Welcome to the MAHM Newsletter

In this edition:

2 Devaluing Care. Our Chair highlights why politicians are

3
4

still sidelining the valuable work that mothers at home

do. She lists preventative measures which would help support,
rather than penalise, the carers in our society.

The subtle shift in society. Now its the mothers at home

who say they feel guilty for not working. The media portrays us
as cosseting our kids, trying to live our lives through them and
wasting our time. We arent.

The increasingly severe mental health problems children

are facing at a younger age, including OCD and
anxiety. There are also many ways in which parents can

help through identifying coping strategies and lots of talking.

Screentime. Good or bad? How much is ok? Tips for

The importance of fathers and grandmothers. Mothers

managing our childrens screentime.

at home used to raise their children as part of a community of

helpful female relatives. Fathers have gone from working closely
with their sons on the land to brief appearances at either end of
the day.

Why being a mother is now the single biggest risk factor

for poverty in old age. Caring is undervalued and
penalised by the financial system.

10 Anne-Marie Slaughters book, Unfinished Business:

Women Men Work Family is reviewed. It charts how far

womens liberation still has to go to achieve real equality for
the genders.

11 Whether a life of service as a mother and a wife is a

blessed one. Our Vice Chair considers this on live tv.

Our aim in this newsletter is to:

remind mothers at home that you really are of vital importance
to your children and that what you do is unique and special
highlight some of the issues facing children and families today
tell you how Mothers at Home Matter is fighting for families
to be able to choose to have a parent at home

mothersathomematter.co.uk

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Spring 2016

Devaluing Care - a letter from the Chair

espite our passion and commitment to fight

for better policies, a mothers work is still
sidelined by policymakers and the media. The
focus is always on getting all adults of working
age spending less time caring. And instead
of policies that invest in families and relationships from the
outset, so that families can thrive and be independent, the
focus is on fix-it solutions after the event. For example,
promises of more mental health services for mothers, children
and young people, as if this somehow compensates for the
dire lack of support when we most need resources and time
for caregiving! So, contrary to the rhetoric of supporting
relationships, the evidence points to woeful failure of
policymakers to value the work involved in nurturing family
ties. Not to mention their failure to support household units
with fairer family taxation. In fact the latter (eg incomesplitting) is usually dismissed, although to us it makes
complete sense to treat all family members equally, as its clear
the world of work relies heavily on unpaid roles behind the
scenes, regardless of gender.

What we now need is a preventative approach to building

happier and more resilient individuals, instead of too little, too
late.
We need a package of ideas: in taxation, welfare, housing,
employment and in re-drafting equality guidelines to include
fair treatment for carers and for people re-entering the
workforce after other life responsibilities, notably caregiving.
A good start would be a fair dependents allowance so that
primary caregivers are not penalised with loss of income when
looking after family members (yes, similar to the old universal
Child Benefit!). We need reassurances about pension rights,
more affordable rents, an end to penalties in household
taxation, more community investment, protection for
maternity and health services and equal status for caregivers.
The latter is important because equality seems to be all
about money these days, rather than recognising that people
contribute in different ways.
It seems unbelievable that in 2016 care-work continues to
be penalised and discriminated against, which makes little
sense given the following:
We read that equality means respecting and celebrating
diversity and difference in all its guises and making sure that
people are all treated fairly and equally. Yet despite all the talk
of inclusion we see that caregivers are more discriminated
against than ever! Surely caregiving should be protected and
elevated to the equal status it deserves? In this day and age it
seems outrageous that caregivers are still at risk of poverty and
are denied a voice.
Were seeing a rise in mental health issues, which is surely
proof we all need more time for family caregiving, not less.
Theres widespread family breakdown, often leading to
more complex lives and fractured relationships. Again
surely this means, Mr Cameron, that we need considerably
more (not fewer) resources to support family based care and
relationships, especially as this would represent huge savings
down the line.

