Stay at home advice to mothers attacked as sexist and wrong

[Rink]

Stay at home advice to mothers attacked as sexist and wrong

By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 04/10/2005)

Research suggesting that it is better for mothers to stay at home (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJADPNLYL2BVFQFIQMGSM54AVCBQ WJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/03/nmum03.xml) to look after children up to the age of three is sexist and mistaken, the Equal Opportunities Commission said yesterday.

It said there was no reason why the father could not look after the children rather than the mother. It also said that full-time working mothers whose children were looked after in day nurseries or by child minders or nannies had perfectly "healthy and happy" offspring.

The Government-funded commission spoke out after the research, led by Dr Penelope Leach, a child care expert, claimed that babies did better in developmental tests if they were looked after by their mothers. It did not suggest that fathers could, or possibly should, be the main carers, a point the commission felt was a major flaw.

Jenny Watson, the commission's acting chairman, said: "We are sorry to see the National Childminding Association following the assumptions of decades ago by restricting its research on the needs of children to the role of mothers, ignoring the contribution increasingly played by fathers."

More on this Story (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/04/nmums04.xml)

[TechnoPrincess]

There are just so many things wrong with this article that I don't know where to start...

[Rink]

whats wrong with it?

by all means start somewhere

I had a stay-at-home mother and it was good to have.

I think that someone got it right and they are being lambasted as sexist for saying the truth as it is.

leaving your kids in the hands of strangers isnt good for kids, kids ned their parents, a mother and a father.

They need stability not shuffling off to day cares and nannys, and ya wonder why kids today are so screwed up?

I think mothers if they can do it should stay at home, as raising children should be a high priority, if they cant do it then they really need to rethink their priorities, cuz its obvious they are not prepared to raise kids as it is.

Now before you slam me I said IF they can do it.

Mothers that are divorced or widowed for whatever reasons should do their level best to be involved in their kids lives as much as possible.

In this world you cant always have the perfect nuclear family but it can be sought after the best that can be had if the parent works hard enough at it.

But the IDEAL thing would be to have the stay-at-home mother to have a stable home life for kids.

Thats just my point of view k.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Yes, by-golly, we simply CANNOT abide by the observations of the study, because they go AGAINST the ideas we want to project -- that children don't NEED their mother, that just any old substitute will do. Human forbid we should hurt some "father's" feelings, or that of a nanny or "child-minder".

Mothers ARE mothers for a reason, they are to MOTHER their children -- the LEAST they can do is mother them til they are three (personally, I feel that time limit should be extended but that's a different fight for a different time). YES, father's are extremely important, but there is an important bond between a mother and child that needs to be established for stability, security, and safety of the child. ANYONE with that bond will tell you how big a role it played in their lives.

I am an adoptee, whose mother NEVER (and to this day doesn't) have a maternal instinct in her body. We struggle to enjoy a mother/child relationship. I was a latch-key kid, with parents who worked all the time so I was with a "child-minder" of some kind or other all my life. MY children have had me from DAY ONE -- I am a million times closer with them, than MY mother is with me.

I'm sorry, but to downplay the importance of the role a mother plays, most especially in the early part of life, is simply wrong.

[Lestat]

And what is more important than raising and educating the next generation?

Leaving kids to strangers and not to their parents is a disaster. Then end up learning stuff that is both different and contrary to what their parents accept or believe. That is why you have the rebels all over the place.

[jag]

Dr Leach said that nannies and child minders were seen as the next best to a mother's care, followed by grandparents. Children who were looked after in nurseries fared worst

Those not cared for by their mothers tended to be more aggressive and became more withdrawn, compliant or sad.
Ooops, how did that slip by the editors? Four in five new fathers are happy to stay at home to look after the baby," I just don't believe this

[TechnoPrincess]

Actually I was referring to the attack on the report "Research suggesting that it is better for mothers to stay at home (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JJADPNLYL2BVFQFIQMGSM54AVCBQ WJVC?xml=/news/2005/10/03/nmum03.xml) to look after children up to the age of three is sexist and mistaken, the Equal Opportunities Commission said yesterday", but I guess you read into it what you wanted.

