The conundrum of the working mother
Monday, 26 January 2009
At some point during my stay-at-home-with-baby-Joshua weekdays, I try to read a cross-section of newspapers online. If there's one thing I learned from my study of history at school, it's that one should always consult a variety of sources before making up one's mind about something, so I always aim to loiter on Times Online, BBC News, Guardian, Telegraph and Mail Online for at least a short while each day - not for too long, obviously, as those nappies won't change themselves. The comparison between these different publications is, inevitably, fascinating, and there are some columnists to whom I always turn immediately, to see what they each have to say on certain subjects. India Knight and Jeremy Clarkson in the Times are articulate, amusing and honest, the Guardian's "Corrections and Clarifications" page makes occasionally hilarious reading and more than compensates for the inexplicable number of spelling mistakes to be found in that paper most days, and of course the incomparable Boris Johnson is always worth visiting in the Telegraph. These columnists, and others besides, give me food for thought, make me laugh and occasionally teach me new words (along with my friend John in his Dimly Lit Corner - I would warmly recommend his wonderful blog). And when I feel my blood pressure needs a little exercise or I am in the mood for a lively argument with someone but am on my own in the house, off I go in search of Liz Jones of the Daily Mail. I am rarely disappointed in my quest for provocation, and her last couple of articles were no exception.
I have a few friends who are very scornful about both the Daily Mail and those who read it. Whilst I do agree that several of the articles contained within its folds are at best rather unedifying (often printing somewhat pointless stories about a celebrity's drunken antics, VPL or "curvy new figure") and are also often unkind, inaccurate, hopelessly biased and obsessed with dragging people's names through the mud, its famously reactionary attitude does serve a purpose, even if that purpose is only to make you think, "No! No no no! I do NOT agree with that, and here's why!" which in my opinion can only be a good thing. Liz Jones seems to nurture an enormous problem with stay-at-home mothers, those who take maternity leave and those who marry, to name but a few. As I fall into all of those three categories at present, I am glad of the regular opportunity to reassess my priorities as a wife and mother and my opinions on the subjects of women's rights and feminism with Ms Jones's occasional input and assistance.
Of her recent work, my favourite articles have included gems such as "A young journalist I used to mentor got married, much to my annoyance, in her mid-20s and decided to go part time", "Women, even in the current economic climate, do not think twice about taking a year’s maternity leave while their colleagues flail around coping with the stresses and strains of increased workloads and threatened redundancies, because to muck around at home playing house is their right", and "How much more inspiring is Rachida Dati than our own Ruth Kelly, who, as a Minister, refused to take work home and looked, for the most part, like an Eastern European refugee?" When I read her columns, which are generally on some "feminist" or fashion-related subject, it sometimes occurs to me that perhaps Jones's articles are actually supposed to be searing satire, that I am far more gullible than I thought, and that perhaps a pop-up will appear on the screen at any moment, declaring "This is not supposed to be taken seriously!" However, I fear this is not the case. I don't think I've ever encountered a journalist so incapable of putting herself in another's shoes, of considering an opinion contrary to her own, and of writing about the concept of feminism, which is after all about women's rights and not their obligation to become the equal of men in every respect. The suggestion that I "muck about at home playing house" whilst believing it to be my "right" infuriates me beyond measure, especially when made by a person who has never experienced stay-at-home parenting and has a cleaner to do her household chores for her (and I know this because she has been mentioned in one of Jones's articles recently - have a read!).
Having previously worked as a busy Director of Music in a high-achieving school where I regularly put in 10-hour days, my life is now unrecognisably different, but it is neither easier nor less worthwhile than it was before I had a child. My working day is now spread out over a 24-hour period during which I am personally learning to be far less selfish than I used to be and developing the ability to multi-task (previously, I thought playing the piano and singing at the same time, or conducting an orchestra whilst eating my lunch, constituted impressive acts of juggling; how wrong I was!), taking care of my own house rather than outsourcing the job to someone else (and whoever does the job is certainly not "playing", incidentally) and maintaining the principal role, alongside my husband, in bringing my child up to be a decent human being who might make a worthwhile contribution to society one day. As far as I am concerned, shaping a child's life as a member of the next generation is deeply important. It is not the only important job - of course not. But nor can it possibly be called "mucking about". Yes, of course I sometimes watch DVDs during the day, or read books or bake cakes. Perhaps Liz Jones does those things during her evenings, but would probably not see them as "mucking about" because she has put in a hard day's work prior to settling down in front of the TV with a glass of wine. As, in fact, have thousands of mothers all over the country who are working at home to ensure their children have what they, and I, consider to be the best possible start in life with one of their parents as the major caregiver.