mothersathomematter.co.uk

We have an ageing population

with an epidemic of loneliness and
isolation, so wed assume this means
we need more companionship for the
elderly, rather than working-age adults
being too busy to care because of paid work
commitments?
How is it that we understand more about child development
(including how the brain is wired) than ever before in history,
and yet what we DO with that knowledge is contrary to what
the evidence suggests? Why are our systems denying children
the nurturing parental care they need to grow, thrive, be
healthy and achieve their potential? The currency of love
includes time to care.
Despite the fact that inequality and financial stress is growing,
we know that more men and women of working age, and
retired folk too, chase the same jobs because growing
numbers of adults are encouraged into activity that counts
in GDP rather than unpaid care work. Surely this depresses
pay levels and leads to poor pay progression further up the
ladder? Are there any social economists out there? If so,
please get in touch! In any case, where are all these part time,
decently paid jobs that parents are meant to fit in around
caring commitments? We also find it worrying that a selfemployed parent might soon be under pressure to work longer
hours or risk losing out on income top-up/welfare support if
their home-based business isnt deemed viable - despite care
responsibilities.
The answer? Lets stop penalising carers in tax and welfare
and recognise instead that this is productive work that saves
the State a great deal of money, and is the most cost effective
support system of all - FAMILY AND COMMUNITY.
Finally, thank you to our many members. We ask you please
to continue to support our endeavours at MAHM because
without ongoing support from you, the members, we would
not be able to host policy events, make connections or attend
meetings to stand up for mother-care. You can be sure that
we take every opportunity available to talk about childrens
attachment needs, for example at the 1001 Critical Days All
Party Parliamentary Group, but with more funding, and
volunteers, we can do even more.
As ever, my own personal thanks to the MAHM committee
team who work hard to keep the campaign running smoothly,
with everyone bringing unique experiences to the table. Were
pleased to report a growing membership base of parents and
others, including early childhood development practitioners
and researchers who are experts in their academic field, in the
UK and further afield. We always welcome new members.
by Marie Peacock, Chair of MAHM
As well as Chairing MAHM, Marie has Early Years Professional
status and is involved with a wide range of organisations, from
the Save Childhood Forum to Maternal Mental Health. She
regularly speaks up on behalf of mothers at policy-making
meetings and has firsthand experience of the devaluation of care
in policy circles.

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Its OK to be a Stay at Home Mother

he tide has turned. Its now the stay at home mothers

who feel guilty because we care for our children
ourselves rather than being paid to work (work such
as caring for other peoples children). But why is
this? It seems to be because our role as a mother is
constantly denigrated and devalued. Mothering has apparently
become something of a hobby, something we should be doing
when weve finished our real work outside the home.
The received wisdom these days seems to be that not only are
stay at home mothers failing to contribute anything (ie, taxes)
to society, were doing nothing, daydreaming, cosseting our
kids, mollycoddling our children, wasting our lives whilst
ruining theirs, living vicariously through our children, and not
preparing them for the real world. Our children run the risk of
actually wanting to stay at home and care for their own children
when they grow up, rather than doing something worthwhile,
viz, anything other than staying at home caring for their
children. If everyone else can fit being a mother into two hours
in the evening, what on earth are we doing all day? We are not
productive. We are, horror of horrors, economically inactive.

Some of the accusations flying around could be levelled equally at

working mothers. Stay at home parents do not hold a monopoly
on bad parenting. But does spending more time actively
parenting, in terms of hour after hour with our babies, toddlers,
school age children, teenagers make it likely well be worse
parents as a result? Id like to address some of the myths about
being a stay at home mother which Ive seen in the media in the
past month.
As a stay at home mother I am apparently cosseting my children
and smothering them. Really? Giving children time and
attention is not the same as smothering them. Allowing them
to develop independence in an age-appropriate way does not
amount to cosseting. And since when were children not allowed
to be children? It is not the end of the world if I clear up the
dinner plates to give my children time to play together. Picking
my son up early because he was unhappy at Pre School rather
than making him tough it out because I wasnt around to collect
him has allowed him to separate from me at his pace, not at the
Governments prescribed pace.
As a stay at home mother I am apparently hovering round my
children, waiting for a sign of affirmation that I am of value to
them. Ill admit I get cross when they complain about any dinner
other than pasta but I dont expect them to prostrate themselves
with gratitude if I produce a sausage. I may not be out at work
during the day, but there is still plenty to do to run a household,
some of which I can get on with during the school day (when
my children are not around so I can desist from hovering). This
means we have time for after school activities, home cooked food
for dinner and a leisurely wind down to bedtime. Why would I
be of so much more value if I shoehorned everything into after
school, or even after-bedtime hours? Mothers of babies are even
less likely to hover as everything has to be done in the precious
few hours their babies sleep.
Heres the apparently irrefutable argument: as my children have
a mother who is around whenever they need her (AKA a stay at
home mother), they will grow up not recognising the value of
work. This is a flawed argument. My children are in a working
mothersathomematter.co.uk

