Being a mother is not the most important job in the world

Playboy

Interesting comment piece in the Guardian the other day which has attracted lots of interest and comments. To an extent I agree with the sentiment that the word mother should be replaced with the word parent as there are lots of instances where the primary caregiver is not the biological mother.

However I do have a new found appreciation for parents after recently having my first child. It is full time, it is stressful and at least in the early stages you do not get a break. is it the most important job in the world? No but it is important and is a role that should be encouraged as we may see an improvement with our future generations if parents could afford to stay at home.

I do think the article is refering to a certain type of mother who seem to spend their day on facebook updating everyone as to how hard their job is and how nobody understands it unless they do it. There seems to a certain set of mums who are constantly looking for validation via the internet of how special they are. I have recently spent some time on some of the mother forums such as mumsnet... what a bubble most of those people are living in! They use abbreviations for the weirdest things... everyone refers to their son or daughter as DD or DS (darling daughter/ darling son) and other crackers such as SWI (shagging with intent) and POAS (peeing on a stick). Anyway I digress, article below

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/sorry-but-being-a-mother-is-not-the-most-important-job-in-the-world

Being a mother is not the most important job in the world. There, I said it. Nor is it the toughest job, despite what the 92% of people polled in Parents Magazine reckon.

For any woman who uses that line, consider this: if this is meant to exalt motherhood, then why is the line always used to sell toilet cleaner? And if being a mother is that important, why aren’t all the highly paid men with stellar careers not devoting their lives to raising children? After all, I never hear "being a father is the most important job in the world".

The deification of mothers not only delegitimises the relationship fathers, neighbours, friends, grandparents, teachers and carers have with children, it also diminishes the immense worth and value of these relationships. How do gay dads feel about this line, I wonder? Or the single dads, stepdads or granddads? No matter how devoted and hard working you are, fellas, you’ll always be second best.

I’m also confused as to what makes you a mother. Is it the actual birth? Or is a "mother" simply a term to describe an expectation to care for children without payment? Is this empty slogan used to compensate women for gouging holes from potential careers by spending years out of the workplace without recognition?

Enabling this dogma devalues the unpaid labor of rearing children as much as it strategically devalues women’s worth at work. If being a mother were a job there’d be a selection process, pay, holidays, a superior to report to, performance assessments, Friday drinks, and you could resign from your job and get another one because you didn’t like the people you were working with. It’s not a vocation either – being a mother is a relationship.

Even if it were a job, there is no way being a professional mother could be the hardest when compared to working 16 hours a day in a clothing factory in Bangladesh, making bricks in an Indian kiln, or being a Chinese miner. Nor could it ever be considered the most important job in comparison with a surgeon who saves lives, anyone running a nation, or a judge deciding on people’s destiny.

There is also a curious sliding scale to the argument. "Working career mums" are at the lower end of the spectrum, and stay at home mothers are at the highest echelons, with ascending increments for each child you have. The more hours of drudgery you endure the more of a mother you are and, therefore, the more important your job is. The more you outsource domestic labour and childcare to participate in the workforce, the less of a mother you are.

It really is time to drop the slogan. It only encourages mothers to stay socially and financially hobbled, it alienates fathers, discourages other significant relationships between children and adults and allows men to continue to enjoy the privileges associated with heteronormative roles in nuclear families (despite men sucked into this having their choices limited as well).

It’s fine to use "motherhood" as a credential if you're talking about something related to actual motherhood, like vaginal tearing during birth or breastfeeding (despite not all mothers experiencing either). But if you're using "motherhood" to assert that you care more about humanity than the next person, if you're using it as a shorthand to imply that you are a more compassionate and hard-working person than the women and men standing around you, then feel free to get over yourself

Sleepy

I've always found that those who carp on like this tend to be those I'd regard as the poorest parents...

Standman

It's just something that some mothers say in order to feel better about themselves, most likely encouraged by silly ads selling washing powder etc.

I Heart Internet

I'd say being an individal parent isn't the most important job in the world but the combined impact of all the world's parents is vitally important for the welfare of humanity.

Think about it - if every parent in Ireland was a really good, solid, loving, considerate parent to their kids, don't you think crime rates, etc would plummet?

I'm a newish dad. My first child is nearly one. In saying the above, the work my wife puts in caring...i.e. doing the hard tasks, for our baby is brilliant.

hoodwinked

Sleepy wrote: »

I've always found that those who carp on like this tend to be those I'd regard as the poorest parents...

i agree,


i was a 'full time' mum, as for most important job? not a chance, was it tough, yes, when you are sleep deprived even washing yourself can feel tough, but realistically it was easy compared to other things, when i watch something like deadliest catch i used it to remind myself of how easy i had it,

currently i am a full time student, and i would say i am finding it tougher than being a mom, but i think its almost taboo to say it as someone will inevitably find it offensive that i don't think rearing two or three children is as 'tough' as studying a science subject in university,

being a good parent is important, doing a good job as a parent is important, claiming being a parent is an important job is non-sense imo

clairefontaine

What the heck is she talking about? And to whom is she speaking?

Good God the Guardian is shameless.

What a sermon ans it ain't even Sunday.

Guardian, aka sanctimonious rag of the UK.

Kylo Ren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwPg2oarG_c

MadYaker

What a ridiculous thing to even have an article about. It's the PC brigade gone mad, why can't everyone just chill out!

boobar

I have to agree with Madyaker on this.

Chill out. I'm a parent myself and can see how difficult parenting can be, but I'm not crusading about it and haven't encountered many others that are.

That article is like the opposing argument to an argument that was never made.

Now I feel like I'm arguing....

Femme_Fatale

MadYaker wrote: »

What a ridiculous thing to even have an article about. It's the PC brigade gone mad, why can't everyone just chill out!

What is "PC brigade gone mad"? Who is this "everyone" that needs to chill out? There is nothing about political correctness in this topic. The term is really being misused now.

