Sharpe's Opinion
Monday, 9th Feb, 2009
The guilt of a selfish working mother
The report caused a storm in the British media last week – just as one would have expected. Social conservatives crowed in agreement: we should roll the clocks back to the 1950s, they said, when everyone lived in nuclear families and women baked cakes and everyone was happy. The social liberals, meanwhile, flew into a rage – female columnists protested that our children are happy (my old argument), and tried to rip the report apart, closing their ears to what they claimed was preachy nonsense.
Though I don’t like the conclusion any more than they do, I can’t dismiss it quite so conveniently. Usually I try to ignore things that damn working mothers, on the grounds that guilt is uncomfortable and unhelpful, but this time there was a word in the report that has lodged itself in my mind and won’t go away. That word was selfish.
Odd though it might seem, it had never occurred to me that working was selfish. If we work hard, it is to make money, and because work is stretching and stimulating, which can’t be bad. Sneaking off to have a manicure instead of grilling fish fingers is selfish, but toiling over the computer is not.
I’ve always been firmly of the opinion that families work best when one parent is permanently stationed at home. I feel that this is indisputable. What I have never understood is why so many people think that automatically means that the woman should be the one to stay at home1. Kids need parents nearby. End of story.
- My Dad retired early to be a house husband and my Mum works in ‘The City’, so I have precedent. That said, at the moment I work and my wife stays at home with our little girl. I am, unfortunately, completely incapable of keeping a house in good order, whilst Ellie has been blessed with this skill to a level of which I can only dream. [↩]
Comments
My mother was most definitely not happy being stuck at home baking cakes in the 1950s. By the time I reached puberty she almost marched me to the GP to put me on the pill, even though I didn’t know what sexual intercourse meant.
According to all the pseudo-socialists I’ve met (this is quite a good litmus test) I shouldn’t have an opinion about anything to do with children since I don’t have any. Moreover, I’m made to feel my forehead be branded because I chose not to be a Mother with medals adorning my breasts.
From my experiences, this whole business about maternal feelings has more to do with how a girl has been raised and her realistic career options, and pregnancy is now a career option.
How this explains a general leaning for women to vote Tory and men to vote Labour, I’ve no idea. Maybe a sizeable number (definetely not all) of women’s minds turn to mush when they decide to make their whole life about their kids. Cause or effect, though?
Blue Eyes, nail, head. 
Tizzy, you’re allowed an opinion – it’s just that your opinion will probably be wrong. There’s something not quite describable about the effect which having children has on your outlook on life, and those without children by definition don’t know what it is. I say that without arrogance and without being condescending – as someone who has kids and has always wanted them I’m sure there are aspects of not having children which I don’t understand, too.
One thing I am trying to say is that (unlike, probably, the ’50s) women are not ‘forced’ to stay at home. If they do so they do so by their own choice (obviously in conjunction with their spouses etc). There is nothing to stop a man from staying at home looking after the kids. All I see as important is that children are given the benefit of at least one parent who’s willing to accept the responsibility of being a primary carer.
Incidentally, until Ellie became pregnant she was certain she didn’t want to have kids until her mid-thirties. Now she’s just about the most maternal person I know. Having babies makes a person change. That’s just how it is.
Hi Stu
I was a house-husband for 6 years, bringing up our son on a daily basis until he started school from 10 weeks old and his sister who arrived 2 years later from even earlier.
At the time we discovered we were having a family – it was shear economics – my wife earned more than i did and we needed somewhere to live still – right?
So she went back to work. I gave up my advertising exec position much to the amazement of my fellow workers, including a female boss.
I have to say the whole was the most rewarding experience of my life – being there full time was a joy and a privilege – nothing less – and i have a very good bond with my children now (they’re 13 and 10) even though I no longer live with their mum.
Of course with being at home comes all the house running chores like washing, ironing, cleaning and cooking – and being a bloke, getting used to the odd stares when sitting in mothercare’s feeding room with the bottles, warmers and all the gear.
I think on reflection its probably more selfish to want to stay at home, however, in these economic times, that’s not always possible by the mum (or dad).
With regards to the break up of the family – well I think that has more to do with how you bring your children up, behaviour, manners (yes I know its ‘old fashioned’ but there you are anyway) and encouraging learning and development from day one. That means doing things with the child – reading stories, building towers of blocks, sharing meal times, playing with others rather than relying on electronic gizmos and the TV.
The Onion once called that taking the time to talk to your child about whatever **** they like.
I love The Onion.
My mum didn’t go back to work until her youngest was at full-time school (which meant her career was stunted by so many years out). My dad worked from home so was able to pick us up from school etc.. I think, in retrospect, that this worked brilliantly and could not have been planned better. I agree that the argument about “nuclear families” has been muddied by the quite correct assertion that women should not be forced to stay at home.
Blue Eyes
February 9, 2009 at 12:29 pm