household. Their father works. They know about the work

I used to do before they were born. I have a number of
voluntary roles that they are aware of. They are conscious
of the importance of money because as a single income
household we lose a disproportionate amount of the one
earners income in tax and so we have to be careful with our
remaining income.
A further accusation levelled at stay at home mothers is that
we are wasting these years at home when we could have been
out at work being truly valued. As anyone who has gone
through a restructuring or downsizing will know, very few
people are genuinely valued as irreplaceable at work. When
we move jobs, companies dont collapse. A mother facing
a devastating illness will not spend much time worrying
about the effect on her workplace if she is no longer around.
Sometimes we have to lose, or imagine weve lost, something
to appreciate it fully. Most childrens worst fear is the loss of
a parent. We are irreplaceable. We arent wasting our time
by being at home, were investing it in our childrens future
in a way that brings many mothers (and children) a great
deal of joy.
There is no reason for stay at home mothers to feel guilty
about not doing paid work. Our roles at home are vital.
We know there are many benefits to babies and children of
having the sort of consistent, loving, dependable care that
a stay at home parent, father or mother, can offer. The fact
that apparently no one appreciates us shouldnt dishearten
us. As many, usually working mothers, will say, being a
mother is the hardest yet most rewarding job in the world.
Of course there are mothers who want to work and are
happy working. But mothers who are happy caring for their
children at home shouldnt feel they are wasting their time.
There are very few jobs that will have the lifelong impact on
others that our mothers have had on us.
by Claire Paye, Media and Newsletter Editor
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Looking after Childrens Mental Health

s the mental health of our children suffering? The

National Association of Head Teachers recently warned
that a fifth of children under 11 experience a mental
health problem. ChildLine has reported a threefold
increase in children struggling with anxiety in the
past year. They also cite a 9% increase in the past year in
unhappiness and low self-esteem. According to The Mental
Health Foundation, good mental health allows children to
develop the resilience to cope with whatever life throws at
them. I met with Amanda*, a child and adolescent psychiatric
nurse with 29 years experience to discuss what is going on and
any advice she had for parents. Her advice is invaluable for
parents of all children, not just those struggling with mental
health issues.
Mental health disorders
Worryingly, children are presenting younger, with more severe
symptoms. Amanda meets with children as young as seven
who exhibit signs of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD),
severe anxiety and school phobia. Children sometimes try
to cope with the pressures they are under through self-harm.
Self-harm can be a way of handling strong emotions. If they
cut themselves when theyre feeling overwhelmed, they feel
relieved, as the build-up of emotion is released when they cut
themselves.
Children can develop depression from anxiety because they
learn that the world is an unpleasant place. Amanda feels
the increase in mental health problems probably comes from
a mixture of issues, including there being more pressure
on children educationally they are more tested than ever
and schools are under pressure to produce good results, for
example, Amanda has met with 11 year olds who are very
anxious about their SATS tests.
Social Media
Another very probable cause of the increase in mental health
problems is the dominance of social media. There is no break
from the stresses of school because it continues overnight
through online posts where young people are exposed to
ongoing bullying or simply to the images of their friends
enjoying themselves. Its not so much the images as what
importance they attach to them. The sight of their other
friends having a fun time together without them can lead to
feelings of jealousy and exclusion, perpetuating what has gone
on during the day.
A review by experts at Oxford University found that the
internet is linked to an increased risk of suicide and self-harm
among vulnerable adolescents. People who have been bullied
online are more likely to end up self-harming. Young people
are now able to research suicide and self-harm methods
relatively easily online. Children can find a sense of belonging
online, as part of an anorexic community, for example, but
they can also join forums which give advice on how to selfharm.
Stressful images
Volumes of research have concluded that more than four hours
(and possibly less) on the internet each day is having an impact
on mental health. One of the problems is what they are doing
online, which can involve them accessing images and concepts

