuses for the fact that it's just a damn sight easier in the office than at home.

[kieransmum]

OK, this is a serious and important debate but can I just be frivolous for a moment? Today I had to go on my course placement so I had
1) a husband who missed his bus and had to be dropped to the train station otherwise he wouldn't have got to work which is kind of important because at the moment he feeds the family
2) two children who needed to be fed dressed and dropped to two different childcare settings
3) myself at gates of said placement by 9.30 am.

I arrived knackered! Honestly guys, all you respect to working mothers of two small children but I don't know how you do it, I felt I'd done a complete days work before I began!

I am NOT going to work properly until both my children can get themselves dressed in the morning.

[j]

"Finally, in answer to J's point, about children not remembering what happens before the age of 2: they may not remember, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect them. Look at the Romanian orphanages: what happens before the age of 2 has a profound effect on that child's development from then on."

Kim I am not talking about serious abuse, just suggesting people lighten up about details of personal choice where good parents are doing their best.

[Kim]

To answer Sarah's point - I'm extremely happy with the choice I've made. I work from home, I have a full-time salary and I don't need to use any childcare. I think that makes me rather lucky.

But then, I'm not getting "het up" about other people's choices. Doesn't stop me having an opinion on them, or being interested in them - in fact, I can't believe there isn't anyone here who doesn't have an opinion on how other people bring up their children, whether it's the amount of cake they eat or the time they let them go to bed. Isn't that human nature?

Incidentally, I believe that it's an extremely good thing for women to be in the workplace, both for women themselves and for society as a whole. I personally don't think, however, we've properly got to grips with how children should be looked after in a society where both parents go out to work. The thing that annoys me is the argument that says, "I'm happy at work, and if I'm happy, my children are happy, therefore it's good for the children." It's pure wishful thinking. To use a reductio ad absurdum again: I'm happiest when having lots of affairs; if I'm happy, my husband is happy; therefore it's best for my husband if I'm having lots of affairs. Doesn't follow, does it?

Finally, in answer to J's point, about children not remembering what happens before the age of 2: they may not remember, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't affect them. Look at the Romanian orphanages: what happens before the age of 2 has a profound effect on that child's development from then on.

[Tamsin]

There is usually research that can justify both sides of every social question because there are so many variables - quality of care, postcode, parental earnings, parental education, child IQ etc etc.
A good case was in the book 'Freakonomics' by Steve Levitt....Whilst New Yorks government was patting itself on the back that their zero tolerance to crime was working really well as crime rates had dropped drastically, when actually the real reason that crime had dropped was that 20 years previously aborton was legalised....with a huge reduction in the number of children
who would have been at greater than average risk of becoming criminals
during the 1990's born.

I'm not saying that abortion should be encouraged, its clear that there are many factors influencing the crime rate (numbers of cops, acces to education, employment rates etc etc) - my point is that statistics can be used to argue almost any point and shouldn't be used to make generalisations over peoples CHOICE regarding childcare.

[j]

POst from the far shores of teenagerdom here: there were many events and choices that I agonised over when they were little.

They now have NO memory of any of it.

Have a think. How much do you remember of being two years old?

Love and consistency are the key, the rest is a matter of doing our best and being good enough in the balance we choose.

[Sarah Phillimore]

Hmmm. I'd be interested to know if Kim has actually read the research itself instead of relying on newspaper reportsof its 'sensational' conclusions. From (the admittedly not much) extra reading I've done it seems like the 'detrimental effects' are very small and a lot depends of the quality of the nursery etc. But whatever.

I think Mrs L put it best. 'In my experience people who get all het up about what other people choose to do tend to be unhappy about their own choices themselves.'