I can't stand that DD/DS/DH stuff and the OTT "Look at me, I'm a mother", "You'll understand when you're a mother", "As a mother..." carry-on. But sometimes people who say "Being a parent is the hardest job in the world" (as opposed to "most important") just mean it's the toughest job they've ever done, they didn't realise it until it happened, etc - which is fair enough IMO.

Fukuyama

People who roll their eyes and talk openly about how difficult their life is with kids see their children as their jailers.

Also:

"I chose being a full-time mum as my career"

"Fcuk off" :pac:

Mister R

My mother who is in her 50s now and was a housewife/homemaker for most of my life hates this kind of talk. As she says these 30-40 year old women think they invented child birth or something.

It gets tiresome and also its a total middle class snooty thing too, the whole "mother culture" that has risen up. So not only is it sexist in my opinion to both men and women its elitist too.

Femme_Fatale

Mister R wrote: »

My mother who is in her 50s now and was a housewife/homemaker for most of my life hates this kind of talk. As she says these 30-40 year old women think they invented child birth or something.

It gets tiresome and also its a total middle class snooty thing too, the whole "mother culture" that has risen up. So not only is it sexist in my opinion to both men and women its elitist too.

Middle-class - oh noez! The "As a mother" stuff transcends all class boundaries.

Mister R

Maybe but the majority of bloggers, journalists, and just annoying people who talk like this who I've met and heard from tend to be the more pretentious "think they're on the way up" types.

Sleepy

I dunno, I can think of a few girls I certainly wouldn't think of as middle class (or even socially aspirational) who'd be of this ilk...

The "Hope your ok hun xxx"'s of this world are always very quick to make out what martyrs they are for being (terrible) parents.

The Corinthian

The idea that motherhood is an important role in society is not a new one; patriarchal Rome effectively put mothers on a pedestal, in terms of honour, and there's been no shortage of praises to mothers over the centuries (e.g. The Hand That Rocks the Cradle). Hell, the whole mother-harlot syndrome in some men is based upon the diametric difference in perception that has been held for those two roles.

I think the modern equivalent is quite different, because circumstances have changed, though; which is why it sounds so hollow.

Firstly, motherhood, or becoming one, was a dangerous business in the past. Just as men might die providing and protecting their family, women also ran the risk of death when they fell pregnant and society honoured the risk that women took as a result. This risk has significantly decreased today, and thus we no longer feel the same need to honour mothers, because they're simply not taking the same risk any more.

Secondly though, is that feminism opened up the provider roll for women, but in doing so there is a perception that a woman without a career is somehow a bit of a loser - a sentiment that men have had to deal with for a long time.

This is also probably why it's largely a middle class, 'yummy mummy' phenomenon; career is important to the middle classes.

As a reaction to this, I suspect the myth of motherhood being the most difficult or important job in the World was born, which I can sympathize with, although I'd echo the sentiments that motherhood really needs to be replaced with parenthood, at this stage. Homemaking and child caring has lost much of the social respect it once had and so such myths are trying to claw back some of that respect.

Of course, it's not the most important job in the World, unless one wants to have a philosophical argument over it. Neither is it really the hardest; certainly the first few years are seriously tough, but by the time the kids are in secondary school, it starts to become a pretty cushy gig.

And that is what I do not sympathize with, is when this myth is then used to justify SAHM with children who may be in school or even university, essentially partially or fully independent, from any attempt at financial self-sufficiency.

That's why you get "that DD/DS/DH stuff and the OTT" stuff on some sites. Often the kids have reached a certain age whereby they're largely taking care of themselves (or they've been able to dump them on someone else during the day), leaving them with loads of time to complain how the government is changing the rules on loan parents, so that they'll be seen as jobseekers rather than 'full-time' mothers, with 22-year old college student 'children'.

Bananatop

I think people say it's an important job because of the type of attitude that can be shown towards it, as emphasised by a quote from the article

And if being a mother is that important, why aren’t all the highly paid men with stellar careers not devoting their lives to raising children?

It's a job that isn't measured by how much money you earn doing it, so as a result it is dismissed as a job that is quite menial. Nobody likes to be told that the job they are doing is worthless. The need to feel valued is a very basic human need, and shows an awareness of one's standing in the community. Silly attention seeking Facebook posts aside, a mother's need to feel valued in society is hardly diatribe worthy.

Henry9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Neither is it really the hardest; certainly the first few years are seriously tough, but by the time the kids are in secondary school, it starts to become a pretty cushy gig.

And that is what I do not sympathize with, is when this myth is then used to justify SAHM with children who may be in school or even university, essentially partially or fully independent, from any attempt at financial self-sufficiency.

It's far from the hardest job in the world, and like you say when children have reached a certain age it's a pretty handy number.

What you're seeing is a rationalisation of the fact that marrying someone to support them is a valid career choice for women.
There are many who spend their twenties in a financial la la land of spending and socialising, because it will be a mans problem to keep them.
I know some women who 'retired' when they got married.

I don't know of any man who pissed his twenties away secure in the knowledge that he would be supported by someone else. Sure, some land on their feet but it's few and far between I'd say.

sheesh

Henry9 wrote: »

It's far from the hardest job in the world, and like you say when children have reached a certain age it's a pretty handy number.

What you're seeing is a rationalisation of the fact that marrying someone to support them is a valid career choice for women.
There are many who spend their twenties in a financial la la land of spending and socialising, because it will be a mans problem to keep them.
I know some women who 'retired' when they got married.

I don't know of any man who pissed his twenties away secure in the knowledge that he would be supported by someone else. Sure, some land on their feet but it's few and far between I'd say.

Ah,but here is the point. The title of the thread is important job not hardest. how hard being a mother is down to the temperament of the child and the skills of the parent. It is one of the more important jobs in a society right up there with the people who take away the rubbish and keep the sewerage system going, rat catchers,teachers etc.

