Are parents (working mums) just selfish....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7861762. stm

There is on going dispute about this here just now, but how do you separate need from greed, bills have to be paid.

The debate goes on that mothers should stay at home with their children until they go to school and those who don't are being selfish!

Harsh words....I don't see this my mother worked when my sister and i were growing up, i didn't like it when she wasn't there but i wouldn't say that it has damaged me.

do you think mothers should stay at home....why....what do you see as the benefits to the children?

do you think it makes any difference....explain?

Or just your general thoughts on this.

There are points on both sides, but when this gets to argument stage, both sides get defensive and totally ignore the fact that children can turn out just fine and well adjusted in either situation - on a case by case basis, of course.

My mom stayed at home until my parents divorced, and while it was hard with her as the only present parent, we managed.  She was always there, and we didn't want for any of the basics, including her attention.  She always had a meal on the table in the evening, even if it was just soup and grilled cheese sandwiches.

Until I was layed off, I was a working mom, and my boys are doing fine.  Granted, they are thrilled to have mommy sending them off to school and be there when they get back to play with them.  I'm still looking for a job to go back to though - we have some unavoidable expenses that simply can't be met on one salary.

I will end with this - a child can have a stable or unstable environment in either situation.  Working parents can be very attentive and provide a wonderful stable home with good child care, and stay at home moms have just as much of a capacity for selfishness.  To make a broad judgement without considering individual situations doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

i've always liked time by myself. my first complete sentence was "i want to be alone". i managed to keep myself out of any trouble.  so no, i dont agree in my case.

you can make the same argument that maybe its because its so hard to punish children because some are scared of being called an abusive parent. but to blame the mothers???  and if this is true "Child-rearing is one of the most challenging tasks in life and ideally it requires two people" then why blame the mothers? what about the absent fathers, i dont see that included anywhere in the article.

I don't know the answer.  I never had a choice.  It was go to work or starve, so I worked. I made a lot of sacrifices in order to survive, and my daughter had to make sacrifices too.  She turned out great - terrific student, successful, happily married, so I guess I did ok by her in spite of the lack of material things. 

I'm glad I didn't have "help" from her father though, since he was the cause of most of the problems in my life.  He just disappeared along with our life savings.  Of course, none of these ivory tower experts is blaming him for his child having to go without some things and for me having to work 3 jobs....

I think it really just depends on the child(rens) personality. Some kids are prone to getting into trouble if not watched closely (either out of frustration or following the wrong people).

My mother stayed home with me and I turned out ok, but when my brother was 6 she and my dad separated and she wasn't able to be around too much because we moved to a new country and she had to go to school and work to support us at the same time. My brother got into trouble that lasted until he was about 15 or 16. Now at 24 he is back on track and doing really well, but it was a hard period.

I chose to stay home with my kids, but because my husband doesn't make enough for us to survive on, I had to figure out what I could do at home to earn an income to make it possible. I decided to open a licensed home daycare and with that I was able to stay home and raise my kids and spend these precious early years with them helping to teach them good morals and values. Even though running my daycare is difficult, I wouldn't trade being the one to raise my kids for anything in the world.

While I'm the kind of person who is fine with being at home around kids all the time, there are others who just need to get out and be around adults and work outside the home, and that's perfectly fine too as long as they make sure they purposely put aside the time to spend quality time with their kids when they are at home (and not just to feed them and put them to bed). Both ways can work as long as they are properly balanced and the kide are getting time with their parents.

Why is it automatically the mom's fault?  We never hear anything about working dads ruining children's lives.

Personally I think I would serve my children best by making sure that I am able to provide for them in case my husband cannot.

Original Post by plasmagirl:

Why is it automatically the mom's fault?  We never hear anything about working dads ruining children's lives.

Personally I think I would serve my children best by making sure that I am able to provide for them in case my husband cannot.

Thank you thank you thank you.

What she said.

My mom was amazing, she was an independant contractor tour guide/translator, and showed me that women can be the best in their field and buy their own homes, manage property, pay for private school all without a man's help. 

How come no one ever accuses a Dad with a job of being selfish?

