A post today on Jezebel analyzes media response to a British study that showed children of working mothers are more likely to watch TV and eat unhealthy snacks. Coverage follows the presumption that women are and should be primarily responsible for all childcare (Where are “working dads” in all this?). And then, media analysis of the study leaves the door open to a heap of class and race bias, as families who can afford a stay-at-home spouse are essentially branded “good” parents in comparison to those “bad” ones who have the audacity to be in an economic strata that requires two working parents. Researchers caution against blaming, but you know how it goes…
A study by Britain’s Institute of Child Health reports that kids of working mothers are more likely to eat unhealthy snacks and watch a lot of TV. Cue the Guilt Police!
The study looked at 12,500 five-year-olds, and controlled for factors like socioeconomic status and mothers’ education. Researchers found that children of working mothers were more likely to drink soda and eat “crisps and sweets” between meals, and less likely to snack on fruits and vegetables, than their peers with stay-at-home moms. Kids whose mothers worked were also more likely to be driven to school, rather than walking or biking, and more likely to spend two or more hours a day watching TV or using the computer. The effect on kids’ eating and exercise habits was less when mothers worked part-time than when they work full-time, but still significant, and in fact, the average employed mom in the study worked only 21 hours a week. According to the Guardian, “flexible working had an impact, but [...] no strong effect on the health of the children.” Read more…
I’m so sick of the misconception that families with a SAHP are more wealthy than dual income families. For many families with a SAHP, the parent who stays at home does have the education background to make more than a minimum wage job – making affording childcare prohibitive. Yes, you really can be low-income and have a parent at home – and the economic situation would not improve by having both parents work.
I hate these studies. They make me cry/silent scream.
K,
One doesn’t have to believe that all SAHP families are rich to acknowlege that there are some families who simply cannot do with one income, no matter how they cut back and trim their budgets.
I know many SAHP families make great sacrifices to do what they feel is best for their children. Most dual-income families also make great sacrifices. And many families, who would love the option of home-schooling or having a SAHP, are not fortunate enough to have access to this option.
I know in our particular situation, we are both college-educated, but I am a social worker and to pay for childcare for twins would be more than 2/3 of my paycheck. Not worth it IMO! I would rather be the one at home than paying for full-time daycare.
@Molly, I agree. Studies like this make me want to scream. Mostly because I think to myself, “Okaaaay…yeah. So what are you going to do about it?” So families with a working mom end up having to cut corners with maybe a few snacks and watching some TV. But what’s the point of pointing that out? Do you expect that all working women will just up and quit their jobs so that their kids can eat a few more strawberries and carrots and watch a little less PBS Kids? I feel like studying this is a waste of money b/c the conclusion is obvious. Women who stay at home (keep in mind, I am a SAHP) have more time to think about meal planning, cut up veggies and fruit, and sit around finger painting with their kids b/c they don’t have to iron their clothes for the next day, make lunch (and maybe breakfast and snack, depending on the daycare) for the next day, get dinner ready, do baths and bedtime and finish up all of their work all in the wee hours after work and before bed! Why make working women feel guilty for helping to put food (even if its not always perfect food) on the table? If our society REALLY cared about children, quality childcare would be subsidized/free and we’d have a year of parental leave, like in other similarly situated countries. But, rather than making changes that would help children and their families in realistic ways, we spend money doing studies to prove things that are, IMHO, obvious to anyone with common sense (ie: working mom = busy = needs to settle her kids in front of the TV so she can get something done).
And, yes, I am a SAHP. I have a college degree and a law degree so I could, technically, get a high paying job (or I could have, prior to quitting my job to stay home). But I hated my job. I think if I loved it, maybe I would be tempted to go back. As it is, I’d love to get into social work, but like Holly said, it doesn’t pay much so it’s hard to see how it’d be worth it before my son is in school. As a woman, you’re really scr**ed either way. IF you can afford it, you can choose to stay home. But that means you sacrifice the independence that you get from making your own money and having an identity unique from motherhood–not to mention the security that comes from having a duel income household. As a SAH mom (as opposed to a SAHD), in particular, you often find your family becoming stuck in a rut of traditional gender roles. If you’re into that, that’s great…but many women aren’t as okay with it as they would have thought prior to deciding to stay home. If you don’t have a choice and you have to work, you are criticized as not being financially savvy enough to make it work with one salary, or you are selfish because you aren’t sacrificing for your kids. And if you have a choice and choose to work because you make good money, or you enjoy your job, or you like the people at your work and you’d be bored if you stayed home, you are criticized by people who say you are selfish, you don’t love your kids, etc. Basically: a SAHM is an unambitious, boring, and dependent, yet “selfless” and loving, Susie Homemaker type and a WM is an independent and ambitious, yet selfish and “shouldn’t have had kids in the first place.” Its bull****. Women and families are more complex than that. And our lives deserve more consideration than media interpretations of a silly study about nonsense. [stepping off my soap box now]
Pingback: Kids Playgroups? | Parenting in New Mexico
@molly / montclair mommy: don’t hate the studies; hate the terrible quality of popular journalism about science.