My point would be that parenting as a role in society is really important but anyone that thinks they are great for bringing up their own kids is a bit of an arsehead.

Henry9

sheesh wrote: »

Ah,but here is the point. The title of the thread is important job not hardest. how hard being a mother is down to the temperament of the child and the skills of the parent. It is one of the more important jobs in a society right up there with the people who take away the rubbish and keep the sewerage system going, rat catchers,teachers etc.

My point would be that parenting as a role in society is really important but anyone that thinks they are great for bringing up their own kids is a bit of an arsehead.

Is it really the 'most important' though?
You have to work really hard at it to mess a kid up, most seem to turn out ok.
For all the contradictory advice parents receive, most seem to muddle through.
And the pubs are full on children's allowance day, go figure.

sarkozy

I think the whole 'motherhood' thing throws up two things. One is, it's basically a way for women who have become mothers to stake territorial claim to social reproduction and to act as revenge/payback for the physical trauma only women must go through to bring life into the world. This has the effect of maintaining the status quo - that's fine for some men, but tough for those others who want to be more involved dads. So a lot of this comes across to me as propaganda.

The other thing is how this whole discussion downplays the importance of wider social connections, or social relations in all our upbringings. I spend some time in some much poorer countries where 'motherhood' and 'childhood' per se are not held up as much because extended family, villages or communities are much more involved in sharing in the upbringing of children. And this is a reality in rich, Western countries, too, but we seem to prefer to deny for whatever reasons.

The Corinthian

Bananatop wrote: »

Silly attention seeking Facebook posts aside, a mother's need to feel valued in society is hardly diatribe worthy.

It is when it claims to be more important than everyone else's need to feel valued.

When someone who might have children who essentially are 90% self sufficient and thus ends up putting in an effective 20 hour week maximum starts to claim that there is more value to her role than her partner who brings in the money to fund everything via a 60 hour a week in an office or even manual labour role, then I suspect a 'diatribe' is very much prescribed.

Henry9 wrote: »

What you're seeing is a rationalisation of the fact that marrying someone to support them is a valid career choice for women.
There are many who spend their twenties in a financial la la land of spending and socialising, because it will be a mans problem to keep them.
I know some women who 'retired' when they got married.

That is certainly the case sometimes, but I would think it unfair to tar all stay-at-home-mothers/homemakers with the same brush.

Not all women who end up in this role do so by choice; some do so because they have no option but to do so. Some because their partner (who may be far more traditional than them) pressurizes them into it. And all along the way both legally and socially women are seen as more likely to end up in this role.

This is not to say that such propaganda is not also used by those parasites in society who use the role of stay-at-home-mother/homemaker as a means to become 'kept' - and there are also plenty of those - but you can't say this of all women.

sheesh wrote: »

how hard being a mother is down to the temperament of the child and the skills of the parent.

If the discussion is on the role in general, we would probably want to discuss it in general, rather than the extreme cases on one end of the spectrum or the other.

And in general, it's not easy and pretty tough in the first few years, but realistically it's not exactly terribly difficult after that.

Bananatop

The Corinthian wrote: »

When someone who might have children who essentially are 90% self sufficient and thus ends up putting in an effective 20 hour week maximum starts to claim that there is more value to her role than her partner who brings in the money to fund everything via a 60 hour a week in an office or even manual labour role, then I suspect a 'diatribe' is very much prescribed.

I would think that a diatribe wouldn't be enough in that particular case you've mentioned-maybe a new partner would be better. Nothing worse than living with a person who talks down to you.

clairefontaine

http://www.upworthy.com/this-kid-just-called-his-mom-an-angel-after-watching-what-shes-done-all-day-i-totally-agree-10

This is really sweet.

You know 1/3 of kids are reared by single moms, that's a pretty substantial number, plus divorced moms who are prime custodians.

Its double important when you are carer and provider.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

And in general, it's not easy and pretty tough in the first few years, but realistically it's not exactly terribly difficult after that.

I'm not so sure about this. I have a toddler myself...parenthood is certainly tricky with infants, or any creature that seems be trying to injure itself several times a day by grabbing the wrong end of a scissors, drinking drain cleaner, or running into traffic. But, in a lot of ways she would be easier to parent than a teenager. I have colleagues who get far less sleep than I do, worrying about where their teenage children are at night, trying to establish a relationship with their friends and their friends parents. Stressing out about junior and leaving cert, smoking, drinking, drugs, porn, social media, the future. Anyone remember Slane-Girl from this summer? I think it's slightly naieve to think that it's just training the children to wipe their own backsides, pack 'em off to school and you're done.

The need to speak about bring a mother (and facebook about it, groan!) is probably born more from a sense of isolation within some SAHM's than anything else I would guess. Their adult interactions are greatly reduced, and they probably feel a lack of peer respect as well.

Turning it into some sort of heroism to regain that loss is taking it way too far though. Take 'freebirthing'. Maybe that is an attempt to give a macho element to motherhood. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/14/freebirthing-birth-without-medical-support-safe

clairefontaine

pwurple wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. I have a toddler myself...parenthood is certainly tricky with infants, or any creature that seems be trying to injure itself several times a day by grabbing the wrong end of a scissors, drinking drain cleaner, or running into traffic. But, in a lot of ways she would be easier to parent than a teenager. I have colleagues who get far less sleep than I do, worrying about where their teenage children are at night, trying to establish a relationship with their friends and their friends parents. Stressing out about junior and leaving cert, smoking, drinking, drugs, porn, social media, the future. Anyone remember Slane-Girl from this summer? I think it's slightly naieve to think that it's just training the children to wipe their own backsides, pack 'em off to school and you're done.

The need to speak about bring a mother (and facebook about it, groan!) is probably born more from a sense of isolation within some SAHM's than anything else I would guess. Their adult interactions are greatly reduced, and they probably feel a lack of peer respect as well.