But then again I have been told by SAH mom's at my son's school that I should have my child taken away from me since I only see him a few hours a night due to the demands of my job and the fact that 7 years later I am still paying off the divorce and custody bills from my ex who beat the shit out of me. So there are zealots on both sides of the issue.

EDIT: Keb can tell you that on another boad I was attacked and told that it was better for my child to be permanently removed from my care and given to strangers than to have a single mother. I was told that it was better for him to have a SAHM who was in no way related to me than to have a single mother. I have only been married to my current husband for 2 years, and while single I got told REPEATEDLY by SAHM at my son's school and at our old church how my son would be better off with his father (who put me in the hospital repeatedly and had 3 years of supervised visitation because of anger issues) who remarried than with me because at least he'd have two parents.

While I think that a SAHM is best, I get tired of being told how I am not as good of a mother!!! I bust my ass on a daily basis to provide for him and he KNOWS I love him and that I would be home if I could. Walk in my shoes for ONE ****IN WEEK then tell me how I'm not as good of a mother!

[Lestat]

I'm sorry, but to downplay the importance of the role a mother plays, most especially in the early part of life, is simply wrong.

Good post. They just want you to hang over your kids to third parties that they can control so they can influence them with their liberal agenda at an early age.

There is no other reason. The liberals leave no stone unturned.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Princess,
I hope you weren't taking offense at my post, it was most certainly not directed at you by any means, but at the study negating the role of mothers.

There ARE circumstances where mothers must do whatever they can do for their families ... I understand that, for sure, I've worked night jobs, and all kinds of things to be there for my kids, and life must be even more of a struggle for those who don't have a partner/husband to help in that area.

I guess I'm just sick and tired of being told that MY role as a stay at home mom can be filled by just any old Mom, Dick, or Mary. Those parents who abdicate their parental roles on purpose, knowingly, and willingly are the ones that give us (you and I) the bad names because of THEIR actions and misactions.

I guess I get too worked up about this issue -- so many children are suffering, and "society" just turns a blind eye because of political correctness and it makes me sick.

[TechnoPrincess]

I guess I'm just sick and tired of being told that MY role as a stay at home mom can be filled by just any old Mom, Dick, or Mary. Those parents who abdicate their parental roles on purpose, knowingly, and willingly are the ones that give us (you and I) the bad names because of THEIR actions and misactions.

I guess I get too worked up about this issue -- so many children are suffering, and "society" just turns a blind eye because of political correctness and it makes me sick.

I agree. I think the best solution is for a parent, preferably mother, to be home with the child. The hardest work I've ever done was the first year of my son's life when I was home with him all the time. I actually envy you because you get to stay home with your kids all the time. And I get angry at those parents, normally the very rich and the very poor, who want someone else to raise their child because they have "more important" things to do. I'm sorry if you are rich enough to pay someone to live in your house and raise your child, you have enough money to stay home and do it yourself...I really dont' get the whole Nanny thing!

I actually work at an employer now who allows me to take sick time any time my child is sick without fear of penalty (up to my alloted sick days), and I still know people here who will leave a 2nd grader home alone rather than take a day off of work. You couldn't pry me out of my house with wild horses when my child is sick (except to go to the Dr and Walgreens if needed). I just don't understand how children have turned in to accessories that are no different to some people than their purse or shoes?!

[jag]

. Those parents who abdicate their parental roles on purpose, knowingly, and willingly are the ones that give us (you and I) the bad names because of THEIR actions and misactions.

.

That's the whole point. Those who willingly leave their children in the hands of others feel a guilt they try to transfer onto those who don't.

Don't get me wrong many, many working mothers don't agree that they are doing the "right" thing by their kids - they are just doing whats right for them and don't buy into the belief that the children suffer for it.

It's the ones who pretend, like ED Hill on the news, that they are indeed doing their children a service by working outside the home that creates the attitude that those who take the approach of full time child rearing being important, as somehow an underachievement.

