Babies don't suffer when mothers return to work, study reveals

[alp227]

A ground-breaking study has found that mothers can go back to work months after the birth of their child without the baby's wellbeing suffering as a result.

By assessing the total impact on a child of the mother going out to work, including factors outside the home, American academics claim to have produced the first full picture of the effect of maternal employment on child cognitive and social development. Their conclusion will provide comfort for thousands of women who re-enter the employment market within a year of giving birth.

"The good news is that we can see no adverse effects," said American academic Jane Waldfogel, currently a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. "This research is unique because the question we have always asked in the past has been: 'If everything else remains constant, what is the effect of a mum going off to work?' But of course everything else doesn't stay constant, so it's an artificial way of looking at things.

"Family relationships, family income, the mental health of the mother all change when a mother is working and so what we did was to look at the full impact, taking all of these things into account."

In one of the most fraught areas of social policy and research, several studies over the past two decades have suggested that children do worse if their mothers go back to work in the first year of their lives.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/01/babies-dont-suffer-working-mothers

Take that, Phyllis Schlafly!

[dsc]

1. It will be interesting to see what all this study took into account

and how many hours those mothers were working (the article talked about 30 hours and parttime work). I think it is criminal we don't give parents better maturnity leave in this country and that this study will likely be used to justify that.

[lbrtbell]

2. Exactly.

Babies learn at an astonishing rate, and it's rare that a sitter will give a baby as much attention as its parents.

Mothers and fathers working full time need flexibility in their work schedules, so they can alternate caring for a baby, giving him/her the necessary attention and mental stimulation.

I just watched an interesting program about infant/toddler development and learning last night on NatGeo. It had accounts of numerous studies that showed how the most important period of learning is between birth and three years of age. Sorry, but I don't believe one study that contradicts what all these other scientists found over a period of decades.

[w8liftinglady]

3. My ex and I alternated schedules...easy for healthcare workers...

although it doesn't do much for a marriage.

[Odin2005]

4. Corporatist anti-leave BS.

[Whoa_Nelly]

5. Exactly n/t

[iamjoy]

7. Yep, That's How I View IT

Or rather, atempts to ease the guilt of mothers who must work. What a strange world it is when Liberals are in agreement with anti-feminist, sexist piles of poop.

Although, perhaps it is not the time away in and of itself that is harmful. There is a case to be made for day-care in that it helps teach socialization skills. Maybe the problem is a person who works full time and also has primary (or sole) child rearing responsibilities is likely to be very busy - making it challenging to do all things well and remain sane

[EFerrari]

13. Could be. n/t

[Number23]

6. Kicked and freaking rec'd!

Snip: "The Pew Research Centre in Washington found high levels of anxiety among women over the issue."

Well, DUH!

[Hannah Bell]

8. am i not a feminist if i don't believe 2-month-old babies are "fine"

when their mothers are absent most of the day?

am i not a feminist if i think this is just more bullshit corporate research to get people to work longer & harder & justify the denial of maternity & family leave with phoney science?

the london school of economics (spy school)?

pfft.

[REP]

9. Yeah, Beatrice Webb, Sidney Webb and GB Shaw were capitalist running dogs

The ignorance. It burns.

[Hannah Bell]

10. actually, they were fabian socialists. which were kind of upper class twits into

"managing" & "educating" the masses. they liked eugenics, too.

yep, the ignorance does burn.


In his Preface to Volume III of Capital, Engels publically remarked that "Mr. George Bernard Shaw" was building "the Fabian Church of the Future" on "the foundation of Jevons’s and Menger’s theory of use-value and marginal utility".

Indeed, the Fabians saw themselves, quite consciously, as building a socialism not just different from Marxism but in opposition to it: ''there are at the present moment four people in London, calling themselves 'Socialists', who claim to have refuted our author completely by opposing to his theory that of - Stanley Jevons! ...'', Engels told Danielson in 1888.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/fabians/earlyengvaluedebate.htm.

[REP]

12. Yeah, Engels is a great source on Shaw. Oh wait. He isn't.

Please provide a primary source that the Webbs or Shaw were in favor of eugenics. You know, from either of the Webbs or Shaw. Since it is blindingly obvious you have never read anything any of them wrote, this should be really really fun.

The ignorance. It burns. It burns strong indeed.

[Hekate]

11. Why can't American mothers have meaningful maternity leave like Europeans?

Actually, returning to work very early (and 2 months is very early) can cause huge amounts of anxiety in the mother. Even if she's positively joyous at getting back among grownups, a level of fatigue sets in that is just phenomenal -- getting up a couple of times a night to feed and change the baby, keep the household going, and working all day-- gawd.

Instead of doing more of these stupid studies, why not just push for universal paid maternity leave as an indication that this nation actually cares about the health of mothers and babies?

Naw -- that would be too intelligent.

Hekate