too long away from their mothers, and therefore whose stress levels will have a lifelong negative impact on them. We campaign for the mothers who are devastated to have to leave their children with others while they work - not to further an exciting career, but to make ends meet. We campaign on behalf of the children who would love to be picked up by their mother after school, rather than by the childminder. We campaign on behalf of the teenagers who are in danger of joining the statistics of pregnancies and drug taking which occurs between 4pm and 6pm, at least in the ‘sleepy village’ where I live, and who need the security of a loving homelife after school. We campaign for mothers who arrive home too tired after a stressful day to give their children the love and time that they need.

Most children, most of the time are fine. But it’s the times they’re not fine, when they need the stabilising influence of a loving and caring mother, which really matter. My children have had me around all of the time, which includes times they would have been equally happy with a childminder, and times when they have needed me to pick them up at the end of a bruising day at school. I have been with them all of the school holidays, including times they would probably have preferred to be at an exciting holiday club activity, and times they have relished being able to veg on the sofa and play games together on a rainy day, of which there have been several this ‘summer’.

There is no one way of living the perfect family life. Many mothers in paid work, most of the time, enjoy their work outside the home and most of the time

Autumn 2015

Claire and her children

they and their children are happy. Similarly, many mothers at home full time, most of the time, wouldn’t change their lives for anything. Most of the time I have had time to be the sort of mother I wanted to be. Most of the time my children have been able to take me for granted, in the best possible way. How tragic for those who, most of the time, are living the opposite life to what they’d hoped for. How sad for the children who, most of the time, struggle with the hours their mothers have to work.

Mothers at Home Matter campaigns for families to be able to live the lives they want most of the time.

I have a confession to make. I sometimes wonder whether

being at home full time has made a significant difference to my children’s lives. My working mother friends’ children seem equally happy and well-adjusted. Does it matter to children if they are cared for by their mothers all the time, or whether some of the time they are in childcare settings?

My inner debate is helped by the Bob Dylan song, ‘Most of the Time’, in which he reflects on a broken relationship and reasons that ‘I don’t even think about her, most of the time’. The implication is that he’s not always ok, and that those times are very painful. I think the same applies in parenting. Most children, most of the time, get on ok at nursery and in childcare, usually if they are only away from their parents for a few hours a week. Most families manage to make the compromises to live the way that suits them the best. But not all.

Some families, most of the time, are struggling. Most babies,

most of the time, would rather

be with their mother than

with a key worker. These are the families Mothers at Home

Matter campaigns

on behalf of. Mothers at Home

Matter campaigns for the babies who spend

Claire Paye, Editor

Most Of The Time...our editor, Claire Paye, on what being a mother at home means to her.

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

2

It’s been an incredible few weeks in politics,

culminating in the election of a new leader for the Labour party. Signs are there will be more opportunity for cross-party debate on the value of care to challenge the poor treatment of caregivers in policy-making.

The document launched at the outset of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaign - ‘Working with Women’ - states that ‘women do the lion’s share of all care work’ and that ‘unpaid care in this country is a major issue – women who are caring for children, older and disabled people with no remuneration whatsoever. This needs to be fully recognised and valued as skilled work’. Further on the document stresses the need to ‘recognise women’s caring roles through tax and pension rights’.

Also prioritised are increased spending on childcare and more mothers in the workforce – and presumably in board rooms. This is a model which attracts cross party consensus. But, in recent years too few policymakers have dared to talk about other equally important narratives for fear of being labelled ‘regressive’ rather than ‘progressive’, even though it would signal a more inclusive approach to offer policies that look at all the different roles we play in life, not only when in paid employment.

Target driven cultureIn the policy arena there’s a great deal of focus on international league tables of female participation in employment and policies are designed to meet global ‘equality’ and ‘growth’ targets. There appears to be little scrutiny of whether the desired outcomes are being achieved (presumably hoping for prosperity and progress for greater numbers of people, even as we seem to be heading in the opposite direction...). And of course there are unintended consequences - for example more women chivvied into low paid work, separated from their babies, no longer able to afford family housing as two incomes become the norm. Hmmmm – did they call it progress?We would argue that truly progressive policies recognise diversity, respect choice, value the equal contribution of care, respect family and childhood and reflect the complexities of the life cycle. Denying the value of caring for others is

short-sighted and discriminatory. In the end we all lose if people can’t afford to provide care and have a decent standard of living.

MAHM in actionOver the next couple of months MAHM will be debating these issues at a number of events. We are hosting a session at the Conservative Party Conference and also attending the Labour party conference session entitled ‘The Politics of Motherhood: How does public policy shape families and can it do it better?’ We will also be hosting a panel at ‘Feminism in London’. Important date for the diary: on October 10th it’s our Open meeting and AGM (see page 12). We hope you can join us.

Family Life CycleWhat is MAHM calling for? We need an urgent inquiry into how our socio-economic systems might properly value care-giving. We need a family life cycle perspective. A narrow snapshot in time can be misleading: for example is a parent without an income ‘a burden on the state’ if he/she is busy providing childcare? 10/15 years may already have been spent in full time work, contributing to tax revenue and, given the opportunity, he/she will return to work in the next phase of the life cycle. Meanwhile the other parent is also paying tax and contributing to the child’s upbringing (or should be) even when they live apart. No-one should be at risk of poverty or labelled as somehow unequal because they are doing the bulk of care-giving work. Denying the economic contribution of care and

community work is not ‘progress’ and neither is uninterrupted paid work the only ‘modern’ solution.

We also need robust age discrimination laws and insightful employers who don’t fixate on ‘gaps’ in the CV. Women aged over 40/50 years old also have a lot to offer for a further 15/20 years of working life.

Equality for AllThe new Women’s Equality Party wants ‘equal parenting and caregiving’. However, we believe that in work and care there is more than one way, and families are all different. It is more complex than the number of nappies changed or the size of the pay cheque. Number of hours dedicated to paid work is not necessarily reflected in weekly earnings. Neither can we claim to have equality when what happens behind closed doors may appear fair (for example a two and a half day week for both parents) to a casual observer, but can mask inequalities, or disrespectful relationships.

