www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall When Moms Work, Their Children DO Suffer!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I just posted this at YourCatholic.com [yourcatholic.com] and thought that some of you here would like to discuss it here as well, so here it goes. God Bless!

------------------------------------------------------------
From FoxNews.com:

Conventional wisdom has for years been that women can do it all: work full time, hold the same jobs as men and still be loving, nurturing moms at home.

Many women have been able to successfully balance career and motherhood. But a new study suggests that when moms do that, the children suffer.

Researchers at Columbia University say when moms work full time during the first nine months of their child�s life, those children end up with weaker learning and verbal skills by the time they reach age 3. The problems last until the kids are 7 or 8 years old, according to the study.

The bad effects don�t turn up when moms work only part time, or don�t go back to work until their child turns 1.

Other factors also come into play. Among them are the home environment and the sensitivity level of these mothers when they�re actually at home with their children.

But in the study, even when all these needs were being met and the mom worked more than 30 hours a week, the kids� development was still slower.

The researchers have some recommendations, all of which have companies and the federal government spending more money to make it easier on moms. One idea is to expand paid maternity leave to 10 months, or to allow moms to work part time at full pay until their kids reach the age of 1.

The federal family and medical leave act provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Another idea is for the federal government to make sure that moms on welfare are not required to go back to work while their children are less than a year old.

The study's bottom line is that women cannot have it all, at least not in the first year of their child�s life. Staying at home might not be the best thing for a mother's career, but it may be good for her child.

Some groups are backing the study.

"There's no question it's true," said Dr. Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America. "There�s no question that a mother�s care is the best care for a child, especially in the first year."

The institute reported similar findings a year ago and found that despite the quality of non-mom child care, there is a risk of kids turning out to be bullies or having other behavioral problems. Crouse's institute recommended that moms do not keep their kids in child care for more than 10 hours a week if they want their children to develop socially and in other ways.

"There is no substitute for a mother's care," Crouse said. "Often times, our children our the last thing on the priority list."

Lauren Noyes, director of U.S. House relations for the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, is six months pregnant. She fully agrees with the study and said she has already asked her employers for a part-time schedule after her baby is born, else she may not come back to work during that first year.

"Intuitively, I just knew it was not best for my baby for me to be away from it that much," Noyes said.

I don't think that one can't make a generalization that women going to work is bad in principle. It depends on the cirmcumstances in many cases.
I wish that more companies would have "creches" or day care for children at the place of business for more working mothers. They have such arrangements in some of the more progressive nations such as Sweden. I think we should that here.

Very misleading article. I totally agree that new mothers should be able to have the option to stay at home with their newborn children. The partial answer is maintance of income through a social insurance system -- a very Catholic social concept.

It is also something the two organizations quoted have hypocritically given no support for, and in fact opposed.

President Clinton, to his credit, directed the Department of Labor to allow states to offer Unemployment Compensation for 12 weeks following childbirth. The right wing has furiously opposed this and only a couple of state allow it. The conservatives have also opposed the federal government offering paid maternity leave to its own employees and opposed efforts to get businesses to do so, either by legislation or union negotiation.

Personally, I like using the Unemployment Insurance system to finance materinity leave. It is a backdoor way of forcing business to do so and uses a known and exisiting program.

Heritage and CWA should shut up with their pious nothings.

Not only are children hurt when their parents aren't around mom is hurt as well. In related studies we find that children lessen the chance of breast cancer. Each new baby lessens the chance of breast cancer by 4%. Moreover, the longer she breast feeds the less chance she has of having breast cancer.

This was even reported on NPR.

Dan Lauffer

Carson,

The study was a breast feeding, specifically. Mothers who bottle feed have no advantage.

Axios

More Children plus more breast feeding = lessened chance of breast cancer. I think I heard that both factors played a part, but I could be wrong. You are correct that bottle feeding gives no advantage.

Dan Lauffer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Axios:
[QB]Carson,

The study was a breast feeding, specifically. Mothers who bottle feed have no advantage.

And i wonder why the issue of stay-at-home dads is never mentioned by these men as an alternative? It is easy to dictate to women it seems.

