Zoe Williams in this article about the problem with individualism and families:
The reality for many women is that their work is cost-neutral, and they do it not to hold their spot in the workforce, for their NI contributions or eventual pensions, but because the alternative is to look after their own children all the time. Conservatives like to pretend that men are maladapted to childcare: second-wave feminists like to pretend that intelligent women are maladapted to childcare. In fact, the problem with children is that they are a bit childish: most people want to look after them some of the time. Very few people want to look after them constantly.
Hm.. The problem there is: (1) it’s easier to look after children with support, and (2) if families had access flexible work options, we really could look after kids some of the time.
I do, however, strongly disagree with women’s employed work being “cost-neutral,” which is I guess the point of the post.
Hmm – I do take the point that looking after children full time with no money can be extremely testing, but as to that being the reason women go to work? This wasn’t my experience at all – I had no choice but to go back to work. Given the choice I would have probably opted for part-time work. Overall, I think Zoe Williams is mixing up two separate arguments.
but because the alternative is to look after their own children all the time.
I find that statement hard to chew on. There’s so much judgement in it. And it infuriates me that offhanded comments like that one just add another inch to the chasm in the mummy wars between the working mum and the SAHM.
The theory of childcare policy being driven by a conservative push to “put women back in their place” sounds plausible, (though I am not entirely sure I agree with it either.). The rest of her article I find myself thinking, well she has a point. But that above comment just grated so much on me….I’m not sure I am reading her intent right. Motherhood and feminism are not exclusive. The undertone of the piece was that working women do so to avoid their own children…Or perhaps I am just being particularly sensitive this morning…
I think she has overgeneralised there. I am that mother who went back to work so she wouldn’t have to spend all day with her children. That’s not to say that I didn’t miss them, and don’t still miss them, but with one at school and the other starting next year it was always going to be that way.
But just from being around the mummy blogosphere for a few years I know that many mothers don’t feel this way and would much rather be at home with the kids if their economic situation allowed it. I am also in the fortunate position now of getting ahead even with the childcare fees. It was a much closer thing with two children in care. But working certainly wasn’t value neutral, especially not for my mental health.
Quite frankly, the idea of being at home full time with my children fills me with dread. I love them dearly, but we all appreciate time away from each other.
I have long thought that the American goofiness about working women was tied to our strong undercurrent of sexism and belief that all women would want to stay at home with their kids fulltime if only they could afford to do so.
I am not really in the group that Ms. Williams is discussing- my working is far from cost neutral. I make enough to pay for day care and quite a lot more.
But her point about the fact that not many people actually want to take care of kids 24/7 resonates with me. I know that there are some people out there who want to spend a heck of a lot more time than I do with their kids- my own mom was one. But even the most gung ho stay at home moms that I know need breaks. They arrange babysitting swaps, or drop the kids at the gym’s child care center, or something. Because parenting is hard work. I know that I am a better mother because I have a break from the kids, and I suspect a lot of people feel the same. It is just that we aren’t supposed to admit that.
(Aside: have you read Mothers and Others by Sarah Hrdy? It is on my “to read” list, but from the reviews I’ve read, it makes the case that humans were always “cooperative breeders”- ie, we really aren’t meant to be raising our kids on our own without help, no matter what the 1950s say.)
Anyway- I have more thoughts on this, but I think they warrant their own post. Which I may get around to writing soon.
“Very few people want to look after [children] constantly.” This statement rings startlingly true for me and for probably about 99% of the parents I know personally; although few will admit it – I know of not a single person IRL who would be comfortable actually admitting that in front of a large audience. That said, I don’t deny the existence of parents out there somewhere who can’t get enough of their kids, don’t seem to need any ‘me’ time. I just haven’t met any of them yet.
Agree with what @Cloud said about parenting being hard work, and needing a break.
Few people want to do the same thing “constantly.” Being asked to do practically ANYTHING 24/7 will eventually drive a person batty, even if that activity is inherently pleasurable or fulfilling, I think people eventually start to crave novelty.
My late grandma had 7 kids and worked, not because she needed the money, but because she had 7 kids.
We were never meant to raise kids in isolation– the one adult with children all day model is not one that appears in nature, according to anthropologists, and is a construct of recent modern Western culture (See also Our Babies Ourselves, a fantastic book by an anthropologist that took away my mommy guilt). No wonder all those SAHM on mommy forums are going crazy. They NEED the playgroups and to get out and talk to other adults. And they need to stop feeling guilty for needing adult interaction (which is something mother’s forums do a good job of– telling SAHM they need to get out of the house, although they suck with the “I don’t want to work but I have to” climate).
My son is really intense, even though he’s beautifully behaved. We cannot keep up with him and he needs at least an hour of running around and an hour of learning new things or he is impossible to deal with. He hasn’t napped since before he was two unless he’s sick or on a growth spurt or is in a new situation where he’s learned a ton in a very short amount of time. Thank God for preschool.
I so wish people writing about motherhood would not generalize. Every mother who does or does not return to work has their own reasons for it. (And medical benefits, pension payments, and “keeping the spot” are not insignificant additions to having a job beyond the money that comes home, even if daycare then takes all of that.) But I agree heartily with the last sentences. I love my son and spending time with him AND he exhausts me. His daycare workers are saints and worth every single penny. They also get to go home at their end of their shift and spend their time however it is they choose to.
@Cloud: Mothers and Others is a wonderful book and very eye-opening, particularly the last chapter in which she wonders (very circumspectly) about how we might be influencing future generations by making it easier to keep kids alive without the social bonds in place that was previously needed to do so.