Turning it into some sort of heroism to regain that loss is taking it way too far though. Take 'freebirthing'. Maybe that is an attempt to give a macho element to motherhood. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sept /14/freebirthing-birth-without-medical-support-safe

Thats what they tell you whern youre the sleep deprived parent of a baby pr toddler. The sleep will get easier,of xourse they dont assume you might have a child with autism, aspergers, nifht terrors, etc. and of course most of the time the sleep does get easier, but then other things get harder. It's different ages, different challenges. I can't imagine what it's like to parent a sucicidal adolescent for example, or deal with bullying at school, whether your kid is the bully or the target, drugs, sex, alocohol, yadda yadda.

I really can't stand the Guardian, I think for the most part ita an opinion rag of a paper and I'm not really sure to whom she is speaking, but to lecture the mothers of the English speaking world from on up high from the towers of the Guardian, honestly, how much more patronising can you get.

His sounds like some kindof British phenomenon because I can't recognise what she's talking about.

It is a pretty important job, the kids we raise today are the ones that will be deciding whether to euthanise you tomorrow.:)

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

I'm not so sure about this. I have a toddler myself...parenthood is certainly tricky with infants, or any creature that seems be trying to injure itself several times a day by grabbing the wrong end of a scissors, drinking drain cleaner, or running into traffic. But, in a lot of ways she would be easier to parent than a teenager. I have colleagues who get far less sleep than I do, worrying about where their teenage children are at night, trying to establish a relationship with their friends and their friends parents. Stressing out about junior and leaving cert, smoking, drinking, drugs, porn, social media, the future. Anyone remember Slane-Girl from this summer? I think it's slightly naieve to think that it's just training the children to wipe their own backsides, pack 'em off to school and you're done.

I never said that once they hit their teens you're done. The point I made is that it stops being a full-time job and gradually the number of hours spent caring for the child during the average week decreases as the child grows older.

By 7 a child is out of the home, in school, six hours per day. By 12, this becomes seven hours per day. All excluding school commute times and extra curricular activities. By 13 a child is even legally allowed to be left at home without care.

And by the time a 'child' is 18, how much 'care' is realistically involved? I ask this because bizarrely, up until recently, the Irish government believed that it was still a full time job, up until a child was 23, if in full-time education.

Turning it into some sort of heroism to regain that loss is taking it way too far though. Take 'freebirthing'. Maybe that is an attempt to give a macho element to motherhood. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/14/freebirthing-birth-without-medical-support-safe

Maybe, or it could also just be the ultimate extension of the fad for all things 'natural' and 'organic'.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said that once they hit their teens you're done.

I know, sorry, I was being flippant.

The point I made is that it stops being a full-time job and gradually the number of hours spent caring for the child during the average week decreases as the child grows older.

By 7 a child is out of the home, in school, six hours per day. By 12, this becomes seven hours per day. All excluding school commute times and extra curricular activities. By 13 a child is even legally allowed to be left at home without care.

I get what you mean. But on school, the school year is reasonably short. A few weeks off at christmas and easter, mid term breaks, and the whole summer. Plus random half days for sports teams visiting, lord mayors, parent teacher meetings.

And by the time a 'child' is 18, how much 'care' is realistically involved? I ask this because bizarrely, up until recently, the Irish government believed that it was still a full time job, up until a child was 23, if in full-time education.

I agree the role changes completely, but that it doesn't diminish in volume.

I guess it depends on what you are doing for those children/family. No doubt it varies from uber-organised efficient household manager, to drunken daytime telly addict. But the age of the children doesn't really matter in terms of the household workload.


I believe the stay at home parents look after clothing & food, look after household finances and maintenance. This is in order to facilitate the children's after school sports/music/etc... to give time in the evenings to go through their homework and maybe talk with them. As they get bigger, they only take on more extra-currics and put more wear and tear on a house.

Both myself and husband work 50+ hours a week, with one young straight-forward healthy child who sleeps 12 hours a night. At that, we currently employ a cleaner who does laundry, and employ childcare. I prep our meals on a sunday. We have a list of household tasks that we spend our weekend 'free time' on. We often say we would LOVE a live-in housekeeper to stay at home, do the childcare, cleaning and take care of all the day-to-day stuff that comes up during the week. Someone to organise the broadband repair person who only calls mon-fri. Deal with the glass that needs replacing in the back door (because the child headbutted it). Someone to renew my insurance, bring the car to the NCT, research the bank account with lowest fees, top up the heating oil. I would love someone to do all this stuff for us, so that we could spend some evenings and weekends not doing these things. I could easily justify a full time employee to be a housekeeper/housewife in terms of workload. Isn't that what a stay at home parent is?

And what diminishes in direct child-minding, increases elsewhere in the home as the family ages. Even something as simplistic as laundry... a 14 year olds clothes are physically larger than a 2 year olds. That's more washes in the machine, more standing at the clothes-line, more ironing, folding. I know it seems trivial, but the same principle extends to food, transport, maintenance, consumables etc.

I still don't think it's any more difficult, or any more important than any other role. I agree there, but the age of the children is immaterial. If they are dependent and living in your home, then they require care, be it infant-care or oversight, management and provisions for older ones.

Maybe, or it could also just be the ultimate extension of the fad for all things 'natural' and 'organic'.

Probably a combo. Damn hippies!

clairefontaine

pwurple wrote: »

I know, sorry, I was being flippant.


I get what you mean. But on school, the school year is reasonably short. A few weeks off at christmas and easter, mid term breaks, and the whole summer. Plus random half days for sports teams visiting, lord mayors, parent teacher meetings.



I agree the role changes completely, but that it doesn't diminish in volume.

I guess it depends on what you are doing for those children/family. No doubt it varies from uber-organised efficient household manager, to drunken daytime telly addict. But the age of the children doesn't really matter in terms of the household workload.


