Britain a world leader in working mothers:,

[aragornlover8]

I think that the perspective that children of sahm's are disadvantaged is ridiculous. Calling them selfish is even more baffling to be honest. Most SAHMs I know take their children to swimming lessons, music groups, play groups, play centre and socialise regularly with other families. What are the children missing out on exactly?? Being part of a huge herd of kids vying for attention?? Perhaps it is the cortisol bathing that they miss out on??

I have a career but my children come first. I guess I find it difficult to understand how someone could have a child and prioritise it second to their own career. I just think children deserve more than second best. I don't feel like I miss out on opportunities because of my children. I feel like I can have a career and be a mum but if I HAD to choose, I would and I wouldn't compromise a child and their development. That I just find selfish. Wouldn't it be best just to concentrate on one or the other if you can't have both?

The problem is I really don't see a reason why you can't have both. The studies show that there might be a link between daycare before the age of 1 and behavioral problems later. That doesn't mean that one is a direct cause of the other. I imagine that in a case like this income has a lot to do with it; Lower income mothers are more likely to have to put their children in daycare to continue to provide for them. Lower income mothers are also less likely to have time to or motivation ti be nurturing. Besides, even if that were the case, I imagine there are steps one could take to alleviate or minimize the suggested outcomes. These types of studies are rarely done to only make one recommendation. Usually it goes along the lines of 'This research suggests you should stay at home with your children, but if you cannot it is recommended that...'

Also I think you present a very black and white view of priorities. You state that if you have a career and an infant, you must place your career as a higher priority than your child. I imagine many women have careers in order to provide for a better live for their babies later down the road. So it's a little harsh to suggest that they are doing it purely for selfish reasons.

 

[Gen79]

Trust the Daily Mail to screw up a message. Right, I looked up the original report and you can't read it for free but you can look at the "media brief" for free which will give you the real gist of what they want to say. Here it is: https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/35/47701128.pdf

The quotes that the DM printed may be real but the report obviously had a different overall message. Check out a few of the quotes that I found in the media brief.

Family policy needs to be multi-faceted to achieve different objectives: reconcile work and family responsibilities; increase parental employment and combat poverty; mobilise female labour supply and promote gender equality; promote conditions in which families can have the number of children they desire at the time of their choice; and, promote child development and equal opportunities among children for the future

(emphasis mine)

For women who wish to invest in their careers, a long break from work after childbirth may not be advisable. From a child development perspective, things are not so clear. Behavioural and cognitive development effects and the reduction of poverty risk may cancel each other out, especially for children in low-income families. Some evidence suggests that mothers returning to work before the child is 6 months old may have negative effects on child cognitive outcomes, particularly when employment is on a full-time basis. The effects are, however, small, not universally observed and, in certain circumstances balanced by positive effects related to having extra family income.

(emphasis mine)

Some evidence suggests that low-quality care, long hours in care, and enrolment before age one is associated with behavioural problems in children. By contrast, high-quality formal childcare is linked with cognitive and developmental gains, particularly for children from more disadvantaged home environments.

(emphasis mine)

Working parents contribute not only to family and child well-being, but also to broader economic and social well-being. Parent‟s employment is key to getting families out of poverty.

](emphasis mine)

Thank you Daily Mail. Thank you for your agenda.

I also found a study yesterday that said that the negative effects at 4 and 5 years old were gone by 12, but I can't find it now.

 

[aragornlover8]

Trust the Daily Mail to screw up a message. Right, I looked up the original report and you can't read it for free but you can look at the "media brief" for free which will give you the real gist of what they want to say. Here it is: https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/35/47701128.pdf

The quotes that the DM printed may be real but the report obviously had a different overall message. Check out a few of the quote that I found in the media brief.

Family policy needs to be multi-faceted to achieve different objectives: reconcile work and family responsibilities; increase parental employment and combat poverty; mobilise female labour supply and promote gender equality; promote conditions in which families can have the number of children they desire at the time of their choice; and, promote child development and equal opportunities among children for the future

(emphasis mine)

For women who wish to invest in their careers, a long break from work after childbirth may not be advisable. From a child development perspective, things are not so clear. Behavioural and cognitive development effects and the reduction of poverty risk may cancel each other out, especially for children in low-income families. Some evidence suggests that mothers returning to work before the child is 6 months old may have negative effects on child cognitive outcomes, particularly when employment is on a full-time basis. The effects are, however, small, not universally observed and, in certain circumstances balanced by positive effects related to having extra family income.