[Mel]

Ok Kim I think I understand your point. But, (and this is for all the posters here) we are still debating what is for a great many mothers a fallacy. I mean that of those who choose to return to work, a close examination shows that they didn't choose to do so, but were forced to by the cost of living. The 'choice' becomes one of either going back to work and scraping by to afford all the bills plus whopping great childcare fees, or being a SAHM in a house that's being repossessed by the bank because you've defaulted on the mortgage. As has been stated, women need to work.
I reiterate my first post - low cost (subsidised?) childcare should be available to those who need it (I'm referring to means testing here - so it should be free for the poorest) to enable people raising families to work on an equal footing with those who aren't.

[Kim]

Gosh, Gipsy, you're taking this a tad personally. "How does putting a child in nursery affect everybody?" Well, as I said, it affects everybody because if it turns out that nursery care has a detrimental effect on children's development - whether intellectual, emotional or behavioural - that has consequences for society as a whole. And I wasn't pointing to a "doom-laden prophesy", but there are several empirical studies suggesting that nursery care isn't an ideal way to bring up small children. But then who wants to bother studying silly old empirical research?

[Gipsy]

>>As a society, we agree, generally, that it's bad to beat children, but that it's good for children to be educated, and to be well-fed and housed, and the state puts money into ensuring that these things happen. >Whether we like it or not, the question of whether children are better off in nurseries or at home with a parent or other carer is one that affects everybody.<<

OK now you've lost me. How is this something that affects everybody? Having a supportive childcare system and an economy that makes it possible for women to choose whether they want to work or stay at home is definitely something that affects everybody.

How does putting a child in nursery affect everybody? If you're going to point me in the direction of doom laden prophesies about the inevitable bad behaviour of children who've been in nurseries then let me stop you there. That particular study showed that the results depended on the quality of childcare. A child at a high quality nursery did better long term than children of stay at home parents. So therefore, for the good of society, all children should be made to go to good quality nurseries right from the word go.

>>And it seems an odd thing to say, really - to imagine that other people can do a better job of looking after your child than you can. Why would they?<<

That's really over simplifying things a lot. How easy it is to spin what people are saying! Goodness only knows why all of us WM mothers aren't handing our kids over for adoption the second they're born. I mean really, that sort of statement is sillyness of the highest order.

I am the best person to look after my son, and as I work and he has to spend some time in childcare, then I'm best placed to choose the sort of child care that I know will make my child happiest. My son's ideal world would most likely be spending his day at nursery with mum and dad there with him all day. That wouldn't happen in any world. I can't provide him with all the stimulation he wants even if I was a SAHM.

What makes my son happiest is for me to be the best mother I can possibly be. And for me that means having a job and a regular income. It was never going to be any other way. My mother worked, as did all the women I knew growing up in my working class area because they had to. And we all let ourselves in after school and were left to our own devices until they got home, from about the age of 8.

Luckily our society understands that mothers need to work. Our mothers would have loved the range of after school clubs and childcare options we get to choose from. And I am 100 percent certain that every single one of them would have taken those options in a shot so that they could get a satisfying job with a future, instead of working in a factory, supermarket or a coffee shop because the hours fitted family life more. Job security would have helped them during that period in the 1970s when all the dad's decided to leave, and all the mum's were plunged into financial poverty (OK that's an over generalisation but it sure did seem that way at the time. My parents are still together but they seemed to be in the minority). I've talked to a lot of my mother's friends, and that's what every single one of them said. And the advice of all these women? Play with your kids, do the dishes later (or just buy new, clean dishes) and make sure you have a career you can depend on.

That's just my choice, and the great thing about feminism is that we all have the choice now.

But never ever ever tell me that I'm saying that other people are better at looking after my son than I am. Because I am NOT saying that, and I will never say that. There are people who can do things better than I can, because they're childcare professionals whose job it is to spend the day teaching kids colours and numbers in a fun way. There are people who are better than I am at deciding if my son needs medication or if his weight is right for his age because they're doctors and they have the training for this. There are people who are better than me at making my child laugh and be entertained because they're actors/magicians/etc and that is their profession, and they have the training for it. There are people who are far better than I am at getting my son running around and developing physically because they're trained soccer/gym/swimming instructors and they have the trai