[TechnoPrincess]

That's the whole point. Those who willingly leave their children in the hands of others feel a guilt they try to transfer onto those who don't.

Don't get me wrong many, many working mothers don't agree that they are doing the "right" thing by their kids - they are just doing whats right for them and don't buy into the belief that the children suffer for it.

It's the ones who pretend, like ED Hill on the news, that they are indeed doing their children a service by working outside the home that creates the attitude that those who take the approach of full time child rearing being important, as somehow an underachievement.

That is not true of all working mothers. I hate that I have to work and I know that he suffers for it. Luckily I have family near by and a wonderful husband who try and make up for how much I have to be gone. My wonderful husband has taken my son under his wing and is now even my son's Cub Scout leader. My parents have done their best to help with my son.

The guilt I feel is enormous, but exactly what are some women supposed to do? I know women who couldn't afford to stay home and their pregnancies were not planned. Are they supposed to loose their house and belongings?

I had a $500 divorce and $9K custody battle, and have spent over $20K fighting for my son since that. Should I just hand all I have over to my attorney? My husband, who had nothing to do with the divorce or any of the $20K I racked up, is more than happy to help pay it back, but he can't do it alone.

I didn't realize that for us working mothers we have to bare our souls to people about the guilt we feel and put upon ourselves for it to be acknowledged. At work I dont' talk to a lot of people, and while I have "art" from my son all over my desk and 4 pictures of him on it (my husband rates a wallet size stuck in the corner of one of my son's frames), I don't talk to ANYONE here about how I feel about it. I really don't talk to many people about it...I get too emotional. So I guess to you I would be one of those people who just am doing what's right for me because I don't sit there and cry about it all the time. Quite frankly, I don't have the time to.

You see to ASSume a lot about working mothers. There are some who don't care about the affect that it has or who think that SAHM don't "work" (those women deserve to be beat heartedly), but there are more who do but don't see any other way and wish they could be home.

[jag]

Sweetie, this isn't about mothers who must work to support their families. You must do what you have to for your kids. Thats a given no one is trying to argue.It said there was no reason why the father could not look after the children rather than the mother . There is no father in your case and in many cases. As in many cases, to work outside the home is necessary even with the father present. You are to be applauded and admired for not taking from society and making it on your own, even when its hard.

It is about those who make the choice to have others rear their kids and the mood being set that it is the right way to do it.

Even you argue that if possible you would be home. It's that possibility that they are trying to diminish as a valid role for woman.

[DoctorDoom]

Come on, folks, don't you understand this?

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ITAV-HRC.jpg" /></center>

Parents are obsolete. The libs know what's best for our kids. How dare we question their wisdom and insight!

[Lestat]

But does Hillary Clinton has a son/daughter?

[TechnoPrincess]

Come on, folks, don't you understand this?



<CENTER>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ITAV-HRC.jpg</CENTER>


Parents are obsolete. The libs know what's best for our kids. How dare we question their wisdom and insight!


GAH!

I hate that book!

I cannot believe that anyone ever read it. I'm sorry I don't want my town raising my child....that is what his FAMILY is for.

[TechnoPrincess]

But does Hillary Clinton has a son/daughter?
Chelsea

[Kathy29]

The Equal Opportunities Commission is driven by ideology. They don't care whether or not children are better off with a stay at home mother. Do you imagine they can't recognize that children raised without the presence of parents aren't dysfunctional. They know. But they can't admit it because of the ideology. The problem isn't that some children are raised in parentless situations. The problem is that some children are raised by stay at home moms. If ALL children were raised by persons other than parents, the whole concept of dysfunctionality would have to be revised. It's like the championing of children raised by single parents, and same sex couples. It's part of the process of redefining what's normal emotional health.

The future adult considered emotionally healthy will be unable to form emotional attachments to others, have serial short term sexual relationships and be unable to parent children themselves.

[nene]

Heard recently that increasingly young women are choosing to become "stay-at-home" mothers. Imagine, mommy being there whenever the child needs her. How can a child ever benefit from such attention?:rolleyes:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I think we can all agree the OPTIMAL family situation is husband(father)/wife(mother)/children. There ARE circumstances which alter the optimal, so we desire the NEXT BEST thing: parents do the best they can with the circumstances that they are confronted with. THOSE situations are not the ones that are causing all the ruckus, not directly anyway.