I believe the stay at home parents look after clothing & food, look after household finances and maintenance. This is in order to facilitate the children's after school sports/music/etc... to give time in the evenings to go through their homework and maybe talk with them. As they get bigger, they only take on more extra-currics and put more wear and tear on a house.

Both myself and husband work 50+ hours a week, with one young straight-forward healthy child who sleeps 12 hours a night. At that, we currently employ a cleaner who does laundry, and employ childcare. I prep our meals on a sunday. We have a list of household tasks that we spend our weekend 'free time' on. We often say we would LOVE a live-in housekeeper to stay at home, do the childcare, cleaning and take care of all the day-to-day stuff that comes up during the week. Someone to organise the broadband repair person who only calls mon-fri. Deal with the glass that needs replacing in the back door (because the child headbutted it). Someone to renew my insurance, bring the car to the NCT, research the bank account with lowest fees, top up the heating oil. I would love someone to do all this stuff for us, so that we could spend some evenings and weekends not doing these things. I could easily justify a full time employee to be a housekeeper/housewife in terms of workload. Isn't that what a stay at home parent is?

And what diminishes in direct child-minding, increases elsewhere in the home as the family ages. Even something as simplistic as laundry... a 14 year olds clothes are physically larger than a 2 year olds. That's more washes in the machine, more standing at the clothes-line, more ironing, folding. I know it seems trivial, but the same principle extends to food, transport, maintenance, consumables etc.

I still don't think it's any more difficult, or any more important than any other role. I agree there, but the age of the children is immaterial. If they are dependent and living in your home, then they require care, be it infant-care or oversight, management and provisions for older ones.


Probably a combo. Damn hippies!

Yes the short school year is worthwhile mentioning. And we havent even touched on homeschooling. Plus extra curricular activities. And as they get older the amount of homework you have to help them with. So after a days work, you come home from work, cook, clean, laundry, and another three hours of homework, plus whatever other communications you have with your child, after all you are not just a task manager but also have a relationship with your child, and like all other relationships demand time and work.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

I get what you mean. But on school, the school year is reasonably short. A few weeks off at christmas and easter, mid term breaks, and the whole summer. Plus random half days for sports teams visiting, lord mayors, parent teacher meetings.

Fair enough, at least where it comes to school holidays.

I guess it depends on what you are doing for those children/family. No doubt it varies from uber-organised efficient household manager, to drunken daytime telly addict. But the age of the children doesn't really matter in terms of the household workload.

By household workload, I presume you mean homemaking? If so, then you may be right, but homemaking is not a full-time job. I've had the experience in the past of doing this, both for myself or for others, and thanks to modern appliances and the fact that most chores are not actually daily, there is absolutely no way that you would be consistently clocking up 37+ hours per week, unless you were utterly incompetent.

Indeed, the majority of what you're describing is what single people and childless couples do all the time while employed full time; organising the broadband repair person, renew your insurance, bring the car to the NCT, research the bank account with lowest fees, top up the heating oil. It's what everyone do, without expecting it to be a full-time job.

Children do add to this workload, but that doesn't mean that there is a proportional increase in work. It doesn't go from ten hours a week to suddenly 40 because you've an extra load for the washing machine, or you have an extra bed or two to make, or you're cooking for four instead of one or two. Indeed, as they grow older, many parents pass on many of these chores to their children.

And what diminishes in direct child-minding, increases elsewhere in the home as the family ages. Even something as simplistic as laundry... a 14 year olds clothes are physically larger than a 2 year olds. That's more washes in the machine, more standing at the clothes-line, more ironing, folding.

Seriously, more loads in the machine? An extra five or ten minutes (or are you counting the time while it runs?). Sure more ironing and standing at the clothes line, but how much more realistically? And how often? Not like it's every day.

Sorry, but even growing up I noted all around me mothers who had plenty of free time; the only ones who didn't seemed to be ones who had taken up part or even full time jobs. Having done housework, as an adult, I quickly realized that it's not the time consuming slave labour that it's advertised as and that it would be close to impossible to justify it as a full time job without serious exaggeration.

I completely accept that, in particular young or ill, children do add to the work and caring for them when young is a full time role. I can also imagine that if one is the only person doing any housework for a family of eight, this But we don't live in a world where clothes are washed by hand and few families are that large any more, and so the line that housework is a full time job is just no longer believable.

It stopped being so the moment men started to iron our own shirts.

Femme_Fatale

The Corinthian wrote: »

certainly the first few years are seriously tough, but by the time the kids are in secondary school, it starts to become a pretty cushy gig.

"The first few years" is quite a minimising of the first 12/13 years. And does it really get pretty cushy by secondary school? The teenage years?

These are the years I have to think about whether I want to be a mother or not, and even though I like kids, am good with kids, and am patient with them... I'm really not sure I want to have any of my own. It seems extremely tough, and I have gauged that opinion only from an outsider's perspective, let alone actually doing it.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

"The first few years" is quite a minimising of the first 12/13 years. And does it really get pretty cushy by secondary school? The teenage years?

These are the years I have to think about whether I want to be a mother or not, and even though I like kids, am good with kids, and am patient with them... I'm really not sure I want to have any of my own. It seems extremely tough, and I have gauged that opinion only from an outsider's perspective, let alone actually doing it.

It's a life of perpetual worry. Even when you are "off duty" which is never because you are always on call, you are still worried.

And you will never ever sleep the same way again.

hedgehog2

clairefontaine wrote: »

It's a life of perpetual worry. Even when you are "off duty" which is never because you are always on call, you are still worried.

And you will never ever sleep the same way again.

This^
My main reason to shy away from having kids.
I have serious respect for most mothers who get stuck into the role and devote the time to their offspring.
Its a lot of hard work and the reward might not be there.
Its not selfish to think of it this way in our decade I believe.
The future has never been so uncertain,squeezed resources,increasing population and throw in all the crap like facebook,teen pressure.
It all just spells trouble to me and good luvk to those mothers,I would take a 9-5 anyday.

