Except, this one comes with a difference. The results of a recent American study by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care has demonstrated that on balance, babies and young children do not suffer when their mothers go back to work within 1 year of giving birth and that, taking into account all factors (such as lifestyle, health of the mother, financial stability and child-care choices) the effect of having a working mother on a child is no different than the effect on a child when it's mother remains at home.
"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.
"Family relationships, family income, the mental health of the mother all change when a mother is working and so what we did was to look at the full impact, taking all of these things into account."
Now, this is of course good news in many ways. Working mothers are frequently berated for their decision to work, despite the fact that many women not only need to work to make ends meet but are happier and healthier when given the opportunity to work outside of the home. And taking an over-simplistic view of things, happy mum = happy baby.
Except that it just isn't that simple. The findings of this study do indeed disprove, or at least throw into debate, countless other investigations done. But on closer inspection, the conclusions found seem to apply to only a small sub-set of working mothers. The study listed some advantages that children enjoy when Mummy goes out to work. Greater financial stability. Excellent child-care. An increase in quality of life and lifestyle.
Again, all good.
But is this really the reality for most working mothers? Waldfogel tells us, "This is especially good news for US mothers, who typically go back to work after three months because of the lack of maternity leave, but it equally will apply to the typical British family."
Hmmm...most mothers in the US return to work at 3 months post-partum because of a lack of maternity leave? This doesn't sound like choice to me. This sounds like institutionalised expectation. It sounds as though perhaps, there is a pressure placed upon these women to go back out to work, to earn some money, to do some 'real' work. Where is the happy mum = happy baby equation in this?
I simply don't see it.
The examples quoted are very telling also.
"Julie Wilson, 43, returned to work full time when her first son, James, was six months old. "We had a really good nursery nearby and it was absolutely fine. I really enjoyed my job and never considered changing my hours. I don't feel he missed me – he was happy at nursery. He was occupied all the time… Later on it was really educational."
When her second son, Ben, was born, she returned to work again, but went part-time. Wilson, who now works as a freelance, thinks the decision to work had no negative impact on the boys, now 12 and eight. "Looking at James now, he is a very rounded individual."
There is no single mother here, living in council housing or with her parents, desperately trying to forge a decent career and working at McDonalds to fund her education. There is no married women whose husband has been made redundant, forcing her to go back to the office job she hated Monday - Friday while her children stay at home with Daddy.
No, the women quoted in this study are the fortunate ones. They are the those women who have already dedicated time to their careers prior to having children. They are the women who need rely on no-one for financial support since they are successful, independently wealthy and able to afford the best child-care money can buy.
The conclusion that mothers should not feel guilty for the choices they make is valid and noble. Of course women should have the choice to work, just as men should have the choice to stay at home if they wish.
But there is a baffling display of confusion here, the assumption that a women who goes out to work is a woman who has chosen to go out to work. It's no doubt a huge relief for all working women, whatever their circumstances, to read that their working life is probably doing no damage to their children, but wouldn't studies such as this and the institutions that fund them better serve the women they are seeking to help by researching ways to enable more women to have the choice to stay home, if they wish?
I suppose my point is this: Positive encouragement of mothers and the tasks that they face is only ever a good thing. The founders of this study rightly sought to comfort the anxieties that working mothers feel and they did just that. The 'Mummy wars' and the insults and judgement that goes with it has go on too long and I for one welcome the findings of this study as demonstration that most mothers simply do the best that they can, for their families and themselves. But as well as encouragement and comfort, society should be seeking ways to help all families achieve a life that they feel is right for them, rather than relying on a promise that the life that they have probably isn't going to hurt them in the end.
1 comment:
Insightful post. That really is the crux here isn't it: a woman's ability to choose. Feminists claim their movement gave us that ability, but we see that for the "average" woman, that simply isn't true.
P.S. Love the new lay-out! :)
Post a Comment