We are hopeful that a younger generation of voters agree that invisible work matters equally and that penalties against family responsibilities or discriminatory attitudes towards caregivers and dependents (eg punitive family tax systems, loss of status, denial of a voice in policy, loss of welfare and income support) are no longer acceptable in a civilised, modern society. We need far more than a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach. We need to elevate the status of care.

The Economics of CareThe economics of care is complex but some things are clear: changing demographics inevitably means a rise in costs in health, social care and in pensions. And in this climate it’s a puzzle that the government claims to afford to further expand childcare provision to 30 ‘free’ hours per week, without a corresponding hike in taxation to help pay for it all.

The Early Years sector has vociferously rejected the term ‘free’ when there’s a shortfall in government funding per child - and it’s even likely that rates charged will have to go up to meet the additional costs involved. Research indicates that there are no additional

From the Chair - Who Cares and Who Minds?

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

3

Imogen Thompson, Media &

Communications

Since the election of the Conservative Party in May,

the Government has started the process of implementing the policies listed in its manifesto. This includes the Childcare Bill focusing on the doubling of the hours of ‘free’ childcare (note this was previously known as ‘early education’ for 3 and 4 year olds). This will amount to a total of 30 hours free provision per week for households that have all adults in paid employment.

Most of the details make for a disappointing read due to the absence of any parallel or transferable support recognising the financial burden facing families with a parent deployed ‘at home’. However, many of us listening to the second reading of the Childcare Bill in the House of Lords were very glad to hear MAHM’s name mentioned and words from our economics discussion paper ‘Who CARES about the family?’ quoted.

There were many matters of concern raised by different Lords regarding the Bill but strikingly, several members took the opportunity to highlight its intrinsic unfairness in supporting only paid-for care while ignoring the importance of the parent, usually the mother, which is providing care for their children and the associated financial penalties that come with that.

Here are some quotes from the debate that took place in the House of Lords, 16 June 2015: “…the provision of yet another innovation that will further assist two-earner families, and by definition thereby leave one-earner families in a poorer position, is seen by many as compounding an existing injustice.” Lord Browne of Belmont

The Lord Bishop of Durham spoke of his concerns regarding “the impression increasingly...created that a parent choosing not to work but to raise their child themselves is somehow not doing the best for the nation or the child”.

“…there is always a risk of institutional bias in policy-making when those

involved in making or commenting on policy are by definition working people. But there is a danger of forgetting the enormous contribution made by many remarkable mothers who are now classed, rather slightingly, as people who do not work. Has the state really resolved to discriminate against families where one partner does not work but instead devotes their time to childcare?” Lord TrueThe Childcare Bill and the remarks made by the Lords above caught the attention of the media and led to further requests for comment and discussion in the national press and on local radio from Mothers at Home Matter.

Further activity followed over the summer months, including several

members of Mothers at Home Matter being published in the

letters’ pages of both the Telegraph and the Guardian newspapers (see p10 of this newsletter and the ‘latest news’ page on our website to see these and other articles

of interest.)Also on the website in the

‘What Parents Say’ section are experiences and views written by

mothers, fathers and grandparents. We are very grateful for those who have contributed to this page. Many members feel that they are swimming against the tide and are in need of affirmation that even though their parental choices may not be publicly acknowledged they are equally valid. Reading about other members’ experiences can give clarity, purpose and a sense of community to many other parents.

If you would like to contribute your experiences to this page, please email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk Members of the Committee are looking forward to representing MAHM during the political party conference season and beyond - either attending events or

hosting our own. See p4 of this

newsletter. More updates soon!

News and Media Update - Beyond the General Election

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

benefits to 3 and 4 year olds of full days of registered care, so the rationale behind it (and offering tax relief to families on joint incomes of up to £299,000) is still unclear.

Safeguarding quality provision in care will always be costly and it’s not an option to cut corners or compromise on adult:client ratios. Babies in particular require a great deal of dedicated care, as is often debated at forums like 1001 Critical Days, but running a top-quality setting is expensive (training, expansion of premises, qualifications, decent ratios, equipment, resources, monitoring and evaluation, inspections etc) and is highly regulated. At the same time staff costs of the care sector are set to rise as a result in long-overdue improvements in hourly rates. The government is cutting tax credits - and care settings will be expected to offer more realistic rates of pay (long over-due in the sector) as income support is phased out. Many employers have warned they may have to close due to a combination of increased demand and rising staff costs.

Safeguarding the Family and Savings to Taxpayers It’s doubtful that replacing the family and outsourcing more care is sustainable. Neither is it an affordable solution when the extra cost (to taxpayers) likely outweighs any additional tax receipts. Invaluable family care and community work saves taxpayers a fortune but as a number of politicians have told me, we need more evidence to prove our case. We need to somehow ‘prove’ that the State will save when people can take good care of one another, can afford housing with adequate living space to share (housing benefit savings), can offer emotional and practical support (e.g. savings in mental health services), focus on family care (savings in subsidised childcare provision), companionship and so on. We know the economy relies on GDP to measure success, but it’s surely common sense that the economy also depends on non-GDP activity and on people leading healthier, happier, more balanced lives.

Marie Peacock, Chair

4

easier to make good relationships at school, to have self-confidence and be able to empathise with others because of the way their brains have developed in response to love. Babies are hard-wired to develop best when they are cared for consistently, regularly and reliably by someone who loves them indiscriminately and totally, be that a parent or grandparent. Mothers and fathers know what their children need and long to be able to provide it.

ConclusionIt makes economic sense to offer a level playing field which doesn’t, by discrimination in the tax regime, confine the loving, consistent care of a mother to the status of an unattainable luxury. It makes emotional sense, because families want to have a genuine choice. And it makes developmental sense because babies and children thrive on the loving, consistent, attentive care of their mother.

Supporting Working Parents – but who CARES?

Mothers at Home Matter is holding an event at the Conservative Party

Conference on Sunday 4th October, 1745-1900 to continue our ongoing fight for families to be able to choose to care for their children themselves. If you can’t attend, please encourage your MP to do so. This article summarises the arguments we’ll be making.

Childcare fundingThe Government’s priority is to fund the increased outsourcing of childcare. Their rationale is that working mothers are good for family life because they increase family income and good for the State as they offer increased tax revenues. Their argument is therefore, in all except the most serious cases of neglect, an economic one. They do not dare suggest that anyone can look after a child better than their own mother or father. Or that any children would rather be in daycare than at home. The sole argument that matters is the economic one.