mothersathomematter.co.uk

the teenagers that you dont want to talk about it anyway. Its
important, therefore, to tell them when you will be free to talk
and make sure you carry on the conversation ASAP.
Challenge their reasoning
Parents can teach children how to manage their anxious
thoughts and help them challenge their thinking. If they say
they have no friends, discuss whether that is actually true or
not. It may be just that one of their friends said they didnt
want to play with them that day. We can teach our children
which questions to ask. If your child has been told they are
the worst xxx in the world, help them distinguish between
fact and opinion. What evidence does the person have for that
opinion? What are they basing their comments on?

that they arent emotionally equipped to access, such as the

Call of Duty game. In addition, Amanda is treating children
whose mental health has suffered because their parents have
been playing video games for adults in the same room as their
children, exposing them to images of bodies being blown up,
for example. Children cant always distinguish between fact
and fiction and cant remove the images from their minds or
cognitively process what theyve seen.
No downtime
Due to the addictive nature of screens, children sometimes
throw tantrums when they have to come off the screen they
offer stimulation and reward. But children need downtime.
Research has shown that being on a screen less than two hours
before bedtime can make it harder to go to sleep because the
backlight prevents the release of melatonin, the hormone
which helps us to sleep. Children can benefit from spending
good one on one time with their parents at bedtime. This is
often when children might open up about problems because
they feel safe when they have a predictable routine. Amanda
has found that when children are asked what would be a
reward for them, they ask for time with their parents, not
more time on screens.
How parents can help
Parents are vital in helping their children and teenagers cope
with the world. Talking together is key: parents can help their
children by starting to talk about feelings and identify them
when their children are young. Young people and children
may be reluctant to open up immediately, so its useful to set
up side by side conversations, where there is less need for eye
contact. Driving can be a good time to raise tricky subjects.
When teenagers do initiate conversations, it can be when their
parents are obviously busy doing something else. This may be
because they feel uncertain about broaching a subject. When
their parents say they cant talk this can act as confirmation to

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Empathise
Hold their hand through the situation and empathise.
Empathy is very important because it helps the child to gain
a sense of why they are upset and communicates that their
parent has understood. If they can recognise, Im cross
because, they can start to manage their own emotions.
Even newborn infants need to feel that their mothers can
understand and make sense of their experiences, according to
Donald Winnicott, a psychiatrist and paediatrician who has
written extensively about the importance of good enough
parenting. Neurologically, there is a big rewire of the brain
at age 14 which makes young people less able to interpret
emotions accurately and less able to read others emotions.
Research shows that they are worse at recognising facial
expressions. It can therefore be helpful for parents to help
navigate and understand the range and intensity of emotions.
Teach children strategies to help themselves
It is important to set boundaries - its ok to be cross, but you
cant hit your sister and to help children understand what
they need to do to be able to calm down. Time on their own in
a quiet area or in their room if theyre older, for example, isnt
a punishment, its to give them time to reflect on their feelings
before trying to move on to resolve complex emotions.
Children can learn that deep breathing can help them calm
down as it sends signals to the brain which counteract the
adrenalin that is released when strong emotions are aroused.
Parents can help children understand that its not the strong
emotion they mind, its the accompanying behaviour, I dont
mind you being cross, but you mustnt shout at me. Having a
five minute calming down period and then checking whether
the child is calm enough to talk can be helpful. Parents should
also recognise that if they themselves have struggled with
particular emotions, such as anger, they may need to learn to
cope with this themselves.
Importance of discipline
Children learn self-discipline when theyve been disciplined.
For example, when parents struggle with strong-willed
toddlers and dont insist on boundaries, they can set up
a pattern of avoidance, which means they dont deal with
difficult situations. This can develop into avoidance of difficult
situations later in life, such as not wanting to go to school.
Some children without boundaries will develop OCD because
they are trying to impose their own boundaries. Children like
to feel contained. Where their parents help them contain their
mothersathomematter.co.uk

