Ending The Mummy Wars

Hold the presses! And don your hard hats. For there has been yet another study released, all about us modern mothers and the myriad ways we damage our children through the choices we make.

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?

The last 20 years of consumerism and global capitalism have forced most families into a 2 income situation, whether they want to be in one or not. How often is the phrase uttered "Oh, I would love to stay home, but we just can't afford it". This isn't a mindless excuse. It's a very accurate reflection of the enormous pressure that many in the developed world face, to keep accumulating, keep consuming and keep moving. Men are just as susceptible as women. And in many parts of the UK, the perceived necessity for Mummy to go out to work stems from the strive to afford decent housing, in a safe area, with (and this is crucial) good local schools. Try buying a family home in a nice area of Kent on £25,000. It's next to impossible.

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.

Swimming Against The Tide

It's a tough job being a woman in this day and age. Even more so being a young woman. Mine is the generation that has never known a world without feminism and 'women's rights' and in many ways we have reaped much benefit from the changes that have occured in the past 30 years or so. We can climb the career ladder and own property (when Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister she, like every woman in the UK, was legally unable to buy a house for herself; needing the signature of a male guarantor. And she was the PM!). We can buy our own cars and clothes and holidays and we do not need to rely on a man to provide for us.

We are the 'Sex and the City' generation. We've grown up listening to Beyonce preaching to us about being an "Independent Woman" and we've watched Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda sleep their way through New York, decked out in designer gear whilst simultaneously holding down fabulous, glamorous high pressure jobs. Yes, truly, we can do anything that a man can and we can do it in heels.

And I don't begrudge anyone the right to live how they want but for those of us (there are many...I know there are) who decide not to buy into the system, life can be tricky.

This has become all the more obvious to me since leaving my work and 'coming home'. I wasn't a real high-flyer, but I did work in a high pressure, male dominated industry where competition was fierce. At times, it was a really depressing place to be. Women were seldom taken seriously and there was an expectation that we would work a lot harder than the men just to be noticed.
The effect this had on the women was quite profound. Few were married, fewer still had children. And the further up the ladder you climbed, the less and less likely you were to find women living in traditional families. "Man-bashing" was a common every day occurrence, the prospect of babies and children was frequently scoffed at and Lord help you if you dare to suggest that it's not such a bad thing to be dependent on a man.

So I was not at all surprised to read the results of an American health study a few months ago that rather sensationally revealed that "career women" have higher levels of infertility, more incidents of hormone in-balances and are more prone to heart attacks, stroke and similar health problems resulting from their stressful work environments.

Women have clearly suffered as a result of the massive back-lash against traditional gender roles. Wasn't the concept of female emancipation supposed to be about choice? I find it hard to believe that scores of women across the western world are shackling themselves to jobs that leave them exhausted and childless because they want to.

Maybe this is happening because women so often feel that they simply don't have a choice. The messages we hear throughout school, university, from friends and teachers are relentless. You either work full-time, or you're "just a mother". You either support the availability of abortion, or you are anti-woman. You either earn as much money as you can or you risk handing over all control to the man in your life. You either wait to have babies until you're in you're late 30's or you're wasting your youth.

This isn't choice. This is battery by social expectation.

But despite years and years of heavy propaganda, the tide of our culture cannot wash away the basic biological and psychological instincts of women. A lot of us still do want to have children, some of us really long for it. We still do wish to be married rather than just live with someone. We still enjoy pottering about at home on a sunny day, baking a cake, knitting a scarf or potting some plants. We may be aware that these things don't constitute 'meaningful' work in the eyes of society but a lot of us still do it all anyway.

I'm one of the lucky ones though.

I have felt completely liberated since leaving the work-place and my experiences made me seriously re-assess most of what I was taught by my hardcore feminist lecturers at university. And I was incredibly lucky to meet a man who really valued the role of a traditional wife and mother, a man who is not afraid to carry the financial burden of our family without support from his wife.

I would love to be able to say that I have a magic solution, an antidote to the huge pressure heaped on young women to abandon their natural instincts and hurl themselves into stressful careers which force them to behave and act like men. But there is no antidote. My daughter will no doubt experience the same pressure when she comes of age.

But what we can do is eliminate ourselves from the competition. We can remove ourselves from the rat-race and decide alone how to best spend our time and energy. I believe for some women, this does mean forging a career, even when children come along. But for great numbers of women, the traditional role of wife and mother is a valid choice, made through conscious and deliberate consideration of all the available options.

We need to reclaim our right to choose. We will have to swim against the tide and begin a new, fresh 'women's movement'. We don't need to take to the streets though, wave banners or hold meetings. We can start this movement by simply by refusing to 'justify' our choices to virtual strangers. We can start by holding ourselves answerable only to God and our conscience.

We need to reclaim our right to choose.