"Society" says those things ARE (without question) going to happen, so therefore we will DOWNPLAY and negate the importance of the OPTIMAL, so as not to "hurt any feelings" -- it is the politically correct answer. We all know people whose desire it is to stay home with their children -- if given their druthers AND the ability to make it so, they WOULD be home with their children. The insinuation is that this is not true. The best way to reduce the OPTIMAL is to point out the exceptions, thereby nominalizing and minimizing the importance of the optimal.

Yes, there are children that come from unfortunate family situations and they survive and thrive. Does that mean we ELIMINATE the optimal because SOME have beat the odds? NO, I say. The goal should always be a stable nuclear family -- and we shouldn't beat up those that have achieved it, or denigrate them because they don't face the types of struggles that families that aren't intact face.

Stay-at-home Mom has become like a dirty-word. And I for one am fed up with it.

[Eagle1]

going at this from the perspective that it insults fathers? that is just crazy

why the hell are libs so angry at family? do they resent their own parents so much that they dont want anyone else to have them either?

[Rink]

I'm not criticising any mother who HAS to work to make ends meet, the ones I was referring to are the ones who CAN afford to have kids but elect to shuffle them off to day care or nannys, the ones with the big house two plus cars, the boat et al and yet they dont seem to have time for the most important investment of their lives.... their kids.

THIS is my complaint, not you Princess, you're to be commended for your concern, devotion and sacrifice for your son.

That is a hard thing to do to fight like that for your child, fight the courts, fight an ex, and rack up a debt that needs to be paid.

Believe me I sympathize with you, I tho am on the same level as Home, I too am tired of the "Stay-at-Home' mother being poo-poohed and denigrated and looked down upon in a snotty way.

Those that told you that your son should be taken away from you should have been slaped hard (backhanded-wise) for what they said to you.

They were busybodied snoops trying to run your life when it wasnt their business.

Made me mad hearing that as it was.

I tho came from a household that HAD a 'stay-at-home' mother, and I truly feel I was better off for it, can this be had always? no but its something to strive for, and work to find a way to achieve in whatever way you possibly can get.

With you Princess you make the most of your time with your son, whereas many parents dont even bother involving themselves in their kids lives at all, you are to be commended for your dedication to your son even if it is a few hours a day At LEAST you make the most of it when you get the time and I am Very certain your son realizes this, You LOVE your son and that isnt lost on your child.

The biggest bitterest thing I cant understand is, people marry, have kids then shove em off to day care or nannys when they truly could afford to take the time to take care of their kids themselves.

These people are more interested in 'keeping up with the jonses' than bothering with taking time to involve themselves in their kids lives, then when their kids get screwed up because there isnt any parental influence in their lives they wonder what went wrong.

Now THIS is the one complaint I have.

Not those in your position Princess.

Not everyone can achieve the 'ideal' nuclear family, but people like you strive to achieve it and strive to do their very best to love, and be involved in their children the best way they possibly can.

Kids dont miss that, they dont miss that one bit and the ones whose parents may not always be there but do their level best to involve themselves and make the most of the little time they have with them Realize and know this, the ones whose parents arent interested in getting involved in their lives and shuffle them off to nannys or day care Realize their parents love and devotion isnt there.

There's a HUGE huge difference here.

I hope this makes sense to you Princess, this isnt a condemnation of you and your two parent working household.

Not everyone can achieve that 'model' nuclear family withthe Stay-at-home' mother thing.

Some of us are too bloody poor because of divorce, death of a spouse or other chance & circumstances to be able to do such a thing, but as long as you TRY thats what matters and thats what makes YOU a better parent than the ones that shuffle their kids off to day care or nannys.

[Peachdiane]

So there are zealots on both sides of the issue.

Sure are!!!

When I was trying to get myself and the boys out of domestic violence, I was BOMBARDED by my (now ex), his family, and his church, who kept telling me God hates divorce and every child needs a mom AND dad.