own strong emotions, by hugging them when they are upset,

for example, it helps them to manage these emotions.
Avoid avoidance
Parents shouldnt collude with children in avoidance, they
should deal with difficult situations as they arise. Children
who simply avoid problems wont learn how to cope. For
example, a child who is afraid of going to school may well
develop a psychosomatic stomach ache, where their anxiety
has a physical effect due to the surge of cortisol, the stress
hormone, which results in a physical pain. If the child is
allowed to stay off school, the cortisol, and the stomach ache,
will go. However, that level of anxiety only lasts about 45
minutes anyway, as the release of cortisol subsides; if they had
gone to school the stomach ache would have gone anyway and
they would then learn that they were more able to cope than
they thought.
When children are worried about something, ask them whats
the worst thing that can happen? Brainstorm all possible
solutions then grade them and break the problems into
manageable chunks. For example, where a child is nervous
about swimming, they can take visits to the swimming pool
one step at a time. Its important to limit the distress children
feel at any one time so that they arent traumatised, without
avoiding the situation altogether.
Too much, too young
The parent child relationship is the only relationship where
you work towards separation. Parents provide a secure
base from which to go and try things. Children should be
encouraged to take personal responsibility for the outcome
of their actions, which gives them a sense of agency and
purpose, rather than being the victim. Parents need to
let out the reins gently, allowing manageable amounts of
responsibility.
Many children today have to manage too much freedom
and responsibility. Young carers, for example, can be more
vulnerable to developing mental health issues because they
have had to take on too much responsibility at too young an
age. Its important for children to be able to choose to do
something because youve allowed to, rather than because you
have to.
My discussion with Amanda about childrens mental health
highlighted that parents are key to helping children maintain
healthy minds. Parents can help children face the world
from a secure base of love and help them interpret their own
reactions and feelings. Parents who are available when their
children need them provide a respite from the stresses of life
and prepare them to face whatever is ahead of them. Parents
need to look after their children both physically and mentally.
Of course, parents need to seek professional help if they
feel their childs problems are beyond their ability to cope
with, but loving, responsive and attentive parenting can help
children maintain a healthy mind.
Amanda suggested the book by Ronald Rapee, an Australian
psychologist, called Helping your Anxious Child for any
parents concerned about an anxious child.
*Not her real name

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Children and Screentime - the pros and cons

his half term we had the usual battles over how

much screentime my children were allowed. I
know were not the only ones. Parents across the
land are struggling with how to control how much
screentime their children have ranging from none
at all, up to many hours a day.

Her fear is that the long-term impact of so much screentime is

unknown, meaning that our children are essentially part of a
global experiment. Even before ipads hit the market in 2010,
experts were warning that 80 per cent of children arrived at
school with poor co-ordination, due to a sedentary lifestyle.
In the past decade there has been a four-fold increase in
prescriptions for Ritalin for children with ADHD. There is also
increasing amounts of research to show links between excessive
screentime and a whole host of physical and mental health
problems, such as the rise in obesity levels in children, sleep
disorders, increased aggression, poor social skills, depression
and academic under-achievement.
This is worrying enough, but Sue also feared the impact of
children missing out on what spending all that time on screens
displaces: playing and living in the real world. Todays children
have far fewer opportunities for what she terms real play. They
are no longer learning through first-hand experiences how to
be human and are much less likely to play or socialise outdoors
or with others. The importance of play in the development of
children has long been recognised, and if the neural pathways
that control social and imaginative responses arent developed
in early childhood, its difficult to revive them later. The fear is
that a whole generation could grow up without the mental ability
to create their own fun, devise their own games and enjoy real
friendships - all because of endless screen-time.
But is this the whole picture?
The flip side to this is that being tech-savvy has become more
and more intrinsic to the way that we live, work and interact.
If we implement a blanket ban on screens, children run the
risk of being left behind in a fast-moving society. In fact, some
interesting new research is emerging about screen use in young
children. Professor Annette Karmiloff-Smith of the Birkbeck
Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development is looking at how
technology affects children by conducting an ongoing study on
children age six months to three years.

mothersathomematter.co.uk

amily policy currently means giving financial

incentives for families to spend less time together by
subsidising childcare and penalising parental care.
There are no political parties advocating support for
families where one parent stays at home to care for
their children.
How do you change the mind of policy makers? With great
difficulty. Mothers at Home Matter paid for and ran an event
at the Conservative Party Conference in October 2015 (we also
attended the Labour Party Conference) entitled Supporting
working parents - but who CARES? Disappointingly, the
event was very poorly attended, possibly partly because other
events on at exactly the same time included one on Politics
of motherhood: how does public policy shape families and
can it do it better which I, for one, would have loved to
have attended. And crucially, the other events offered free
refreshments, which we couldnt stretch to.