Genuine choice makes economic senseWe will therefore start our talk with the economic argument. The Government spends a fortune on outsourced childcare (at least £7.5bn). It therefore makes economic sense for the Government to encourage parents to care for their children themselves rather than discriminate against them for doing so. Transferable tax allowances (and a single person’s allowance for single parents) are one way of reducing the penalty on families who sacrifice one income to stay at home with their children. A family who uses the transferable tax allowance

would save (on £40,000) £3,200 a year in

tax and NI. The Treasury would lose that £3,200 but would save the £3,136

of childcare subsidy that

that family might

otherwise receive. It is effectively a cost-neutral decision, and would mean that families have a real choice.

Genuine choice makes emotional senseSo, it makes economic sense for the Government to give families a real choice. It also makes emotional sense.

Some mothers are very happy with their working life. Other

mothers are equally happy to dedicate themselves to

family life. Why should one model of family life be supported over another? The exclusive focus on supporting

working mothers is particularly concerning

where mothers are not able to live the life they want

to because they have to work and can’t spend the time they want to with their children. No one looks back at photos of their children and wishes they had spent less time with them.

Love as a luxuryThere are families who would love to spend more time caring for their children themselves but the only option they are offered is to work longer hours. Many families can’t afford to have a parent at home at all. It is now considered a ‘luxury’ for a child to be cared for exclusively by their mother and not in State-subsidised childcare. These families are also voters whose opinions matter and would love to be able to choose to care for their children as much as they want to. They don’t feel caring for their children is a luxury, but a necessity.

Genuine choice makes developmental senseIt is certainly a necessity where the optimal development of babies is concerned. Babies need to form a solid attachment to their mother or, in some cases, father in order to make the most of their lives. It therefore makes developmental sense for babies and children to be cared for as much as necessary by their parents. Babies with a strong attachment to a loving, attuned, responsive parent are likely to find it

MAHM at the Conservative Party Conference

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Claire Paye

5

The newspapers publish a range of articles on

mothering. One news item referred to in these letters reported ‘research’ revealing that the daughters of working mothers will earn 4% more than the daughters of non-working mothers. This research didn’t necessarily distinguish between mothers who had never worked and were never likely to work and mothers who were taking a few years away from the workplace to raise their children. On the other hand, there are an increasing number of articles written by mothers who have given up work because they felt they were missing out on raising their children.

These letters have been written in response to these articles. Dr Karem Roitman and Melanie Tibbs are both Mothers at Home Matter committee members.

“As a “stay-at-home mum”, I can safely say I feel no guilt about choosing to abandon my professional career in order to look after my three children (Working mothers don’t need to feel guilt, 26 June). Any guilt that working or stay-at-home mothers have is a result of a society that constantly peddles the belief that us mums can have it all. We can’t, and we have to make difficult choices that usually result in us feeling that we have sacrificed either spending time with our children by working or our own education and career by not working. And these are the women that actually have a choice; many do not and end up working hours that aren’t child-friendly while plugging the gaps in childcare with partners, grandparents and friends.

What women would really like is to have a genuine choice whether to work or stay at home with no stigma attached to either. This means an economy that pays a wage enough to live on without both parents needing to work and consistently sympathetic employers that can offer flexible working hours. Our society needs to start respecting women who stay at home

Letters to the Papers

with their children and appreciate that a woman’s contribution to society is not necessarily immediately financially assessable.”

Dr Karem RoitmanOxford

“My life, since leaving the world of work three years ago, is one of sorting the children out, looking after the house, being a school governor, helping the PTA, going on school trips, attending school information sessions and events, socialising and even reading the Guardian now and again. It is as fulfilling as any job could be and none of

it is paid. I consider myself extremely lucky and guilt-free.”

Dr Julia WilliamsShrewsbury, Shropshire

“When I was a young girl, my mother, a stay-at-home mum,

would tell me over and over that if I wanted to follow my dreams and have choices, I needed to get a college degree and learn how to drive. She wanted me to be safe, happy, successful. That is what we all want for our children.

We are, however, losing sight of what success is. Humanity is working hard to allow individuals to live creatively and joyfully, rather than simply working to survive. A full life includes laughter, play, love. If my children make 4% less money than their peers, but are not plagued by depression and stress; if they go to sleep

giggling, and know the incomparable warmth of a little body melting

into theirs in complete trust and dependency, I will be deliriously happy. They will have succeeded. It is not that career success is unimportant or

unnecessary, far from it, it is simply that it is not the whole

picture. To have only a career and barely enough energy to see your

child is not a true choice.So, to Dr Allen (Daughters of working

mothers do better in life – and sons may be more caring too, 25 June), and her concern that “women who don’t [work] … have to think hard about how the role they have within the household is going

to impact their children’s perceptions of what it means to be a woman and to be a mother”, I’d like to answer: I hope my being at home will signal to my children that loving them, enjoying them, and enjoying myself is more important than an extra 4%. I hope it tells them that women, and all people, are more than workers. We work to live, we don’t live to work. I hope it tells them that we must fight for real choice: for a society that values caring, and structures paid work so that both women and men can participate in caring and thus be truly fulfilled, successful humans. (And, by the way, I followed my mother’s advice.)

Dr Karem RoitmanOxford

“I was delighted to see Alice O’Keeffe write that the left should stand up for “stay-at-home” parents (theguardian.com, 26 June). The right has certainly cast adrift parents who wish not to use third-party care for their children, and it is becoming a revolutionary (and firmly

feminist) concept to imagine that equality is not only achieved via

full participation in the paid workplace.Parents in general need much greater valuing and support than is currently available to them.”

Janet Mansfield

“In the UK, the work of caring for children goes completely unrecognised

in the tax system (unlike the vast majority of OECD countries) and unpaid care is valued at £343bn per year by the ONS. Someone needs to stand up for these people who contribute billions to the economy every year but nothing to GDP and therefore have no “value”.

When one parent opts to leave paid work in order to care for and support a growing family, it costs a whole salary. Meanwhile families on two substantial incomes can continue to claim child benefit (long after the single-income family has lost theirs) and they pay far less tax. This is not about somehow indulging cupcake-baking mummies, this is about levelling the playing field so that individual families can make sensible choices about what is good for them over the entire period of having dependent children at home.”