By not taking my permitted amount of maternity leave and handing my child over to a nanny or nursery from a very young age, I would also be handing over the responsibility for setting standards for him, and for deciding what he eats, hears, sees and learns as he becomes aware of the world around him. That is what I and my husband are there for, and I do not wish anyone else to do it. My job, meanwhile, is being competently and confidently taken care of by a wonderful replacement. I am not the least bit worried that they are not managing without me, because they are doing so perfectly well. And in the meantime I am essentially being paid a sum of money to do a good job with my child in his first months of life, a transaction which I fully intend to continue honouring for the duration of my time off. But of course this leads to the question: how much time off is the right amount? It seems obvious to me that if you can afford to take full maternity leave, you should. Clearly not everyone can afford to do so, and that is a separate issue. But what about going back to work - when is the "right time" to do so, if ever?
Cleaning up the kitchen the other evening, I listened to Woman's Hour (a title which Liz Jones considers sexist - how about Person's Hour, instead?) on Radio 4 on the subject of new mothers returning to work after having their children. Rachida Dati had just returned to her job in the French cabinet with what many women considered to be shockingly indecent haste, less than a week than giving birth by Caesarian section to her first child, and the ongoing argument about whether or not mothers should work a) full time b) part time or c) at all before their children start school had been reignited. As I am currently in the process of thinking about my own return to work, I hoped that some helpful insights would be forthcoming.
Naturally the two guests who had been invited on the show held entirely opposing views, and their ensuing debate, facilitated by the plummy-voiced Jane Garvey, did not reach any definitive conclusion, irksomely enough. This was probably because these ladies were not typical or representative of most working mothers - one had a husband who stayed at home with the children whilst she worked, therefore neatly avoiding the thorny issue of childcare, and the other had a husband who earned a pleasingly large sum of money per year which allowed her to stay at home with her children without the fear of being unable to manage financially. Many women, especially in the current economic climate, cannot identify with either situation, and have to return to work in some capacity in order to make ends meet. Many others are in a position where they can just about manage on one salary if they make substantial alterations to their lifestyle and simply cease to spend money on frivolities, cutting down on their weekly consumption of wine, buying fewer shoes and joining the library instead of maintaining an expensive Amazon habit.
Yet it is amazing how many other women feel qualified to comment disparagingly upon both groups of women, with the same critical voice one might use when wondering aloud on the subject of dummies or bottle-feeding. Debates like the one on Woman's Hour only add to the timeless argument which seems to have no resolution: if you go back to work you are not doing the best by your child and are instead adding to the army of kids who let themselves into an empty house after school and play computer games (horrors!) until Mummy comes home from work; and if you don't go back to work you are throwing all Mrs Pankhurst's hard work back in her face and overthrowing the feminist movement, letting other women down by stepping aside to let men have all the good jobs whilst you... er..."muck about" at home. It seems to me, however, that one side is only considering the child and the other side only considers the mother, and I would suggest that perhaps a useful compromise involves considering the family unit as a whole.
A family who live together may comprise any number of people: there may or may not be two parents, there may be additional relatives in the equation such as elderly grandparents, and there may be children of all ages and genders and there will be a varying amount and proximity of support from outside the home. So there will never be one easy answer to the question of whether or not mothers should work, and how old their children should be when they pick up where they left off, and we should stop pretending the easy answer exists. It is too complex for that, and there are so many different things to consider.
Joshua is my first child, and spends his days with me and the cat. We read books, sing songs, he sleeps, I do household chores, we interact, we see a close friend and her 3-year-old son once a week, we try to go out every day to the Co-Op or for a walk, and for a full day out twice a week. During evenings and at the weekend his daddy is at home, and we sometimes have family or friends over for dinner or to stay with us; we also attend church every Sunday morning and meet up fortnightly with a couple of friends who have a baby boy two weeks older than Joshua. He therefore has those opportunities to socialise with other people besides his immediate family, but as an only child he does not spend time with other babies on a regular basis. I am not a person who enjoys groups; I invariably feel that I don't fit in and much prefer to spend time at home or with close friends who I know well rather than going out to Mother and Baby groups where I would find it difficult to mix with other mummies who I don't know at all. Yet I would like my son to gain good social skills, and to mix with others more successfully than I do. I think the best solution to this issue is introducing him to nursery school on a regular basis, even if he only goes there once or twice a week. If this routine is introduced gently and early enough, and if I select a good and caring nursery, he will be less likely to fall into antisocial habits. I already intend to encourage strongly the concepts of sharing and kindness to other children and good behaviour in public as well as at home; attending nursery school, even once a week, will help him put these ideas into practice as he mixes with other children and becomes increasingly adept at doing so. If we are blessed with a second child, they will have each other with which to spend time and develop the skills to get along with each other as they grow up. But until then, it is at least worth considering nursery or playgroup as a good option for those reasons.