My Mom worked. She was ambitious. She was a very good role model, also always caring and providing for her children. I never thought of her working as selfish at all, just, "hey, it's not the 50s"!

Original Post by plasmagirl:

Why is it automatically the mom's fault?  We never hear anything about working dads ruining children's lives.

Personally I think I would serve my children best by making sure that I am able to provide for them in case my husband cannot.

I didn't read all the posts before I answered. I'm glad to see someone else pointed out this hypocrisy!

Of course it's not healthy for anyone in the family, if a parent works and neglects parental duties at the same time.  However, a non-working parent, could be just as neglectful.  With this said, I think it's important to keep a healthy, and proper balance between family, work, and independence.

I do not have a family of my own yet.  But with a psychology degree, working toward my masters, with intentions of landing a successful career in therapy...I feel like I've worked too hard to give up working, even once I have children...likewise, I enjoy my field, and the work that I'll be doing.  Thankfully, in the therapy field, I schedule my own clients, and will be able to work work around my family...the key of course being that work will work around my family.  It's important to put family first.  I will still be there for sit down family meals, to drop the kids of at school, church on Sundays, and to cheer on the sidelines.  According to plan, I think they'll turn out just fine.

I just don't understand why the mom is the one who has to stay home (granted I didn't read the article, I'm just commenting on this topic in general).  In my personal situation, both now when I'd be the parent and when I was growing up, the mother made the higher income - shouldn't the parent making less money stay home?  That makes the most logical sense to me.

Also, both of my parents worked when I grew up and I had an extremely good upbringing.  I looked up to my parents careers as they both had great careers and were terrific role models.  I highly doubt I would be so career driven if I didn't have my parents, and I think my career-driven-ness is one of my best features.  I hope to pass this attribute along to my children one day - thus, I would never even entertain the idea of giving up my career to stay at home.

I currently stay at home with my son who is 2...however with the failing economy i HAVE to go back to work...at least part time. Is it selfish of me to want to make money to help out our family and provide a better life for my child? I think not!

When I read the original post, my first thought was "hey!  what about working fathers?"  I see several of you beat me to that.  Then I went and read the article, and it's worth noting that the only person who refers to the working mothers (as opposed to fathers) being a problem is the journalist. 

The closest that the people who did the study came to saying anything like that was when they pointed out that women being able to make a living made it easier for them to support themselves in the case of family break-ups and that that might contribute to there being more one-parent families.  Their solution was NOT for the women to stop working.  Their list of solutions included things like a non-religious birth ceremony where BOTH parents accept the responsibilities of parenthood (i.e. it's dad's responsibility to look after the kid too), parenting classes, free marital counselling and increased availability of leave for EITHER parent to look after kids. 

So, my call on that is that the sexism in that article was coming from the journalist himself (possibly to make the story appear more scandalous than "committee suggests parenting classes would help kids".

(The only time I find working moms (and dads) to be selfish is when they expect the single people to take every single crappy shift rather than accepting that the crappy shifts need to be shared between everyone.  Fortunately, most working parents understand that.)

I was lucky enough to have been able to stay home with my three sons until my youngest was in first grade. Then I got a job at his school....I think that if you can do it...great...and whichever parent can stay home...that's great too. I really tire of the argument about stay at home mom's being lazy, and that working mom's are selfish and neglectful. Why do women pick at each other so much? What works for one may not work for another. I wish people would stop judging one another and realize that we all do the best that we can with what we are given. Just like men, some women are better in the workforce....and some men are AWESOME stay at home parents. I think its about how you utilize the time you do have than having lots of time doing nothing. Childhood is very short. Enjoy them all you can with the time you have. tyvm.

I'm only 20 so I don't have kids yet, but the way I've always thought of this is that if one parent makes enough money to support the entire family, then the other should stay home and focus on the kids. To me gender makes absolutely NO difference in the argument. I basically feel like whoever is earning more should keep working while the other stays with the home and kids.

