Recently someone posted on here about a mother who had charmed, and one Bloop member took it as an opportunity to claim that such problems may be associated with other parenting 'failures' such as not breastfeeding or mothers choosing to work. She claimed that these things lead to children suffering.

So it was nicely timed that this research has just been published. I saw it on the news this morning, and while I think it should be the parents choice as to if a mother works or not, I hope this will ease any guilt felt by mothers who HAVE to work, and also shut up a few of the mothering nazis who like to claim that their way of doing things is the ONLY way of doing them properly, and like to criticse others for doing things differently (of course many of these people don't care one bit for actual evidence, so probably they'll just ignore it!).

Working mothers do no harm to their young children, research finds

Long-term study by University College London suggests young girls fare better if their mothers go out to work
UCL's research found there seemed to be many benefits for young children if both their parents worked – though perhaps not in these circumstances.

Mothers do not harm their young children emotionally or socially by going out to work, according to research that offers reassurance to women worried about juggling jobs and family responsibilities.
In fact, girls seem to gain from being in a household where their mother works, according to analysis of families with children born in 2000. In a project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, a team from the department of epidemiology and public health at University College Londonfound no evidence of detrimental effects on the young children of mothers working part-time or full-time.

The results were published in theJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health on Friday.
The ideal scenario for children of both sexes was for both parents to live at home and for both to be working, a finding that will encourage policymakers' moves to help families stay together, if not critics of the rising numbers of working mothers.
Anne McMunn, who led the research, said there seemed to be many benefits from both parents working "as long as parents are supported, do not have to work long hours and are able to combine child-rearing with paid work ... In this study we did not see any evidence for a longer-term detrimental influence on child behaviour of mothers working during the first year of life."
Thousands of parents, mainly mothers, answered questionnaires about their children in infancy and when they were three and five. They covered external behaviours such as hyperactivity, tantrums and aggression, and internal ones, including unhappiness, tearfulness and worry. There were more than 12,000 responses for each stage, and the percentage of mothers working rose from 55% in children's infancy to 60% at the age of five.

The study, which looked only at white children because of statistical difficulties in sampling other ethnic groups, is the latest contribution to the decades-long, often fraught debate about whether mothers' paid employment is good or bad for their children. Among many conflicting messages, there have been suggestions that young children looked after by people other than their parentsmay be more prone to bad behaviour, that there could be a link between working mothers and overweight children and that working mothers in steady relationships are the healthiest women.

The new study suggested that boys whose mother was the breadwinner had more difficulties at the age of five than those living with two working parents. Girls whose father was the breadwinner were more likely to have problems than when both parents were earning.
The idea that working mothers might act as behavioural and emotional role models for their daughters needed more investigation, McMunn said. She conceded that researchers were relying on the evidence of parents alone, but said the results of the next checks, made on children's behaviour at the age of seven, would include the views of teachers.
Katherine Rake, chief executive of theFamily and Parenting Institute charity, welcomed the research paper. "This study shows what mothers know intuitively. If you are able to get the balance right, your child and your career can both flourish."

Damn iPhone... That should say mother who harmed her child, not charmed!

well that's certainly good to know :) I think the final quote really hit it--"If you are able to get the balance right..."

I thought the comment about "failures" leading to children suffering was a load of crap. The quote at the end of the article hit it right on the nose. There is a way to balance working and being a mother. My mom did it with my brother and I. So did my Grandma with my mom and aunts.

I am a working mum of two boys, and once I graduate I will (with any luck) also be the breadwinner. Luckily I will only do so when my youngest is 5! I am assuming by the wording of the last paragraph, that once my sons are 6 or older, they'll be alright with me being the breadwinner? Lol.

I don't think I'm harming my children by working. Yes it breaks my heart when my 3 year old asks me to stay at home and I have to try and explain to him that I can't (which he just doesn't understand bless him!) but he is also learning from an early age that working hard is how we have a nice life and get to do fun things together.

Finally some research that doesnt demonise those of us who chose to work!!

For me, its a matter of wanting to provide the best for our children - and not that I am saying those who DONT work are not - but I chose to work to be able to afford to pay a mortgage. In my eyes this equals security for my children- knowing they will grow up not having to move at the whim of someone else. I want to be able to afford a private school - again difficult on one wage.
All choices I make which I believe will better THEIR lives and after all, isnt that what its about? Giving our children the best possible even if we sometimes hate it? I am lucky to have my son looked after by his grandparents so he is in another environment where he is very loved and valued. He is three and can read some words, knows all his alpahbet, and can ID dinosaurs better than I can!! His intellectual development is way above his level (assessed by his kindy teacher and not a biased mummy!) and so I dont see that he has been harmed at all.
But off track - its just good to see some research which doesnt strive to make working mums feel like bad parents and guilt trip them. Good find!

I've never had an issue with being a working mother. I have to be a SAHM for a year or two as I'm now single, but it goes against the grain. I don't wanna be stuck here all day!

I should have known that those who like to criticise working mothers would avoid this forum thread! They also don't like it when others use actual evidence to show that they're wrong!