“Humanity is working hard

to allow individuals to live creatively and joyfully, rather than simply working to

survive.”

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Melanie Tibbs

6

Attachment and Resilience

These comments are based on a discussion with

Mark*, a psychologist who works part time in a school with parents, children and teachers and who shares care of his three children (all under 8) with his wife, with each working 2 ½ days. Shared careMark and his wife decided to share care as they felt it would lead to a more positive family life if one of them was always at home with their children. Both were keen to be able to spend time with their children and they were just about able to afford it. They decided that they would sacrifice being able to save and that they would both stall their careers, but they feel it has definitely been worth it. Mark feels that being able to be at home as a dad is a great privilege and there are many advantages to having the dad around to raise the children in such an involved way. The children can draw on two different ways of relating and behaving, and are able to adjust to the different approaches their parents bring. They see how their parents respond to similar circumstances and the differing ways in which their parents deal with frustration and conflict in daily life. It has helped their children to develop empathy as there are double the number of perspectives to take into account.

It is difficult to say what exactly fathers bring to raising children as no two fathers are alike. There are probably more differences within the sexes than between the sexes. It is particularly important for boys to have a good male role model. Being at home regularly means that there is no father coming home as a celebrity on a Friday night. As they share care, Mark and his wife make sure they agree on behaviour management. What children needAs a psychologist, Mark is clear that attachment is unquestionably fundamental to a child’s positive development. It offers the clearest explanation for why children develop as they do. No one disputes the core value of a strong attachment. Psychotherapy takes as a starting point the value of attachment – how strong relationships build brains and form characters.

EmpathyThe wartime need for extreme resilience meant that previous generations – the war generations and their children/our parents – tended to keep their feelings to themselves and not show emotion. Many parents today are more emotionally attuned to their children and are more responsive to their needs than their parents were. The flip side to this is that many of us have gone too far in terms of pandering to our children’s wants too much and even defining ourselves by them, living our lives through them.

That said, our generation tends to understand our own emotions much better and therefore can empathise with others. Many parents today are aware of the need to validate their children’s emotions, ‘allowing’ their children to feel angry, sad or confused, and to express this. They are also more skilled in pointing out the effect that their children’s behaviour is having on themselves or on others. In his psychology work, Mark found that children who didn’t have the effects of their behaviour explained to them clearly lacked the empathetic skills to negotiate the world. This is more obvious at the extreme of criminal behaviour, but is also evident along the scale. ResearchIn assessing which parenting and childcare options offer positive outcomes for children, what is needed is a large, comprehensive, independent and well-funded study. We are just at the beginning of recognising the impact on children of issues such as attachment, and we don’t yet know the full impact of a generation of outsourced childcare. ResilienceOne important focus of research at the moment centres on the question of resilience. This is defined as how children cope with setbacks and what strategies they use to overcome disappointment. It does not mean that children never suffer from experiences such as broken homes or early separation from their parents, but rather refers to how they learn to overcome difficulties in life.

Resilience starts with a strong attachment and is linked to how much children believe in themselves. It is difficult to have true confidence in yourself, to believe in your ability

to overcome problems, if you didn’t have a secure attachment at the beginning, as attachment builds the brain. At the extreme, trauma will force a child to build a shell around themselves to prevent this event ever happening again. This limits their ability to attach, which then affects their own relationships and parenting style. Overcoming adversityOne example of building resilience is the two year old who falls off his bike and looks to his parent to see how he should respond. He makes eye to eye contact and mirrors his parent’s response. He works out whether he can cope with the situation by what he sees in his parent’s eyes. If his parent overreacts, looking terrified and shocked, cortisol (the stress hormone) will be overproduced. If he finds reassurance in his parent’s eyes and knows that although his parent acknowledges he is distressed because he is in pain, this is a situation which can be handled by both parent and child, his stress hormones will reduce and he will cope much better. The child’s experience of falling and coping with the situation builds resilience.

Professor Sir Michael Rutter, who is described as the ‘father of child psychology’, has conducted extensive research into resilience, and the importance of learning from difficulties as a route to resilience and success. He has found that what children most need are to learn to fail well and to have parents who are prepared to say no to them. Failing wellAt the school where Mark works there are a number of children who have been taught that it is unacceptable to fail. This causes them a great deal of anxiety. Many are high achievers but are at the risk of anxiety and depression because they aren’t allowed to fail. Alternatively, they are told that they are brilliant even if they are not performing particularly well. This results in children not trying as hard.Growth mindsetCarol Dweck is a psychologist who has identified what she calls a ‘growth mindset’ which explains why some children develop better educationally

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

7

than others. Children who are praised for being ‘clever’ on completing a task, when given a choice, will select an easier subsequent task in order to preserve their ‘clever’ status and to avoid failing. Children who are praised for their effort and strategies will tend to select a harder subsequent task as they aren’t afraid of failure. You should praise children, using specific examples, such as for effort. Children can sense if they are being praised for something they haven’t done. Some schools have introduced an award for ‘mistake of the week’, recognising that children have stretched themselves and taken risks, irrespective of the outcome. Childcare optionsWhen deciding on childcare options, it is important to recognise that all children have different personalities. Some will be extrovert, some introvert. If they are naturally shy and introverted it may well damage them if they are put into nursery too soon. If they derive their energy from being with other children, they may be fine. It is difficult to come to absolute conclusions as to the best form of childcare in every case. Some cases are clearer than others. Children may benefit more from some time spent in a good nursery rather than all their time with an insecure and pushy parent who doesn’t set boundaries. On the other hand, a bad nursery with high staff turnover will clearly not help the child develop the way that time spent with a loving parent who is attuned and attentive to his or her child would. Nannies can be brilliant as they may be around for many years and provide continuity of care and a mix of fun and solid boundaries or they may leave, shattering what was a primary (important) attachment for the child. Grandparents can also play a valuable role in offering a variety of parenting styles.