Femme_Fatale

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It seems extremely tough....

It can be.

It's pretty damn good, all the same, and I wouldn't swap the experience for anything.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

"The first few years" is quite a minimising of the first 12/13 years. And does it really get pretty cushy by secondary school? The teenage years?

Yet, someone who is in employment will be doing 37+ hours per week for a lot longer than 12/13 years in their working life. Not only that, but if they are also a parent - a not-stay-at-home-parent - will have the same worries as any parent, but still be expected to take over from the stay-at-home-parent when they get home from their day's work.

To be then told that their job is less important or less difficult, is seriously gilding the lilly.

Henry9

The point is though that 'worry' isn't a full time job. You can worry and still go to work 40 hours a week.

clairefontaine

Henry9 wrote: »

The point is though that 'worry' isn't a full time job. You can worry and still go to work 40 hours a week.

What has that got to do with the thesis of the article?

The article was criticizing all mothers, working or not, depleting the importance of their role as mothers. And honestly, in her last paragraph she makes a pathetic, reductive allusion to vaginal tearing defining you as a mother. If you have to resort to genitalia references you should get over yourself and maybe get another job, because writing ain't your talent sweet tits. Maybe try, I don't know, pole dancing or prostitution. Or maybe you could set up a bad writers club with your fellow feminist Guardian writer who hopes her daughter remains proud of her gigantic poops.

Should the word be replaced by parent? What difference would it make, parent would just replace mother because that is what the reality is?

Gay dad parents and single custodial fathers are in the minority, so parent would still make people think of mothers.

I, for one am tired of all this social engineering via linguistic games, the Guardian's undergraduate nonsense, and let's face it a very bitter little two bit columnist who is probably jealous.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

The point is if you are a working custodial parent, you essentially have two full-time jobs.

The point he and I have made is that they're not both 'full time' jobs, after the first few years.

Sure, if the child needs constant care due to Down's syndrome or autism, or if you have five or more children, then the child carer / homemaker role could well become a full-time. Otherwise, it simply doesn't add up and claims that it is simply sound self serving.

This is not to dismiss the role, but at the same time we should sanity check statements such as the following:

Like it or not and believe what you like, the moms are carrying most of this load. Single and coupled.

And frankly this, very often, is utter crap. I've met more than a few working parents who after a long day earning the money that pays for everyone in their family, return home only to have everything dumped on them, because the stay-at-home parent 'needs a break', but somehow still managed to spend an inordinate amount of time watching daytime television or posting to on-line fora/Facebook, rather than try to seek even a part time job, so that their partner too may be able to 'take a break'.

The sacrifices that parents make are laudable and to be respected, but when you start hearing comments like the above, is smacks more of sexist self-justification than anything else.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point he and I have made is that they're not both 'full time' jobs, after the first few years.

Sure, if the child needs constant care due to Down's syndrome or autism, or if you have five or more children, then the child carer / homemaker role could well become a full-time. Otherwise, it simply doesn't add up and claims that it is simply sound self serving.

This is not to dismiss the role, but at the same time we should sanity check statements such as the following:

And frankly this, very often, is utter crap. I've met more than a few working parents who after a long day earning the money that pays for everyone in their family, return home only to have everything dumped on them, because the stay-at-home parent 'needs a break', but somehow still managed to spend an inordinate amount of time watching daytime television or posting to on-line fora/Facebook, rather than try to seek even a part time job, so that their partner too may be able to 'take a break'.

The sacrifices that parents make are laudable and to be respected, but when you start hearing comments like the above, is smacks more of sexist self-justification than anything else.

I am really not interested in getting involved in a debate with someone who regularly posts MR activism. I amended my post which you evidently have not seen.

You have seen one thing, I've seen another. The moms I know also work or are single and also work, some are at home with kids while their husbands are deployed in the military.

How many gay men do I know who have kids? ZERO.

How many single custodial dads do I know? ZERO.

She wants to rearrange language to accommodate them. This reminds me of transgender day at the local primary where they got to dress up the principal as a princess. Get it PRINCipal, PRINCess. Guess how many transgender kids there are in the same school? ZERO.

What are you talking about justifications, justifications for what? You have strayed so off topic from the article it's like you sailed off in a windstorm and landed in the South Pacific and it has ZERO to do with the self riteous nonsense printed in the Guardian.

wolfpawnat

It is a fairly important job, without good rearing, kids become a burden on society. But for the most part, it is a 2 person job. I do 90% of the rearing here as himself is working. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, even the pope can step down, as a parent, you never do if you are doing it right. But being the most important can be said about a number of jobs. These days women think childbirth is the ultimate act of martyrdom. It's not fun, but there are 7 billion people on this planet, so it's hardly the most horrific thing ever.

Just never expect a clean home as long as they are living with you. Or a good solid sleep. I am just finished studying for the night now as I can't do it during the day.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

It is a fairly important job, without good rearing, kids become a burden on society. But for the most part, it is a 2 person job. I do 90% of the rearing here as himself is working. Parenting is a lifelong commitment, even the pope can step down, as a parent, you never do if you are doing it right. But being the most important can be said about a number of jobs. These days women think childbirth is the ultimate act of martyrdom. It's not fun, but there are 7 billion people on this planet, so it's hardly the most horrific thing ever.

Just never expect a clean home as long as they are living with you. Or a good solid sleep. I am just finished studying for the night now as I can't do it during the day.

Well according to the nutjob who wrote this opinion diatribe, you are not a mother unless you breastfed and have vaginal tear, which rules out women who had c sections and did not breastfeed.

That's a lot of women she discounted, both women who adopted and women who did not have vaginal births. Congratulations Guardian, you found your resident female misogynist.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well according to the nutjob who wrote this opinion diatribe, you are not a mother unless you breastfed and have vaginal tear, which rules out women who had c sections and did not breastfeed.