(emphasis mine)

Some evidence suggests that low-quality care, long hours in care, and enrolment before age one is associated with behavioural problems in children. By contrast, high-quality formal childcare is linked with cognitive and developmental gains, particularly for children from more disadvantaged home environments.

(emphasis mine)

Working parents contribute not only to family and child well-being, but also to broader economic and social well-being. Parent‟s employment is key to getting families out of poverty.

](emphasis mine)

Thank you Daily Mail. Thank you for your agenda.

I also found a study yesterday that said that the negative effects at 4 and 5 years old were gone by 12, but I can't find it now.

Thank you for this. I wanted really badly to research it more last night, but LO just had her 8 week jabs and so I've mainly been a veritable portable crib.

 

[nov_mum]

I think that the perspective that children of sahm's are disadvantaged is ridiculous. Calling them selfish is even more baffling to be honest. Most SAHMs I know take their children to swimming lessons, music groups, play groups, play centre and socialise regularly with other families. What are the children missing out on exactly?? Being part of a huge herd of kids vying for attention?? Perhaps it is the cortisol bathing that they miss out on??

I have a career but my children come first. I guess I find it difficult to understand how someone could have a child and prioritise it second to their own career. I just think children deserve more than second best. I don't feel like I miss out on opportunities because of my children. I feel like I can have a career and be a mum but if I HAD to choose, I would and I wouldn't compromise a child and their development. That I just find selfish. Wouldn't it be best just to concentrate on one or the other if you can't have both?

The problem is I really don't see a reason why you can't have both. The studies show that there might be a link between daycare before the age of 1 and behavioral problems later. That doesn't mean that one is a direct cause of the other. I imagine that in a case like this income has a lot to do with it; Lower income mothers are more likely to have to put their children in daycare to continue to provide for them. Lower income mothers are also less likely to have time to or motivation ti be nurturing. Besides, even if that were the case, I imagine there are steps one could take to alleviate or minimize the suggested outcomes. These types of studies are rarely done to only make one recommendation. Usually it goes along the lines of 'This research suggests you should stay at home with your children, but if you cannot it is recommended that...'

Also I think you present a very black and white view of priorities. You state that if you have a career and an infant, you must place your career as a higher priority than your child. I imagine many women have careers in order to provide for a better live for their babies later down the road. So it's a little harsh to suggest that they are doing it purely for selfish reasons.

I think my posts may have been taken out of context?? I said if you wish to place your career a higher priority then I find it to be selfish. I also state that I manage both myself. I was commenting on situations where it is the baby or the career. It is not doing justice to the child to go ahead and conceive only to have other people raise it. I also believe it is a fallacy that you CAN have everything. It is simply not possible. You can't have the big house without working for it, you can't have the flash car without paying for it and you can't have a well bonded child and a well developed relationship when you see then an hour a day. You can choose to get a dog walker or a cat sitter if you really want a n hour a day with your dog. I just find it horrible to do this to a child. I don't think the issue is that day care so much as the amount of time in day care. If a young child is in day care 45 plus hours a week then it will do most of it's learning (or lack of learning) there. Why depend on an agency to teach your children principles and morals?? Isn't this the role of the family?

 

[JASMAK]

i am going back to work but you can always tell who the latch key kids are at school.

 

[Sarah10]

You can't win at all, if you are a SAHM on benefits or whatever you get slaughtered, if you work and your kid is in childcare you get shot down for not spending enough time. In an ideal world we would all live in the 18th century with fathers working all day, mother stays at home cooks cleans sorts kids out etc.
It doesn't always work like that, some mums are single, they have no choice but to either be on benefits or get a job, what about them?
I'm a SAHM at the moment whilst o/h works and hope by 2014 i will have gaduated Uni. I don't feel guilty at all that i will be working all the hours god sends, i am doing it to better my sons life!

 

[Hunkdorey]

^^ Was just thinking the same thing - what if the mother is a SAHM who has no intention of working - ever! And HAD no intention of working before they became pregnant?? Is it better for the child to live on the bread line and not see a good example of a good work ethic?? I know not all mums on benefits are social bums - but I personally do know of a few. I just wonder if this type of SAHM is considered??