The difficulty for working parents comes in terms of finding downtime with their children. There is a tendency to try to make the weekends count by doing something bonding or exciting. There is little bumping along together time. Working parents and their children are often tired and stressed and so their time together is compromised. ConclusionsAll children differ and therefore will thrive in different settings. Attachment

is key and having a parent at home full time will offer more time in which to develop a strong, secure attachment. The best parents are those who can set consistent boundaries, teach resilience from a base of unconditional love, empathise with their children whilst explaining the effects of their child’s behaviour on others in a loving way, and encourage a growth mindset through praising effort rather than achievement.

*Not his real name

Book ReviewsThese books have been fundamental in shaping psychologist Mark’s practical work with parents and children.

Why love matters (how affection shapes a baby’s brain), by Sue GerhardtThis book celebrates the absolutely fundamental role that a mother or father (or an exceptionally well-attuned, consistent and caring care-giver) has in shaping a baby’s entire emotional and social armoury. This is because ‘during pregnancy and in the first two years of life….the “social brain” is shaped and …an individual’s emotional style and emotional resources are established.’ This is because babies are not born fully formed emotionally, they develop in response to how they are loved and they learn everything they know about the world from the way their mother or father behaves with them. ‘Babies need a caregiver who identifies with them so strongly that the baby’s needs feel like hers; [because] he is still physiologically and psychologically an extension of her.’ The book identifies how babies learn to feel secure and identify with the feelings of others and examines the lifelong problems which can arise when babies don’t receive loving, consistent and dependable care in their first few years.

The Neuroscience of Human Relationships (Attachment and the developing social brain), by Louis CozolinoThis is a more clinical book than Sue Gerhardt’s, although it covers similar ground. Cozolino describes the brain in some detail. However, it is full of

interesting, and often heart-breaking case studies, of where things have gone wrong in a child’s life, leading to behavioural and emotional problems. There is a great amount of detail relating to how vital a mother’s touch, smell, sound and appearance are for a newborn. ‘Early bonding and attachment experiences result in a cascade of biochemical processes that stimulate and enhance the growth and connectivity of neural networks throughout the brain’ (Schore, 1994). On the other hand, withdrawal from those on whom the baby depends for biological stimulation and growth causes distress, pain and anxiety (Hofer, 1984, 1987). In a chapter on Early Stress, Cozolino highlights and explains the link between ‘positive attentive parenting and subsequent physical and mental health’. There is also a fascinating description of one of Cozolino’s patients who, in spite of living in safety and success in the USA had picked up his immigrant parents’ traumas and exhibited similar traits, such as always being on guard when walking in public streets, despite never having been told of his parents’ distressing backgrounds.

Beyond Deserving, by Dorothy MartynDorothy, also a therapist, takes an imaginative approach to dealing with issues children face as a result of poor parenting. Her central thesis is the importance of non-manipulative love. Out go all my bribes and threats, in come the qualities of ‘givenness’ – the fact that love is not earned, it is given instinctively, ‘participation’ (or ‘mercy’) – being able to enter into someone’s distress and understand it, not stand over it in judgement; and ‘patience’ – allowing space and time for a child’s being to emerge without coercion, taking time to understand why a child is reacting as they are and communicating that they are understood, then helping the child move forwards. There are a myriad of case studies throughout the book which help us understand why the children involved behaved as they did and also how they were helped to cope with their distress. The key point is that responsibility for their behaviour didn’t lie with the children alone.

by Claire Paye

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Mark’s Book Reviews

8

One mother’s personal experience of trying to mother, not smother, her ‘tweenagers’.

I have a secret: I don’t want my children to grow up. At the same time I want to

bring up two well-adjusted, independent, resilient adults, who don’t end up living at home forever. It’s a paradox that many mothers I know struggle with.

I imagine that most of you took your kids to see Inside Out on one of the soggier days of summer. This great Disney Pixar film is about the inner mental and psychological workings of an eleven year old girl called Riley. The part that really got me was when Joy was hugging the redundant, fading memories of Riley’s toddler days. As she sobbed I felt the tears slide down my face; I knew exactly how she felt.

The early years of my children have been and gone, I’ve got the t-shirt and nigh on thirty thousand photos to prove it. But I can never get those squishy babies back. And now my son’s in Year 6 and my daughter’s in Year 4, things are set to change even more.

A case in point is when the other day my children, after much pleading, walked a little bit of the way to school on their own - they were going to meet a Mum friend and her two children, who we always meet on the school run. I peered round the corner, watching them till they were out of sight, as they confidently chatted on their way. I rushed around feeling an odd mix of calm and anxiety, but the phrase that was repeating in my head was, “My babies!”.

The society we live in doesn’t help our protective mother instincts either. The news bombards us with a long list of terrible things that can go wrong if our children leave our sight for more than a millisecond. The list of health and safety equipment that’s now available for our babies is virtually endless - heartbeat sensors, baby monitors, socket covers, cupboard catches, stair gates and so on. Up until the age of about 10, we are made to feel that we are being criminally

negligent if we even leave them for 5 minutes in the car while we nip into Tesco. Then they get to the end of Year 5 and literally over that single summer holiday it seems to be expected that our children go from holding our hands to cross the road, to being allowed to walk to and from school on their own. It’s a huge leap! Why being a MAH makes it harderThe truth is that although I am passionate about being a mother at home it does mean that I have to tackle the independence of my children in an active way.

My working mother friends have HAD to adjust slowly to the increasing independence of their offspring. Once their children get to Year 6 it’s a relief that they no longer have to employ childminders to babysit their children for a couple of hours after school; they let their children walk to school so that they get into work on an earlier train.

However, as a mother at home, the walk to school with my children is an

important part of our day. There is time to talk, time to

observe what’s going on in nature, the seasons,

in our community. In short, being a mother at home means that being protective can often come naturally, just because we’re

there more. The other thing is

that my children have finally, finally got to an age

when most of the time they are a total joy to be around. They’re helpful, good company, funny, can play games and so on. And now you’re telling me that I have to let these blighters go!

At the same time I’m aware that I’m standing on the threshold of a new phase of parenthood, and spending this Autumn going round all the secondary schools is definitely ramming it home. If I don’t prepare my son for the change that’s coming next year, he’ll find the transition overwhelming.

Putting the decision in his hands The other question I find myself asking is that it’s all very well for me to psych myself up enough to send him up the road to post a letter, but is he actually ready for more?