[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]

Yes. Remember, only a hundred years ago, 90% of fathers were stay at home dads. You don't hear this fact brought up to often.

Axios

BTW, the legislation to give government employees paid maternity leave is sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) in the House and Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in the Senate. You can write them and thank them for their leadership. Also write President Bush and object to his opposition to this important pro-Mother legislation.

[ 07-20-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

I've always worked fulltime, and breastfed my kids 'til over age 4. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also like to find out why SAHD's aren't included in this discussion. I think it's a matter of the baby being cared for by someone who loves them.


Sheesh.


Sharon

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
[qb]I've always worked fulltime, and breastfed my kids 'til over age 4. They aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also like to find out why SAHD's aren't included in this discussion. I think it's a matter of the baby being cared for by someone who loves them.


Sheesh.


Let the Board say "AMEN!!!"


Brian

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]

"I'd also like to find out why SAHD's aren't included in this discussion."

My guess is that this doesn't support a certain socio-political viewpoint - the one that underlies these statements in the first place.

Brendan

Why would you want to have kids and then stick them in a day car center and never see them? Kids aren't parents' right to have--if you want kids you should be willing AND able to support them with you time and attention. And if you try to argue that it doesn't make much difference if kids are in day care, I'd say get real and step out of self-denial. In every office in which I have worked, I have listened to mothers talk about how their kids react very negatively when they are dropped off at daycares, how many of them ask "why are you doing this". Many of these mothers also see day care and working as a way to "get a break" from parenting. How sick. If you need a break from parenting, get a friend or relative to watch the child for an evening, don't spend 40-60 hours a week AWAY from your child!

Thank God my mother didn't stick me in one of those places. Once she did take me for a week when there was a family problem, and I hated every darn second of it. People will say "oohhh you are different than others." I say: you all know in your hearts what is right, and to justify daycare, you have to say it's either the same or better for the child. SInce there is no evidence to support that, I'd say go with conventional wisdom and human/animal instict, and take care of your own children!

If someone really really can't afford it and both parents (or the single parent) works, well I am not going to judge them; that's their lot in life. But people know, and I'll wager the Church teaches, that a father and a mother together, with a full-time child in the home with the kids, is the best way to have stable families. Look around.

Some people might try to argue that ultra-Tridentine-anti-modernity-types have both parents and yet a lot of their families are messed up. I'd agree, I've seen it. But that, in my opinion, is because those types are crazy to begin with.

One futher point: I used to think it'd be okay if the guy stayed home with the kids all the time and the mom worked. If that's the only option, fine. But after being married now, I can honestly say that there is no way a man can nurture and care for a child THE SAME WAY that a mother can. It's not our natural role.

I'll probably make a lot of people mad, and be accused of "bigotry" and "getting the facts wrong" etc., which is fine; I know what I have seen and experienced.

In Christ,

anastasios

Amen anastasios,

I agree wholeheartly.

Women's role is that of a nurturer. The Theotokos is the perfect embodiment of this, and Our Lady should be the role model for all women.

Giovanni

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: Giovanni ]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Amen Anastasios!

I was suprised to see so many posts against a mother staying home with her own flesh and blood to raise, instead of hiring out the job. At Your Catholic Web [yourcatholic.com] where I also posted it, no one was pro-daycare. God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-Nik!

The FoxNews article posted in fact supports the idea that day-care, whatever one's personal feelings about it, does not have a negative effect on child development after the first year of infancy, nor during the first year, provided that the time away from the mother is limited.

An issue not addressed in the study, as noted in previous posts, is the comparison of development in infants cared for by SAHD vs. SAHM. I searched pubmed on this issue but came up empty. This subject clearly deserves scientific investigation; grand extrapolations made on the basis of very, very limited observations, without proper controls, are simply not probative.

The idea that women and men interact differently with infants is supported by scientific study, but without a specific comparison of SAHD vs. SAHM (or for that matter SAHM vs. working mothers, etc.). Moreover, the implication of such differences on child development were not measured in these studies.

Perhaps nurturing is not natural for men. But then again neither is holiness. Arguments that our nature justifies our behavior lead to serious problems.

And not for men?

djs

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: djs ]

[ 08-03-2002: Message edited by: djs ]