Children are suffering because most mothers are working not allowing the vital bonding to take place?

Question

in the very early years up to age 5. WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE?

Or am I a male chauvinist pig?

Answer 1

I think that society as a whole suffers because families need to have both parents working in order to make an adequate living. I think it is much better for children to have one of the parents stay home, if that's possible. Of course, this could be accomplished in many ways, with both parents working part time, perhaps, or having one of the parents not work.

It used to be that the father would work, and the mother would take care of the house and raise the children. Now, it's possible for the roles to be reversed, so that the father takes care of the house and raises the children, and the mother works. I think each family who is able and willing to have one of the parents stay home needs to decide for themselves which way it would work best for them, the mother or the father staying home. It would make sense for the more nurturing parent, or the parent who would enjoy it more, to stay at home.

Women are free now to work in whatever type of career that they want to, so long as they also take care of the housework and raise perfect children and look beautiful all the time, oh, and still, they will not make as much money as their male counterparts. Is being expected to do EVERYTHING better than not being able to work? To me, freedom is being able to freely choose what you want to do with your life, and how you want to do it, with the respect of society in general. If a mother stays at home with her children, then she is looked down upon because she is not working. If a mother works, then she is looked down upon because she's not spending enough time with her children. So, according to society in general, mothers need to do both, and do both well. And if a father decides to stay home with his children, that's just looked upon as WEIRD!

I'm not sure how we as a society can fix this problem, but I think a step in the right direction would be to improve the economy and the situation of the middle class, so that families are able to choose to have one of the parents stay home, instead of forcing them both to work because they need both incomes to support their family.

Of course, some families don't have two parents, so their situation is regretfully limited.

I know that a lot of parents manage to work AND raise perfectly wonderful children, I'm definitely not implying that it's not possible, I'm just saying that I think society as a whole would be better off if more parents had the OPTION of staying home with their children.

Answer 2

What century do you think we are in? First of all children don't suffer that is not even close if anything they are better off. the bond is always there you need to spend time with your children that is a given, I am a single mother of a 7yr old daughter and have been since she was born, we have a very close bond I have been working since she was 3months old. Some of us don't get the choice to be a stay home parent but we find ways to be there for our children. Whoever thinks the child is suffering from not enough vital bonding needs to open there eyes life isn't perfect you play with what your dealt. I am the youngest of four children my mom was also a single parent working 3 jobs to raise us, we are all best friends, so wheres the suffering, have you ever hear-ed the saying absence makes the heart grow fonder????? Its true.

Answer 3

I am going to be one of the few who agree with you. Obviously there are situations where a mother has to work to support her family, but far too many work to support a lifestyle they don't want to give up. You will hear many women say they can't afford to stay home, but how many have given up the second car, moved to an area where the cost of living is lower or given up their cell phones, cable TV, etc. to be able to stay home? There is another group who says "why should the woman be the one expected to raise the children?" To that I would say why do women have breasts or a uterus? That is what they were designed for. They are naturally more nurturing, because that's what children need. You will never convince me that children are getting the love, affection and attention they need from a day-care worker. Of course fathers play an important role as well. That is why it is so frustrating to see the posts from women who have children with men they aren't married to. Why bring a child into the world with a man who has no commitment to you? If he's not willing to marry you, what makes you think he will do the hard work required to raise a child? So, yes, I do believe these children suffer.

Answer 4

Most evidence points that fact that children need to bond with a primary care giver in the first few years of life. This could be the mother or the father - it could even be the grandparetns/adoptive parents/foster parents. However, as the mothers actually give birth to the child, and remain with the child for the first few months of its life, it is normally them that the child will form the attachment to. In most cases, it is unlikely that the primary care giver will be someone besides the mother else unless something has happened to her. That's just the way it is - not sexist or anything else. Unfortunately, the cost of living in the U.K. is making it impossible for ANYONE to be a primary care giver to children today, as the whole family has to work just to pay the ridiculously high mortgages/rents, and subsidise those who just don't fancy earning a living the hard way (i.e. by getting a job!) - watch out for yet another lost generation under Labour...