I’m happy to leave him in the park when he’s with other friends, but if he was somewhere on his own and something went wrong, I’m really not sure he’d be able to cope.

However, I have to question that point of view, and ask myself if actually, it’s me that wouldn’t cope. I have to admit that since he’s turned 10 I’ve noticed a real change in him. His attitude has become more mature. He’s playing less with his massive lego collection or with his younger sister, who tends to play by herself more these days. He’s also noticing more and taking in more of our adult conversations.

I guess the answer is to involve him in the decisions and to start getting him used to the idea of doing things independently.

I have begun to give him more responsibility, although a fair amount of this seems to be me saying despairingly to him, ‘You’re not a baby any more, you’re ten years old!’ when he hasn’t: put his pants in the dirty washing/hung his coat up/brushed his teeth etc. However, I’ve started to get them to make their own packed lunches in the morning, he’s learnt how to turn the oven on, and he’s recently found out which is the washing machine and which is the tumble dryer. Sigh.

I’m also ‘in discussion’ with a mum friend about my son and her daughter, also in Year 6, walking to school together once a week. It’s not much, but it’s a start. They DO need us

There is another side to this story, which is that it is assumed that when our children get to Year 6/7, they don’t really need us any more.

Having spoken to other mothers who’ve been through this stage,

it’s at this stage that our children go from needing us for their physical

wellbeing, to needing us for their emotional wellbeing.

There was actually a feature on Radio 4 today about how children aren’t being

Mothering Transition-Age Children

9

Infants and children: an introduction to emotional development, by Mirabelle Maslin

This book covers a huge range of parenting dilemmas with a very light, gracious touch. Mirabelle has huge sympathy for children going through the difficult process of making sense of the world, and their parents who respond instinctively according to their own experience of being children. The book is very easy to read due to the many ‘cameos’ or case studies which Mirabelle cites. Although a relatively short book, she covers a wide range of topics, from ‘temper tantrums’ – a misleading and unhelpful term according the author – to emerging sexuality to a reinterpretation of the negative phrase, ‘separation anxiety’.

The book is suffused with a sense of grace, understanding and validation as the author repeatedly challenges common parenting practices, such as our tendency to encourage toddlers to jump up again when they’ve hurt themselves, pretending to them that they aren’t really hurt, or avoiding ‘giving in’ to attention seeking behaviour, when attention is really what is required.

One gem that I have taken from the book is the importance of helping a child to identify what they are feeling and validating it. So, rather than telling a child off for responding angrily to a situation, it is better to explain to the child why he might be

feeling cross and thereby validate his feelings, before justifying our own behaviour. Interpreting a child’s, or, just as importantly, a teenager’s, feelings to them helps them to understand that it is ok to respond emotionally to a situation before suggesting ways of dealing with their feelings.

If you read just one book about parenting, read this one. It turns much received parenting wisdom on its head.

Book Review

Claire Paye

Here are some great practical tips on how to look after your Pre-Teens:• Don’t worry if their appetites go

through the roof - it’s the first surges of adolescent growth spurts.

• 40 - 45% of their adult skeleton is being built during the pre-teen and teen years. Your child should be getting 4 glasses of milk’s worth of calcium EVERY DAY. You can supplement with yoghurt, cheese or calcium fortified cereals or juice.

• It’s important your children eat iron due to their expanding blood volume as they grow - try leafy greens, dried fruit and lean meats.

• They still need 9 - 10 hours of sleep per night.

• Computers, games consoles and TVs should be switched off at least an hour before bedtime.

• Encourage them to tidy their bedroom at the end of every day!

• Ideally children should have an hour of exercise a day. This means they should walk to AND from school.

• Involve him/her in after school activities or summer clubs where they will meet and socialise with children from other schools.

Tips taken from Your Child, Year by Year - Everything you need to know to raise happy, healthy kids by Carol Cooper, Claire Halsey, Su Laurent and Karen Sullivan, published by Dorling Kindersley Ltd.

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Poppy Pickles

properly prepared for the huge changes that they have to deal with on moving from primary to secondary school.

So that’s the reason why, whereas most of my other friends went back to work a long time ago, I will still be here, when they get in from school, during the summer holidays and at all those other times.

I know that there will come a time, all too soon, when he will be walking off out the door with no need of my physical presence, but what I want him to know, is that I will always be there for him - in the words of the famous song - ‘whenever he needs me.’

How to relate to your teenagersWe hope to write more about teenagers in the next newsletter. In the meantime, here are some tips for affirming and building up teenagers:

• Recognise the social baseline theory – that we’re made for social relationships and our brains work better when we’re in relationships.

• Teenagers will tell themselves that they are not ….enough, eg ‘I’m not pretty enough’, ‘I’m not clever enough’. The role of their parents is to tell them that they are …enough.

• Exercise your empathy: try to identify with their perspective; stay away from judgement; recognise the strength of their emotions.

Anti-shame strategies:

• Don’t use shame to discipline• Accept and affirm who they

are• Prioritise your relationship

above all else – pick your battles wisely

• Try to let go of your own agenda

Be a container for their feelings – be bigger, stronger, wiser and kind.These ideas come from a talk by Dr Clare Gates MRCPsych on Image, Shame and the Teenage Brain

10

I am a founding member of the Women’s Equality

Party UK, and have been working with them on policy development. As a mother of two at home, I have started to speak out – through the Politics of Mothering blog and political pamphlet, as well as the Huffington Post.

Given my areas of interest: women, mothers and children, I could not sit back and let a party steam ahead without knocking on the door and demanding to speak. As women, we are socialised not to speak up for our rights or to make a fuss. Well, this is politics. And I’m not one to keep quiet. If a party seeking to represent women cannot tolerate a woman demanding that women who are mothers at home – not just mothers who are also employees – should be listened to, respected and properly addressed in policy, if they (it’s a women’s party) cannot value mothers, what hope do we have? I insisted that Mothers at Home Matter and Global Women’s Strike be heard in this process – given the huge number of families who wish for greater support for families to provide family-based care. In the end, they agreed for me to head a sub-group and I have spent some months engaging with this new party.