That's a lot of women she discounted, both women who adopted and women who did not have vaginal births. Congratulations Guardian, you found your resident female misogynist.

Ever notice the biggest critics of women.....are other women. I must baffle her, I had 2 c-sections and BF. I am half a woman! :rolleyes: These idiots are becoming too common for my liking these days. Probably obsesses over amber bead necklaces, cloth nappies and has pretentious triple barrelled names for the kids.

Sauve

Mod

Clairefontaine, with reference to your second last post, attack the post, not the poster

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, the majority of what you're describing is what single people and childless couples do all the time while employed full time; organising the broadband repair person, renew your insurance, bring the car to the NCT, research the bank account with lowest fees, top up the heating oil. It's what everyone do, without expecting it to be a full-time job.

Yes, what a single person does.... except multiply it up to the size of an average family... 2.2 children... so 4 or 5 people. Take 3 teenagers who you insure on the car so they can learn to drive, plus yourself and husband. Or one daughter who does swimming or rowing competitions, so she needs insurance, team gear, special equipment, plus her brother who plays guitar in a band in the middle of nowhere, and does hurling. The complexity increases as they are all doing different things, requiring different service providers. It is constant.

I know you are be a hands-off parent, who leaves their children to their own devices... or you can be involved.

Sorry, but even growing up I noted all around me mothers who had plenty of free time; the only ones who didn't seemed to be ones who had taken up part or even full time jobs. Having done housework, as an adult, I quickly realized that it's not the time consuming slave labour that it's advertised as and that it would be close to impossible to justify it as a full time job without serious exaggeration.

I'm not saying its impossible to have free time, like I said initially, it's completely self-driven. You can take on all the extra tasks, provide extra services for the family, or you can do much much less.

My own mother was the former... She had paid part-time clerical employment while we were in school, also did work for my fathers business. She had 5 children, and as the person who lives closest to both my father's parents and her own, helped the 4 of them, and two disabled uncles, through old age with hospital appointments, running errands, provisions, cooking, helping handover a farm etc. But we had home help for her to be able to do all this. We had at least one, and usually two aupairs with the family most of the time. It instilled a great work ethic in us all, and we were very independent from a young age, I am immensely grateful to my parents for what they did for us as children. But there were certainly times where I envied families where the parents did not have several other jobs they were juggling, and could spend some time with them.

I know women who gave up their jobs, but in order to justify that drop in income, they now sew all their families clothes and bedding, sell bread at fairs, that kind of thing.

I also know women who gave up work and put their child in creche for the week and have nice lunches with a glass of wine with their friends.

It's entirely what you make it. But you can make it extremely busy indeed.

Seriously, more loads in the machine? An extra five or ten minutes (or are you counting the time while it runs?). Sure more ironing and standing at the clothes line, but how much more realistically? And how often? Not like it's every day.

If you can do 4/5 times the amount of laundry of a single person a week in just 5 to 10 minutes, then you are hired! Come on over, you start tomorrow. Yes, of course it is everyday! I don't think you are even being serious. Have you seen what sport playing children go through in clothes? In irish weather? I have three brothers who all play team sports. We had two washing machines when I was a child, and a string of au-pairs to help with household work.

Sleepy

Home-making isn't necessarily a full-time job but you can certainly make it one if both parents are happy to do so.

My wife is a stay-at-home mother and while the prohibitive cost of childcare was definitely a factor, we both preferred the idea of having one of us there to mind our children when they were under three and to be there to collect them from play-school etc. Once our two started in school, she started looking for part-time work as much for her own sanity as for the extra income (though that's certainly going to help!). As it turned out, the best option for her financially was to become a childminder a few days a week as there are tax advantages and it leaves her free to collect our kids from school and to mind them during mid-terms, school holidays, sick days etc.

Neither of us considered her being a stay-at-home parent to be a full-time job while the kids were in school and while she certainly enjoyed the few hours to herself every morning, it upset her not to be contributing financially and to have to rely on me for money.

I think one has to question the wisdom of one parent working 60/70 hour weeks while the other swans around for 20 hours a week when the kids are in school. Could the stay-at-home parent getting part-time employment help the other to reduce their hours and get to see more of their children? Most of the really successful men I've met of my father's generation ended up having quite poor relationships with their kids due to the fact they simply weren't around during their childhoods.

Maybe this is changing these days as I do know one guy who's hugely successful who's at home to have dinner with and put his kids to bed every night and who takes the kids to their beach house in the country every weekend so they get to have family time with him but, then again, he heads back into the office after he's put them to bed and doesn't get home til late meaning he and his wife have fairly limited quality time together too.

It's not a trade-off I'm willing to make myself tbh. My family are more important to me than material or financial gain. Maybe others have great passion for what they work at and prefer to spend more time doing it and less time with their families so their partner can have a nice life of coffee with friends, morning classes etc. while their kids do more or more expensive extra-curricular activities and the financial gains from their passions mean that when they do spend time with their family it involves more expensive/exciting activities, nicer holidays etc and, as such is, in their view at least "higher quality time".

It's a matter of deciding what works best for your family. For us, spending time as a unit is more important than the activities we spend it doing. Others might find it boring but, while we struggle financially, an afternoon picnic in the park or at the beach as a family is just as exciting to our 5 year old as getting to have horse-riding lessons every week.

Of course, I'm looking at this very much as a parent in a two-parent family. For a single parent, things change drastically. I think I'd be pretty resentful of a co-parent making a uni-lateral lifestyle choice to be a stay-at-home mom and expecting me to finance that. Add in any friction over access and I'd be fit to be tied tbh.