I noticed this too. Normally threads like this would have 3-6 pages by now.

Very interesting. I noticed this comment first..."Mothers do not harm their young children emotionally or socially by going out to work, according to research that offers reassurance to women worried about juggling jobs and family responsibilities."

For me, I think this decision just comes down to the family unit. I am not one to think that being a working mom is better or being a stay at home mom is better; every family and ever situation is different. For me, I believe a mother should AT LEAST stay at home with their children until they enter into grade school (in USA, that is around the age of 5-years-old, when they enter Kindergarten.) Not only is daycare a BIG waste of money (if the husband makes enough to support the family, why is a woman going to work just to pay half a daycare bill, when SHE could be providing ultimate care for her child/children?) but it gives the chance for the children to see their mother more often and build a lasting bond with them.

Remember please too, that mothers who stay at home, ARE WORKING MOMS. Just because we don't physically leave our home and clock in to a time clock does not mean WE DON'T work. No offense to any working moms, but our job is just as hard, and we don't get paid.

If I stayed off work until my children were 5 I (a) wouldn't have a job to go back to and (b) would become so dangerously deskilled (given that my job is to keep people alive while surgeons operate on them! And I use lots of different drugs and fancy bits of kit that require regular use to maintain skills) that I could probably never go back even if I could find a new job.

I will probably go part time when I have children (assuming I marry someone who's job and income allows for this) but giving it up completely simply isn't an option for me, as it isn't an option for many people.

And by you saying you believe a mother should stat at home until the children are in school you ARE saying that you believe that is better than a mother who goes out to work.

I do know that caring for children is work though!

You totally misunderstood where I was coming from. This is my belief; I do not believe that a mother who stays home is better than a women who goes to work. I just think, to be completely blunt, that if a women were afforded the opportunity to stay home for several years in the beginning of their childrens lives they should take it! As women, we expect our men to take care of us, provide for us, be our protectors, but we don't give them the opportunity.

And again, this cannot really be preached to me because I WAS a single working mother. I had to return to work when Kaidance was 5 WEEEKS old. That's not even the normal maternity leave afforded to most women. But I did it to provide the utmost care for my daughter.

I think it has to be about balance... i don;t know how you working mums do it but you do!
If you can balance it its perfect, i know someone though, whos daughter is in nursery from 8am-6pm, comes home and goes to bed at 7, and both her parents work saturdays too.... for me thats just too much. some Nursery's here avoid any kind of bonding with the children, theres rules on picking them up and if a child becomes attached to you, you have to avoid them to break the attachment in case you're not there when the child needs comforting (this is based on where my sister used to work) thats not healthy for children... especially ones who dont get enough time with their parents to make proper bonds in the first place.
my sister worked in a nursery and in a survey 26% of parents wished they did 24 hour care! theres something wrong when people go that far!
so yeah, balance is good. role models are awesome too.

Those of us who work outisde the home are on the clock 24 hours a day as well. Our job doesnt stop when we leave paid work.

Some people dont have a choice. And those who stay at home and whinge about having no money are making a choice not to have it. In a perfect world we could all stay home and there would be no conflict but life isnt perfect.

I understand that some women have to do it; I was there, I've been there, done that. And I also think that women who "whinge about having no money are making a choice not to have it," is ENTIRELY untrue in some cases. I complain about not having money. Because I don't have money. But with a three-year-old and a 9-week-old if I went back to work making what I was making (roughly 1800 a month) I wouldn't even make enough to cover daycare expenses. For a decent daycare, with caregivers I can trust, it would cost me 2200 for full-time care (40 hours a week) for two kids...not worth it.

I will be going back part time - with flexible hours which I suppose I am lucky for. I get tired of people thinking that the fact that I don stay home means my son gets substantive childhood care and expoeriences. Trust me- he doesnt.

And I know people who moan about their situation but do nothing to change it. If we could afford a mortgage on one wage- we would. Unlike where you guys are - a VERY average three bed house costs us in excess of four hundred thousand- rent for the same is 400 a week. Our cost of living really limits our choices.

i never thought id WANT to be the stay at home mom but then i go pregnant lol for me i just don't want to miss anything. i waited so long for the "perfect time" to have kids(which meant my husband had a job that could support us, house and all)that i don't want anyone to get more time with my baby then i do. if he never got that good job though id be a working mom for sure and well aware i was making the best choice by doing so. also a lot of moms don't care to stay home all day. some really like to have their own jobs away from home and i think for those ladies it makes them a better person and a better mother. i hate when people say one is harder then the other. to me its not easy leaving kids at home to work then be tired and still need to care for them at the end of the day, but its hard to be the only one who looks after you child for 8+ hours as well. there is a sacrifice no mater what you do. it really goes by what the family needs.

It's nice to see that children with working mothers don't typically display the negative behavioral traits that some people might expect them to. I do believe the word "harm" is quite subjective though. For example, I stay home with my children because I want to be their primary caregiver. I want them to be raised by their mother so that they may adopt our family values and principles. Later, they will be homeschooled by me as well. I will nurse each of my infants for at least one year (a goal made very difficult by America's typical eight-week maternity leave). My working outside the home would not permit me to do these things as effectively and could in fact be considered "harm." I do understand that some mother's must work, but for my family it will always be ideal for me to stay home.