I still feel that this is a wonderful opportunity for a political entity finally to do something for women which no other mainstream political party has been doing: value care, do more to support mothers or fathers at home with their families and to press for the restructuring of tax and allowances to ensure that no family is penalised for wishing to provide care of their children themselves. I was hopeful that WEP could really present policies which finally reflected the diverse needs, circumstances and wants of families up and down the country. Radical, right?

Well, the WEP party has, at the time of writing, not been formally launched nor policy firmly decided. When it announced its inception I wrote the following phrase on my blog: : ‘let’s hope that the Women’s Equality Party does not decide that some women are more equal than mothers’ and that it must not

allow itself to become the simply Women Employees’ Equality Party (or WEEP). Despite my involvement in WEP, I still fear that this new Party will do exactly those things, inadvertently or by design.

I am keeping my fingers crossed; however the past four months have not

been without frustration, incredulity and emphatic argument.

Indeed one of the most interesting features of equality and mothering is that it is one of those areas where, actually, we know that a woman can

do anything a man can do – but there are three big things a

woman can do that a man cannot: create life; give birth; and breastfeed.

Equality without recognition of the status and importance of these things, and of the fact that many women wish to deprioritise work for a time that suits them in their family life cycle, is not equality. That is why, at the outset, I expressed disappointment with the suggestion that ‘Equality in Parenting’ could somehow be measured by the use of bingo chips:, totting up the hours and number of nappies changed, calculating the number of hours in the office vs the number of hours doing the ‘burden of home’.

There are many ways to achieve the aims of choice and flexibility, when not constrained by a superficial approach of ‘equality as sameness ’. For example, it could:

Value care by exploring state funded stipends for carers of preschool children. WHY should all the money go to commercial providers instead of following the child for parents to choose to do with as they wish? The current system demonstrates that the mother/father at home is not valued or deemed worthy of support or recognition. I am fearful of WEP feeding into this. WEP could be leading the way to a fairer society through policies such as greater support for parents through the tax and allowances system. Yet I am not confident that WEP is taking on board the need to go beyond the dominant political consensus of employment/childcare as liberation for women.

Recognise that all women’s rights matter, including that most unfashionable of beings: a mother who wishes to care for her children at home. I am concerned that the policy working group is being dominated by fathers’ interests, and that WEP may subconsciously be using the Parenting policy as a sacrificial lamb to apologise for the Party’s actual existence. Whilst I agree that fathers are important, as a feminist I would be extremely disappointed to see primary focus in this area placed on getting fathers to take on a fair share whilst ignoring other ways to help mothers. It is necessary to address both, surely – after all, isn’t

this the Equality party? As I have said, women

are silenced. We have little voice

in society. If WEP continue to enforce that system – whereby the

privileged men/women, male

and employment interests dominate,

then what are WEP about?

Explore policies which would lessen the detrimental effects on women of time out of the workforce: pension rules not penalising parents for time out for dependents; funding for retraining after time out; a stipend for carers of preschool children, at the very least, or a citizen’s income, if feeling brave.

Demand the reinstatement of Child Benefit for all parents of young children. It was won by women for women. It was recognised that a mother at home (nowadays equally applicable to a father) is rendered dependent on the whims and generosity of an earning partner, and that that is unacceptable. To fail to demand its reinstatement would fail women. It would perpetuate the view that the parent at home – predominantly women – do not matter.

I am concerned that systemic and entrenched issues of discrimination against women, including the devaluing and caging of the private sphere of family care - are being left out of genuine consideration by WEP and risk being perpetuated. I am concerned that the

The Women’s Equality Party

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

11

voices of many parents up and down the country are being neglected – by WEP as much as by the mainstream parties.

As a feminist, I wish to see a just society for women and men. I want to see the end to violence against women. I want to see the end of discrimination against women by reason of their biology. I want to see fathers being free to care for their children, and for employers to be obligated to make allowances for parents of whichever gender. I am on board with that.

What is frustrating is that the premise of dual income (whether shared, flexible working, and so on) is not what is desired by many families with young children, yet we may be faced with a new party which continues to reinforce that political consensus. It is not something which necessarily fits every family, either, in terms of the occupations or income levels or children’s needs. Many families do not want their children to be in childcare before the age of three. That is a fact that needs to be recognised. It is no judgement. I, for one, support parents’ choices to fit their work/family lives as they see fit. WEP must do the same for all parents, including those who would like one parent to stay at home.

My key message to WEP, and to political parties generally, is: A woman’s place is where she wants to be. Not where WEP wants her to be (in work AND at home); Not where other parties want her to be (working to the bone as though she were a non-person unless she had a PAYE Code). A mother’s place is where she wants to be. She deserves support and the freedom from penalty in her choice. I have invited WEP to give the mother at home that respect. It’s the least she deserves. Yet, I anticipate the launch with extreme trepidation.

If you would like your voice to be heard in this debate, I urge you to contact WEP – on info@womensequality.org.uk, @WEP_UK, or on Facebook (Women’s Equality Party UK) and the main political parties directly with your story, your views and your ideas about what would help families set up the care as they see fit, including where a parent wishes to be at home. We are entitled to speak. Your voice matters .

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Vanessa Olorenshaw

A friend recently told me how upset she’d felt when

a woman at her child-care group said she didn’t deserve free child care, because she didn’t work. Her husband works, they pay taxes, but that didn’t count with this thoughtless woman.

The attitude, that mothers at home are non-contributors and children are a drain on society until they are able to work, is nonsensical. From the moment they’re born, children are consumers, contributing to the economy, via their parents. Even the poorest unemployed or disabled are not expected to live without consumer products. Benefits are available to provide them with these necessities. And indeed they are necessities, not only for consumers but also for the producers, the manufacturers, the workers, the retailers, the shareholders; for all of us: the Consumer Society.

This year, 2015, it has been estimated that the average cost of raising just one child to the age of 21 in the UK, is £230,000, but all that money goes back into the economy. And yet, it seems that institutions, authorities, even the people who make money from the products that children consume continue to view children as non-contributors.

After she returned from maternity leave, my daughter had to give up work because child-care was cripplingly expensive. She worked for a major toy company who didn’t provide a crèche for the children of their workers, and yet children were the very customers who kept them in business! You’d have thought they’d be clever enough to provide incentives for their workers to have more children? Instead, they penalised them.