Then again, I can see the case that it might be very difficult for someone who adopts the primary custodian role to find work that makes it worthwhile for them to give up their welfare benefits. I can't see myself choosing to hire someone who'd require very flexible hours unless they were charging significantly below what I'd have to pay for someone more reliable and/or the nature of the work allowed for it (something where end-product being delivered by a deadline was the only thing that mattered e.g. writing, graphic design etc.). From my wife's experience, part-time positions during school hours are few and far between as well.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

Yes, what a single person does.... except multiply it up to the size of an average family... 2.2 children... so 4 or 5 people. Take 3 teenagers who you insure on the car so they can learn to drive, plus yourself and husband. Or one daughter who does swimming or rowing competitions, so she needs insurance, team gear, special equipment, plus her brother who plays guitar in a band in the middle of nowhere, and does hurling. The complexity increases as they are all doing different things, requiring different service providers. It is constant.

You're completely exaggerating. For example, even were all the above the case, what then?

Insurance, once done, that's it for a year, if not longer (as you can just renew it thereafter. The swimming gear - again, once done, it's done. Lift to the band "in the middle of nowhere"? How often is this? Once a week? Twice? And of course they have to have a lift, because being old enough to play in a band, they're not old enough to take a bus.

Thing is that almost all of these tasks are things that only need to be done once in a blue moon. Sure they may make your day or week Hell, but they won't make every week Hell - and that's what it comes down to.

And sure, other things will come up, but so what? More things that need to be done once in a blue moon. Are you suggesting it suddenly becomes a full time job? If so, I'd fire you.

I know you are be a hands-off parent, who leaves their children to their own devices... or you can be involved.

Ohhh... the guilting attack! Or you can be the type that ends up spoiling their children, to the point that as adults they're infanilized and incapable of functioning normally too. Or you can encourage them to stand on their own too feet.

Being involved does not imply you need to run after them 24/7, or otherwise smother them.

I'm not saying its impossible to have free time, like I said initially, it's completely self-driven. You can take on all the extra tasks, provide extra services for the family, or you can do much much less.

I've seen this approach; the create work for yourself so as to look busy tactic. Generally involved cleaning the house from top to bottom seven times a week, despite the fact that to do so, so often, is a pointless self-indulgence.

Beyond that, it would be very difficult to take on, or invent, sufficient tasks to make it a full time role.

My own mother was the former... She had paid part-time clerical employment while we were in school, also did work for my fathers business. She had 5 children, and as the person who lives closest to both my father's parents and her own, helped the 4 of them, and two disabled uncles, through old age with hospital appointments, running errands, provisions, cooking, helping handover a farm etc. But we had home help for her to be able to do all this.

Yet we're talking about nowadays, where you won't get five children (according to you) but two or three. As for additional commitments such as disabled relatives, family businesses, children with autism (as was suggested earlier) and the like, how many really have such commitments and why are such cases being repeatedly used to 'prove' a full time role?

If you can do 4/5 times the amount of laundry of a single person a week in just 5 to 10 minutes, then you are hired!

Really? So how long does it take to empty the washing machine and put in a new load? Same for the dryer, and failing that to hang up clothes? About the only thing that takes up any real time is ironing.

So, to go from one load per week (for a single person), to 4 or 5, will add about 30 minutes loading/unloading. Might keep the washing machine busy all day, but you're free during that time. If you have to have no dryer and have to hang your clothes up, another extra half-hour, TBH. Ironing really depends on how good you are, but I'd guestimate an hour or so.

That's two hours more than if you were single - per week. Full-time my arse.

The Corinthian

Sleepy wrote: »

Of course, I'm looking at this very much as a parent in a two-parent family. For a single parent, things change drastically. I think I'd be pretty resentful of a co-parent making a uni-lateral lifestyle choice to be a stay-at-home mom and expecting me to finance that. Add in any friction over access and I'd be fit to be tied tbh.

Such unilateral lifestyle choices may be made regardless of whether it's a single, two-parent or childless family, I'm afraid; although the childless stay-at-home homemaker is very difficult role to justify socially anymore.

However, where it comes to mothers, and returning to the original topic, the danger with propaganda such as 'being a mother is the most important job in the World' is that it lends credibility to such unilateral decisions, making them sound like sacrifices, when in reality they're often anything but.

Henry9

clairefontaine wrote: »

What has that got to do with the thesis of the article?

It's got to do with the posts claiming its a full time job because if the worry involved.
Like y'know your daughter might become the victimIMF a social media campaign to out her as promiscuous.
Of maybe not like 99.99% of children.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ohhh... the guilting attack! Or you can be the type that ends up spoiling their children, to the point that as adults they're infanilized and incapable of functioning normally too. Or you can encourage them to stand on their own too feet.

Guilting attack on whom? As if it wasn't clear already, I am not a stay at home parent. I work, and moved house in order to live close enough to schools so that my children can walk to them unaided. I have no intention of spoiling my own children. I do intend for them to have more skills than the basic set provided in school though. To be able to have another language, shoot, cook, repair a bike etc. And to be able to read and write at a higher standard than is provided by state schools. Maybe they'll even eventually manage to know the difference between "too" and "two".

That's our own choice, and maybe it's too 'middle-class' to pamper our children by giving them these extra skills, but it will be during the years well after toddler-hood where this extra time gets spent. As I currently employ cleaners and childcare, I really don't forsee the cleaners going by the time the children are 12-13. I'll probably have to increase their hours.

The work does not diminish as children age, it changes.

hedgehog2

Sure every child need to shoot

Henry9

What is this nonsense anyway?
If you're driving your children around like a glorified taxi service, maybe stop doing it. Buy them a bike or a bus pass, rather than claiming its a full time job.

Organising insurance? LOL, so being a mother is mostly admin?
Sounds very important.

I think the motivation for this is to claim parity with those who go to work for a living.

It comes in handy if you're disputing the rightful home for any assets in the event of a divorce.

This way the stay at home mother us entitled to 50% because she 'raised his children' and thats 'most important'