Even in the brief excerpt from the Jezebel article included above, you already see The Guardian (that’s actually a pretty liberal UK paper, by the way) making the causation / correlation fallacy.
In fact, they quote the author of the study saying explicitly that it doesn’t mean moms shouldn’t work, but rather that there’s a need for supportive government programmes.
@ Montclair Mommy: Yes.
And all of this is without even addressing the reality of single-parent families, like mine.
How does a study like this get interpreted and used? It is helpful if they are used to show how working/single parents need more support, if they highlight the challenges that working/single parents face. They are NOT helpful if they are used to criticize working/single parents for doing a “lousy job.”
The answer is not “more stay at home parents.” The answer is how to help ALL families whether the parents stay at home or work.
I’ll add, although perhaps this is neither here nor there, that the son of THIS working mom gets all kinds of unhealthy food….AT DAYCARE.
I’d like to see the actual study before evaluating the results but, if the idea is to address childhood obesity, I have to wonder how much what happens at home really matters given that children of working parents spend MOST of their time OUTSIDE the home, for better or worse.
@Julia, that is so true. It makes me shake my head. Where I live daycare can cost up to 1800 a month for one child! And you can’t conjure up a good, wholesome meal with that kind of money? Please. For all that my son had better be getting organic milk, fresh strawberries, organic broccoli, whole wheat noodles, and grass fed free range turkey! Because I KNOW that they aren’t using that money to pay their teachers!
@dersk: like I said, I don’t like how the media interprets the study. But to me it goes beyond that. What is the purpose of the study? What “problem” is it trying to solve through learning more? Obesity? If so, then we have to address the fact that whole grain options, fresh produce, and lean meats are more expensive than the pre-prepared meals, white bread, salty packaged turkey, etc. At least where I live its cheaper to eat hotdogs and box mac and cheese than to make a salad with fresh produce. A d*mn shame, if you ask me.
@Montclair – and largely due to corn subsidies (you might enjoy _In Defense of Food_).
And I think exposing issues like this can be a very good output of the study. Basically, never trust mass media science reporting, because they always get it wrong (witness all the horrifically bad journalism about the anti-vaccine anti-science crowd).
so many reasons to account for it all and the study makes different points than the media elects to cover.
working moms are heroic and should be celebrated and supported. in that vein i encourage anyone here to support one of these moms: http://www.ahamoment.com/pg/voting?moment=lcjja
their stories of balance and making it are finalists in the mutual of omaha, aha moment campaign. if enough people vote for any of them they’ll be in the 2010 ad campaign. that will be a big megaphone for stories about working moms.
if you like please vote.
thanks,
cam
cam@ahamoment.com
I think guilt is a reason many people feel angry about this situation. They do feel conflicted and guilty about working and not staying home to care for their children. I think it’s important for women to have their own money. But I don’t think that means having a job necessarily. They are entitled to half of their husband’s salary. If the stay-at-home parent is a man, likewise.
I personally think it is better for a woman to stay at home with her children. Mothers and fathers have overlapping roles, but I think children benefit more from a mother being there. Regardless of who stays at home, I think it is better than putting your children in daycare or getting a nanny. Leaving them with other people is fine for maybe a few hours each day, but parents should be the ones who spend the most time with their children. When the nanny spends more time with your child than you do, there’s a problem.
So many times, parents exclaim, “What about my work? What about my life?” as a way to put work before their children. When you have children, they should be your top priority. Think about what is best for them and then, decide whether to put them in daycare or not. When they spend a lot of time with other people, they are being exposed to their values and beliefs, which you may not agree with.