It follows that if Joshua starts going to nursery school sometimes, that means I have some free time with which to do other things, and I think that after a while of being at home after years in the workplace with other adults every newish mother must appreciate some amount of time to herself. And that time could be spent in a myriad of ways; some women go back to the gym and get rid of the baby weight, some take up French or sign-language, some go to the hairdresser every week, and some go back to work. Our differing circumstances mean the options available to us also differ. That is one of the unfairnesses of life, and is also governed by the choices we make. Some families relish the challenge of affording life on a restricted budget; Ben and I are currently enjoying a game which involves shopping in the "reduced" section at the Co-Op wherever possible, and I was recently taken to a hairdressing salon where I had my hair cut by a student for the bargain price of £6 rather than upwards of £30 as would have been the case before I had a baby. But that doesn't mean I wish to slop about for the next five years in clothes that are falling to bits because I've had them for so long but can't afford new ones, because that does my confidence no good, and therefore it does me and my family no good either. Although that sounds like a very shallow thing to say, it is the tip of an often unacknowledged iceberg: it is far harder to take care of your appearance when you have young children because you have so little time, energy and money with which to do so and it begins to feel like your lowest priority. Many a day can be spent almost entirely in pyjamas, with mad unwashed hair which may or may not have been milkily vomited into by your baby; makeup is often applied either with one hand or in ten barely available seconds; and if anyone asks me if I have managed to fit back into my pre-pregnancy jeans I will have to tell them that I don't even know where my pre-pregnancy jeans are because I packed them away when we moved house and I don't have time to search for them. Some time given to, and thus confidence in, your appearance equals a happier woman and therefore happier relationships with husband and family. I'm obviously not advocating absurdly long and selfish hours in front of the mirror, or browsing at length in TopShop whilst the baby grizzles in the buggy because he's sitting in a dirty nappy, but getting to dinnertime and realising you've managed to brush neither your teeth nor your hair so far that day isn't a great idea either, even if it seems deeply self-sacrificing and noble at the time.
Finally, I think it is okay to miss being at work and to miss the stimulation and challenges it presents. I love being at home with Joshua, am enjoying every moment of full-time motherhood and cherish my time with him. I have no desire to be anywhere other than at home with him just now. However, I have previously so much enjoyed the various experiences of my job as a Music teacher, the cameraderie with the other staff, and the dissection of our respective days with Ben in the evenings over a glass of wine, and there may be something to be said for eventually - when the time is right - taking the opportunity to add something more to my current daily routine of nappies, feeding, playing and housework. It is possible to see your lot in life as full and stimulating, and to add even more to it by working in some capacity if that is possible and desirable for you and your family. It may be neither possible nor desirable, again because of the inequalities of life. The mother of a handicapped child may never be able to return to work because of her additional responsibilities at home. The amount of money and support offered to families in such a situation is clearly inadequate at present and needs addressing, but that is a separate issue. A woman with children who can afford not to draw a salary, and chooses to do voluntary work or runs a Mother and Baby group and welcomes others into her home, is also making a contribution to society which she might not be able to do if she undertook paid work.
The myriad of different options and choices available to women, as well as differing circumstances and restrictions on time and finances, mean there will never be one definitive answer to the question of whether or not mothers should work. And it is simply unkind and unfair to enquire of a woman who needs to work for financial reasons why she ever bothered having children in the first place. She may be doing her very best to provide for them with very little help. The question of why armies of gym-mummies leave their children with the nanny whilst enjoying a morning of shopping and lattes is another matter entirely, but the only question should be: Are you, as a wife and mother, doing what you believe to be the best thing by your family? Ultimately, you should be doing what is best for those in your family, whatever that is. If you are, there is no place for guilt. And those who do not have insight into your personal situation do not have the right to judge your decision, not even if they write for the famously judgemental Daily Mail!
posted by My name is Fiona, @ 12:56
link