Agreed..and you are a WONDERFUL mother! :)

I think this is a really interesting article. I've never been one to think someone was terrible either way (working or staying at home). My Mom was (is) a single Mom and worked but I always admired her choices of work. She did a paper route for many years because it was the only job she could do that allowed her to stay at home. I know I never thought I'd be a stay at home Mom. Honestly I'd say I always felt they didn't 'do' much but once I became a homemaker myself I realized how wrong I was.

I stay home because my husband and I think it's important for our daughter to be with one of us while she is so young. Plus I want to be home with her. Now that she's here I can't imagine something more fulfilling and I use to love my old work. It really is all about what works for any individual family. It also really wouldn't be worth me working considering the cost of child care. To each is own!

I don't understand how any mother (SAHM or not) would think a working mom is harmful to a child. A job doesn't come between the relationship with the child. It has to do more with how much a mom is with her child. You can work and still be as active with the childs life. How could any mom be so negative towards other mothers? That's just wrong. SAHM doesn't always mean they're better or more active. I don't work, I have a 10 month old. I did work my whole life though until I got laid off last year and then found out I was pregnant 2 months later. Do I choose to stay home? No. I been looking for work but jobs in my area are hard to get. I would love to work and be able to help with money. I love my son to death and I'm grateful to see him grow everyday though. I'm lucky enough that my husband has a good job and I have family to help.

I would LOVE to be a SAHM when I become a mother, but at this point in time and I'm sure in the future, it won't be an option for my husband and I. We would NEVER be able to afford it. My mom was kind of both growing up. She babysat other kids and I when I was young and was a SAHM until I was about 11 or so. I gotta say when she went back to work it didn't affect me, but I was older and was able to understand why she did it and it didn't harm me. But I think it all depends on whether financially a couple can do it. I mean if a mother works a typical 40 hour a week job, I can see it take a lot of energy, but there's still time for the kids. Either way I can't see it harming a kid. I think really being a working mother would be a better influence for a daughter anyway to show her that there's more to life than being a SAHM (Not that there's anything wrong with that) but I would want to show my daughter that being at SAHM isn't the only choice that she has. But I'm childless so maybe I'm just making stuff up :P

For me I think being a good mother for the time you're with your child(ren) is more important then the amount of time you spend with them. If you're a SAHM and it drives you barmy and you're short tempered and resent being there then that will be harmful to your child, going out to work and being an amazing mummy when you're home would be much healthier for the child.
I have no doubt that if I went out to work my son wouldn't be harmed, that's not why I want to be a SAHM, it's because the thought of someone else being there whilst he's so young and learning all these new things makes my heart hurt. Luckily(?) I'm too poorly to get a job so we make do on one wage.
There's lots of studies supporting the argument that daycare doesn't harm children (so long as they have strong bonds with their parent(s) and attend a good daycare), I remember covering it in uni. I hate the guilt that a lot of people place on women who have no option but to work. Parenting is guilt-ridden enough without people heaping more on.

"I think being a good mother for the time you're with your child(ren) is more important then the amount of time you spend with them."

i SOOOOO agree, couldn't have said it better!! =]

Nooo I lost my reply!

Personally I would seriously consider not starting a family if my partner and I couldn't afford for one of us to be at home (but then how would we afford childcare?). I would be happy for either of us to be at home, it will most likely be who ever earns the least, but I would also be happy for us both to work if our working hours tended not to clash, but I would want one of us to take the full maternity/paternity leave (paternity leave is changing in the UK).

There are a few reasons I wouldn't be comfortable sending my children to nursery, especially babies, I must admit the thought of babies in nursery makes me feel quite uneasy, I don't think they receive the stimulation they need as the staff simply don't have to time to provide this. A large reason is when my partner and I decide to start a family, we will also want to raise that family, instead of passing this role onto someone else, there is also the fact that within childcare generally they have to use a one size fits all model, so the way in which you want your children to be raised is discarded. It would be far better for those who are with a family member, such as grand parents as then the parents wishes are more likely to be followed, the baby is being stimulated instead of being left unless they need feeding, changing etc and they are developing a bond with someone who will remain in their lives, not someone who is there until they fancy a different job.

I do understand and appreciate that in the UK it is far easier to be a stay at home parent compared to many other countries, such as the states, as there is so little support for parents, especially in the early years, I think a lot of people in the UK fail to realise just how lucky they are.

I think here at least a lot of people have too great financial expectations, or as in recent years people take on mortgages they can barely afford, then they start a family that they can't afford. I would happily live in a cheap area, rely on public transport and give up luxuries for myself or my partner to remain at home with my children, children don't suffer for it at all and they don't miss out either, living on a lower wage doesn't stop you providing your children with what they need, including toys. I do also understand that staying at home isn't the main answer, it is being with your child and interacting with them, yeah put them in front of the TV to do the odd thing, but not all day, if you aren't going to do things with your little ones and spend the time playing etc then they probably would be better off in nursery.