That logic is seriously flawed when kids are hurting emotionally and physically. That's like telling a mom she must stay married even though dad is raping their little girl or telling a dad he must stay with his wife even though she is mistreating him and beating the kids. Gah!

I don't know TechnoP but if she's like me, it was hard enough to get out of a bad situation with limited funds and threats, not to mention having to put up with the ex playing dirty at every turn.

I respect family units for their choice to stay at home and homeschool but am getting tired of hearing negativity when a working mom has no choice but to go to work. TechnoP, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Keep plugging along!

[Keb]

I think we can all agree the OPTIMAL family situation is husband(father)/wife(mother)/children. I hope it's a given that husband/father is "male" and wife/mother is "female".:grin:

[PatrioticAmerican]

I am a stay-at-home dad. I watch my two year old son, and chauffer my daughters around to their activities. I cook, clean, and discipline the children. I also paint, install flooring, and handle the doctor visits, etc.

As if I know how to do any of that well. About four years ago, the last company I worked for went bust. After that, I worked part-time jobs that were related to my field (3D animation). After a couple of years, Hunter was born, and I stopped working altogether to stay at home. Childcare for three kids is too much, especially since we'd need a nanny who could drive the kids as part of her duties.

Anyway, I kept looking for a job that would enable me to work, and hopefully allow my wife to stay home with the kids. But, she makes so much money, that being able to find a job with a comparable salary would've required us to move. My wife doesn't want to move.

For a while I resented the limitations of having to work all day as a dad, and work all night to put together samples for prospective employers, when there aren't any real prospects for me here. Finally, the stress was affecting my health, our relationship, and our children.

I resented having to be a stay-at-home dad so much that I was sniping at my kids more and more. I realized that this was an untenable situation.

So, I told my wife that I was done looking for a job until our son was old enough to be in pre-school. I decided to be a full-time father.

Since then, I have been working on stopping whatever I am doing to attend to my children's questions, requests, and desires for my time. I have refloored half the house, and will start on the rest once the wood comes in. I will paint the kids' rooms and do a number of other home improvement tasks.

At the same time, I have started a business with my brother that we hope will generate money for us starting next year. I am a game developer at night, and I have contracted others to program the game and do the art for it. Since I couldn't find a job, I created one.

I share all this because I have learned the most important thing any parent knows, but sometimes forgets: our children are gifts from God, and we are blessed by Him when He makes us His stewards.

My wife and I work hard to raise our children to be God-loving, respectful, and responsible. So far, we think we suck at it, but others at their school and at church tell us the kids are very polite, generous, and sweet. So, there's hope.

I believe it takes more than one person to raise children (if for no other reason than to preserve the parents' sanity). But, honestly, a man and a woman bring different things to the table, and when possible, I think the ideal family situation is the father-mother home.

I came from a divorced parent home, and it had its impact. But, with positive influences, positive thinking, and lots of love, I made it through to adulthood in one piece. As do millions of others like me.

Since Life is what it is, and I am at home, I will strive to do a better job. As soon as I can get out of here and go to an office, I am GONE! But, until then, I LOVE feeding my children, doing homework with them, playing ball, going to the park, taking them to Chuckie Cheese, and just watching TV with them from time to time.

My only real regret is that my wife isn't able to experience this herself. She's a working mom, and I love her all the more for her work and sacrifice.

[Rink]

Bless ya PA for that.

Amen to what you said :thumb:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I second your motion, Rink.

PA :claps: ! Nobody said unconventional can't work, and you are proving not only that it can, but you're still proving the point how important it is for PARENTS to parent their children, not strangers. Blessings to you and your family, and may the Lord continue to watch over you and yours, protect and guide you.
Blessings,
Hms

[Lazarus]

What bothers me is that there is a government-funded committee of bureaucrats wasting our tax dollars getting involved in this debate... Especially when they arbitrarily denounce the conclusions of a research psychologist simply because it runs counter to their lefty political agenda...

Cant these people be put to better use in the Postal Service?