Belief - 'I'm not the kind of mum to stay at home - I need more stimulation and fulfilment'

The narratives that ‘being a stay at home mum is boring’ and ‘I’m not the kind of mum to stay at home’ or ‘I need more fulfillment than being at home would give me,’ are almost universally accepted as indisputable reasons that mothers have to go back to work and infants have to go to day nursery. 

Intelligent women have always existed and the need for purpose and meaningful activity has always been a fundamental human need. I argue two things; first is the idea that working outside the home is somehow ‘better’ than being a stay at home mum increases harm to everyone - the working mums, the non working mums and of course the infants in nursery. The second follows, and constitutes the idea that, far from boring, staying at home for the infant stage of 0-30 months, is the most important, joyful and satisfying job any woman will ever do. Without a doubt, it can be the hardest job, but there is no gain without pain and its importance should override personal desires, career ambition and material gain for what amounts to a very short period out of a whole working life. 

Being a working mum is collectively presented as an indication of a higher need to be fulfilled and presumably higher intelligence. This position only holds water while we treat daycare as a lowly occupation. For mothers to be able to work and have children in daycare, the cost of daycare has to be lower than earnings from other jobs. To keep costs low, the labour of the carers has to be cheap. For labour to be cheap, the carers have to be minimally trained and unlikely to be chasing a more well paid occupation. The hidden message is that anyone can do it. By devaluing the importance of emotional development of infants 0-30 months we are collectively making it difficult for mums who choose to stay at home, to do so without feeling they have to justify themselves against accusations of laziness or lack of ambition. ‘I’m not the kind of mum to stay at home’ is a veiled criticism of those who do and rather an egotistical view of the self. I doubt that many have conscious awareness that that is what it is - people generally aren’t so knowingly rude to their friends, but when we are making judgements on the life choices of others, it is always worth looking inward and asking, ‘how is that judgement serving me?’

Prior to the rampant growth of neo liberalism in the 1980s including deregulation of lending, mums who went back to work while their children were infants, were far in the minority. The population of women who stayed at home for a minimum of 30 months included those with careers from which taking a break meant a considerable loss in family income. They could afford to do that - as could everyone else - and those who did it did not question the necessity of doing it. 

Because almost everyone expected to be a stay at home mum and most were for a minimum of 30 months, there were plenty of women from all walks of social and economic life to befriend through the common interest of parenting. Mother and baby/toddler groups abounded in village or church halls. For a very low cost, they were often self run by mums who were willing to serve a tenure while they were members themselves. Mums could meet for coffee and chat while their little ones played side by side with others on a carpet covered with toys. 

Chatting was valuable emotional support and collaborative learning - mums would compare experiences and share problem solving ideas. They might enjoy some adult conversation but they would also recommend parenting books or share ideas and knowledge they had gleaned - this was an organic way of becoming an ‘educated’ parent. Parents truly developed in their understanding of what the needs of their infants were and how best to satisfy them. This education is a fascinating process. 

Currently, all that is on offer for new parents is a variety of ‘classes’. Music, gym, yoga… all have a place, but they represent a dearth in parenting education and support and they are generally expensive so only really for those who are heading shortly back to more lucrative careers. 

Some people who don’t have or don’t yet have children find the infant and child development process of the youngest humans so fascinating, they make an academic study of it. They go to university and read for a degree. Some continue to become researchers and professors - they hone in on specific aspects like Attachment and share with the rest of us the outcomes of their study. How can this period of life, vital for the development of the ability to get needs met, form relationships, find meaning, purpose and fulfillment ever be described and dismissed as boring? I would rather describe it as a golden opportunity for personal and intellectual growth that sadly, the majority of parents now miss out on. 

This education is not the story of those who are employed to look after infants in day nursery. Such training is expensive and not currently deemed necessary just to ‘look after’ infants while their parents work. If adults do not have the vested interest in ensuring the maximum quality survival of the young because they represent their newer, fitter genes - a guarantee of their own indirect survival, and they are not so fascinated by child development that they see it as a deeply engaging study - then yes, it is pretty boring to look after babies who are then simply little bodies that fill nappies, eat unattractively, cry and make demands. They don’t converse, they enjoy endless repetition in their games and they can do very little for themselves including wiping their noses. Viewed in this way, infants are unarguably boring at best. Parents however, continue to find their infants gorgeous, cute, intelligent and loveable (more so than anyone else’s infants) because they are their parents. Day nursery staff do not have this level of love nor can they be expected to have it - it wouldn’t be natural. The level of care that can reasonably be expected at day nursery is, in the main, limited to physical needs. 

The overriding need of infants is unconditional love - the only people who can give them that is their parents, their grandparents, probably their aunts and uncles and other extended family members. The setting where it is least available is day nursery. Best alternative options will be in a later post.

I cannot close without a reiteration that I am not against women’s right to work. I am against this right working against the rights of children to be cared for by their parents in the first 30 months of their lives. Having children is a choice. In choosing whether or not to do it, again I suggest looking inward and asking, ‘how is this choice serving me?’ I posit that in making a choice to have a child, the parents' needs are relegated to second place for at least the period of infancy (if not forever). Looking after someone else's needs does not mean disregarding one’s own, but it does mean a reordering of priorities while one party is dependent on the other. The ‘kind of mum’ who raises her own infant is the kind who strives to give her child the very best that she is able and who models the importance of love, care and engagement so that when her child becomes a parent herself she has a very clear understanding of what is most important for the sake of humanity.