Original Post by ncxcrnnr:

I'm only 20 so I don't have kids yet, but the way I've always thought of this is that if one parent makes enough money to support the entire family, then the other should stay home and focus on the kids. To me gender makes absolutely NO difference in the argument. I basically feel like whoever is earning more should keep working while the other stays with the home and kids.

This seems like a good argument on its face, but in a world where men consistently outearn women for the same jobs, it is worth pointing out that in practice, this means the woman stays home. Not to mention that men tend to marry "down" and women tend to marry "up" the earning scale, so it's only a minority of couples in which the woman outearns the man (but a growing minority).

I would argue that it would be better if both parents worked fewer hours and shared the parenting equally. The stay-at-home parent dynamic also deprives the working parent of that same level of closeness with their kids, because they're out working insane hours to support the family. More equity means that both parents get to have a close relationship with their kids.

Things are the way they are. You cant miss something you never had....

Kids being raised their entire lives without a parent always at home arent sitting there wishing they had someone at home. Sure, you want to spend time with your children (and you should), but you dont need to be sitting over them every second.

My mom was always home. But a lot of the time I was at friends houses or watching tv or whatever else. Yea she was there in case I needed something, but a phone can do that now. And when school is going, we werent even home most the time anyway (so she could have been working and I doubt there would have been much difference). Yea, she was there to pick us up / drive us to school...and was always there to come get us or bring us things if we needed it...but those are such minor issues.

And, it depends on the age, when they get older they are probably ok alone watching tv or whatever...but younger might need extra care (so they dont kill themselves).

So, perhaps the best method is to have someone at home when they are younger....but when they get older go back to work? Or if you need to work, have a lighter job so you have more hours off? (or something flexible so you can be there if theres a problem).

Original Post by plasmagirl:

Why is it automatically the mom's fault?  We never hear anything about working dads ruining children's lives.

Personally I think I would serve my children best by making sure that I am able to provide for them in case my husband cannot.

I'd like to see how the authors of the study would respond to this point.

That particular point is a pretty anti-feminist/anti-pc/traditionalist thing to say, but I'm assuming they had a good reason to say it, yet I'm not understanding that reason just yet.

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up which are higher in the UK than in any other Western European country."

One thing can be said though, sometimes ideological movements and scientific studies tend to come in conflict with one another.

I don't think it's the mom's fault. If anything the mom and the dad should spend equal time with the child, regarless of if they work or not. If they work they can spend it with their children after work, and on weekends, just always find the time with them. If, however a parent works TOO much it does affect the child. I know someone that is a single mom and works basically ALL the time and has a young daughter. She leaves her daughter with other ppl all the time and it affects her daughter immensly. Her daughter is 8 now but when she is sick or needs something and her mom is sitting right in front of her she doesn't ask her mom for help, she goes to someone else. She also told me the other day ' I like you cause you always have time for me, my mommy never has time for me', all i was doing was coloring with her. It's really sad, her mom ignores her. She has a dad, they just dont live together and her dad is really upset about the mom being a bitch.

Original Post by fortius:

Original Post by plasmagirl:

Why is it automatically the mom's fault?  We never hear anything about working dads ruining children's lives.

Personally I think I would serve my children best by making sure that I am able to provide for them in case my husband cannot.

I'd like to see how the authors of the study would respond to this point.

That particular point is a pretty anti-feminist/anti-pc/traditionalist thing to say, but I'm assuming they had a good reason to say it, yet I'm not understanding that reason just yet.

"Most women now work and their new economic independence contributes to levels of family break-up which are higher in the UK than in any other Western European country."

One thing can be said though, sometimes ideological movements and scientific studies tend to come in conflict with one another.

Of course you think they have a good reason to say it. 

As far as "scientific studies" go, all it says it that an "independent report" revealed the evidence gathered by a committee that consisted of some university professors. It says precious little (actually, nothing at all) about HOW they went about gathering this evidence, WHAT they did to test it--was there a control group of children in traditional backgrounds compared with a group with step-parents and working mothers, what? Without explaining what exactly was done, if anything, to conduct a scientific study, the phrase "a study has found..." is about as blind as "well (holy writ of my choice) states..."