Answer 5

Its a personal choice whether a woman wants to stay at home or not and raise her children , but some people do not have that option they have to go out to work , sorry but wake up and smell the roses love doesnt make the world go around , money does....
and what about all the absent fathers ? If they spent more time helping support their children financially and morally maybe some women would have the option to stay at home as be with their children .... nothing is ever cut and dried , we are all very different and lead very different lives !! I totally disagree with what u are saying , how very rude of u to even suggest this without even mentioning the fathers part in all of this BS !!

*edit* nah your not a chauvinist your a prick !

Answer 6

it completly depends on how the child was born. there has been extencive research in to this and yes, it is better for the baby if the mother stays at home 4 the 1st yr, but that isn't always best 4 the mum.
if a child has a truamatic birth it tends to want the closeness of its mum 4 alot longer than those born normally with no probs. i had a exam on this topic in 6th form n all it boils dwn to in the end is what the mother feels is best. personally, im staying at home till my little girl starts school, simply cuz my mum did and i can't b doind with gettin a job that'll just be paying 4 the childcare costs that i wuldn't evn hav if i dnt work. my mans already said hes more than happy 2 suport me.
the child isn't 'suffering' due to the mother being at work or home, this just shapes their personality!

Answer 7

It´s a complex question and no simplistic answer will work.

First of all whether they admit it or not most people know that it is best for children to spend as much of their formative years with the mom (and in her absence the dad).

Unfortunately given the economic realities many people who would like to stay at home are unable to do so .The only ones that are putting money and material and selfish things before their children are the people who could comfortably stay home but do not and everyone who reads this knows what category they fit into---so if the feminazi boots fit wear them!

1 to 4 years of investment for a whole lifetime doesn´t seem like much!

Answer 8

anytime kids lack a parent they do suffer. but this can be fixed with always having a network of adult around and the parents always having avalibity. I have a teacher who takes cell phone calls during class- his reasoning is when you are a parent, you are always a parent, even while at work.

children need stability, attention, and love the most as children. if they have parents who are around during the same hours each day and never say they will go somewhere and don't, they will be fine. I also recommend a regular babysitter or small day-care. In the day care I volenteer at the same works have the same kids and they bond. the volenteers come to play and soothe the children. they get constant attention.

Answer 9

I agree, to an extent. I do think it's best to stay home with the kids. However, I think the problem with many parents that do work is that they aren't connecting with their kids as well as they should when they are home. I think some parents veg out in front of the tube at night instead of reading to their kids or playing games with their kids. Me? I barely ever watch TV, MAYBE 2 hours each week. Instead, I play with my daughters toys with her and read to her and take her to visit my parents with me and actually interact with her when I'm home. Even when I worked and was still in grad school, I would wait till she went to bed to work so that she would have those hours each night time me, and she doesnt' go to bed until 10, so I only slept about 3 hours a night until she was about 1 and 1/2. I would like to be a stay-at-home mom if it was a financial possibility. We tried stretching every dime, me working part time and him full-time, but we still had to let my parents help buy our daughter formula and clothes. I would even eat small meals so my husband could eat supper and have lunch the next day. I would eat Ramen noodles or just some fruit or vegetables aside from when we ate together. I was so skinny. There was so much tension in the house because of our financial situation. I think it's better for the mom to work if necessary. It would probably be ideal for her to stay home, but not if the family is truly nutritionally and emotionally suffering from lack of that income.

Answer 10

Absolute nonsense. Most working mothers also do a full time job at home and spend plenty of quality time with their children.

Children suffer when parents don't make the time for them, and this sadly is too often because fathers are absent. The most emotionally deprived children seem to come from the homes where no-one goes to work. By your logic, the vital bonding should be strongest in these cases.

Too many mothers have to work, because they are the only wage earner in the household - or would you rather they relied on benefits?

Children suffer from poor parenting - mothers working does not equal poor parenting.