Despite more women choosing not to have children, their simmering resentment for women who do is a puzzle. I hear it frequently: “Having children is a lifestyle choice — why should I pay for them in my taxes?” as if children are a drain on society, instead of the basis of our wealth.

If you think this is rubbish, consider the alternative: if every woman in the world decided not to, or was unable from tomorrow to have a baby — within about eighty years our species would very nearly be extinct and our world, as we

know it, would be over. The first to notice would be those who

make their living from children; the midwives, the manufacturers and sellers of prams and pushchairs, baby foods, toys, baby clothes, disposable nappies. Their names are Mothercare, British Home Stores, Marks & Spencer, Boots, Johnson’s …

Little by little, the whole of our consumer society would begin to shrivel from the feet up. All manufacturers mentioned make adult products too. But without baby products, their profits would be slashed. Profits from baby products are higher than adult products, because the purchaser is more anxious about quality for their children (who looks for a bargain in baby formula?)

Very quickly — about the time that all unborn children would have been in their 20’s, the major producers of non-essentials would have disappeared. Can you envisage Coca-Cola’s advertising campaigns, aimed at adults, forty-plus?

Over the last thirty years, there has been an unprecedented fall in fertility rates, not just in developed countries, in every country in the world. Forget the population bomb. Increasingly, populations of our most developed countries (including us) are now facing declining birth rates, or already below replacement rates. The major concern today is population aging. How will our societies manage to maintain standards, without the wealth that children create?

Society should change its attitude to children, and to mothers. Mothers should be rewarded and offered incentives to stay at home if they wish, because this is the most successful and least socially costly way to bring up children.

Childless couples should be grateful for other people’s children; recognise them as ultimately their future carers. Governments should make it worthwhile for mothers to have children.

Mothers at home DO Matter. You are doing a bigger job for society than simply bringing up your own children. You’re ensuring a future for everyone.

This article was submitted by one of our Mothers at Home Matter members. If there is anything you feel strongly about and would like to write about, please contact the editor on media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Children = Wealth Creators

Carolyn Ching

12

Membership of MAHM We are a membership organisation, funded by membership fees. The committee members all give our time for free. Please do consider joining us. The cost is £12.50 p.a. for individuals, £15 p.a. for couples. You can join online through our website.

We exist to represent families who currently, or would like to, care for their children at home themselves.

We encourage you in your vital role as parents

We campaign for changes in the tax and benefits system to introduce genuinely family-friendly policies.

We promote the understanding of children’s development needs, focusing on the value of maternal care.

We call for more cross-party debate about the social and economic value of family care work.

If you would like to help us in any way, please write to Marie on info@mothersathomematter.co.uk.

ChairMarie Peacock07722 504874info@mothersathomematter.co.ukVice ChairAnne Fennellannefennellmahm@virginmedia.comTreasurerPat Dudleyinfo@mothersathomematter.co.ukSecretaryLynne Burnhamsecretary@mothersathomematter.co.ukMembership SecretarySine Pickles sine.pickles@btinternet.comCommittee MembersHeather Ticheli, Kerry Hedley

MAHM Committee

web: www.mothersathomematter.co.uk email: info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Media EnquiriesClaire Paye - 07972 727544Lynne Burnham - 01737 768705Mel Tibbs - 07929 108586Anne Fennell - 07957 232504TwitterImogen Thompson@mumsdadsmatterMAHM BlogMel Tibbsmel.tibbs@redapplemedia.co.ukResearch Officer Alex Paylingbassingbournbelle@hotmail.co.uk07791 878653Newsletter EditorClaire Payemedia-claire@mothersathomematter.co.ukNewsletter Design Editor Poppy Pickles

MAHM Media Team

www.mothersathomematter.co.ukP.O. Box 43690, London SE22 9WN

@mumsdadsmatter #valuecare

Please come to our...

AGM and Open Meeting

Saturday 10th October, 10.30am-4pm

The Resource Centre, 356 Holloway Road, London, N7 6PA

Steve Biddulph on Healing the Hearts of Men

Dr Pam Jarvis on Evolution Matters for Mothers at Home

We ’d love to see you at our Open Meeting and AGM this year. Tickets are £17 each, including lunch and refreshments. Tickets must be purchased by the 8th of October from Lynne Burnham. Please contact her on lynne.burnham@googlemail.com to book your place and pay by bank transfer or send a cheque to Lynne Burnham, 31 Earlswood Road, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 6HD. Tickets can be emailed to you or include an SAE if you would like your ticket to be posted. Healing the hearts of men, Steve Biddulph

“Right from the very start of my work in family therapy, nearly 40 years ago, it was clear that men were struggling. For families to really thrive, we had to directly address the wounds and griefs of men, so they could really love their partners and children.

In this address, I will talk about what happened to men in the 20th century, how that carried into this generation, and the wonderful changes coming about as we find our way through this. How men can be closer to their kids, find their unique role and how boys and girls each benefit. Moving stories, instances you will immediately recognize, and examples of how men are healing and becoming free.

At this event also I will be launching my book Manhood especially rewritten for the UK situation. Copies will be available for signing, but more importantly for spreading the word of a new kind of man.”

Steve Biddulph has been campaigning for nearly 40 years for more loving, engaged and respectful families. His books including Secrets of Happy Children, Raising Boys, Raising Girls and Manhood are in three million homes and 32 languages. He is a grandfather, gardener, sailor, and professor of psychology, and partner of Shaaron. Together they raise wombats in the wilds of Tasmania. Evolution Matters for Mothers at Home, Dr Pam Jarvis

Dr Pam Jarvis will consider the evolution of both mothering and grandmothering and how both have been fundamental in shaping the human species, focussing on how evolutionary principles relate to mothering.

Dr Pam Jarvis is both a historian and a graduate psychologist, with a particular interest in the way that children use play and narrative in their emotional, social and cognitive development, an area in which she is currently engaged in research.

Pam is a member of the academic advisory team for the National ‘Save Childhood’ and ‘Too Much, Too Soon’ campaigns. Her contribution to the related ‘Better Without Baseline’ campaign can be viewed here: http://www.betterwithoutbaseline.org.uk/

She is originally from South London, but has lived in Yorkshire for over 25 years. She has a daughter and a twin son and daughter, all now adults. She was a full time mother for eleven years, and now has two young grandsons.