Its an issue that we as a generation of parents are having to make

up the rules for as we go along. My own mother was terribly
strict about screentime. Back then in the 80s, there was only
one screen. Fast forward thirty years or so and there are now a
panoply of screens to keep them off. And at the same time, we as
adults are spending more and more time ourselves on screens,
either working at our computers, checking twitter on our
phones, or watching a movie on Netflix.
Too much screentime is damaging
Child Psychologist and author Sue Palmer recently wrote a
disturbing article on the topic for the Daily Mail. In it she
outlined her fears about the increasing amounts of time very
young children were spending on screens. According to her
research, children today are spending 5 6 hours a day looking
at screens, sometimes using more than one screen at a time, for
example, playing on an ipad while watching TV.

The Politics of Motherhood

Controversially, she believes it may not be a bad thing to give

kids tablets to youngsters who cant yet write or draw because
it gives them a chance to engage more interactively with
stimulating material. She even states that touchscreen devices
may actually generate heightened levels of cognitive activity
compared to books and other toys.
Another study led by Professor Jackie Marsh, of the University
of Sheffield School of Education, has analysed the effects of
screens on children from birth to five years old. Following
her research, which found that children were using tablets on
average about 1hr 19mins a day, she believes the right ageappropriate apps can help children build a broader range of
skills and knowledge such as problem-solving, prediction, and
logic, all skills important for science, technology, engineering
and mathematics subjects.
Where we come in
Its easy to get carried away with the bleak picture painted by
Sue Palmers diagnosis, but we, as mothers at home, perhaps
have an advantage over other busier, more time-pressed
mothers. We are more tuned in to our childrens behaviour
and needs, and with this knowledge, we intuitively allow our
children just enough screentime to keep them happy, while
ensuring that they are still part of the real world.
MAHM member, Sophie Lovett, contributed her views on the
topic on our Mothers at Home Matter Too group page:
I dont have a problem at all with him [her toddler son] having
screen time as part of a balanced range of activities over the
course of the day/week, but I have noticed he can get irritable if
he overdoes it - as we all can of course after staring at a screen
for too long! Rather than impose rules about hours Ive started
to talk to him about how too much screen time makes him feel
- encouraging him to recognise when he needs a break, and
helping him by offering alternative activities. Sophie Lovett
As with so many things in life, it seems that its all about
balance.
by Poppy Pickles
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

We did, however, attend as many other events as we could,

ensuring we asked questions to challenge the assumption
that working mothers were the answer to every problem.
Interestingly, our questions were always well-received by the
audience; less so by the MPs at whom they were directed. Here
is a flavour of the messages conveyed and the questions we
posed.
The Conservative Party Conference motto was Security.
Stability. Opportunity. We tried to make the point that this
is exactly what mothers and fathers can offer their children
when they care for them. Life chances was the new buzz word
on the block. We tried to persuade policy makers that nothing
improves a childs life chances, including those born into
poverty, more than receiving sensitive care-giving from an
attentive mother. The life chances of those children with good
attachment and resilience are much better than they would
have been without the care of a consistent, loving, well-attuned
adult (who is usually one or both of their parents).
The Conservative mantra was We are the Party of low taxes.
We beg to differ. Parents who care for their children full time
pay significantly more tax (at least 3,000 p.a.) than those who
take advantage of the Government subsidies for childcare
costs.
The Conservatives are The Party for working people.
If so, let the mothers who want to care for their children full
time do so to free up the low-skilled, fairly low paid jobs
they generally do for young people getting that all important
experience to start them on their career path.
The Conservatives are dedicated to cutting the deficit.
By introducing a level playing field in the tax system, more
families can care for their own children, saving the State a
fortune in childcare costs (over 10bn is set aside to pay for
childcare and early education). They want to help people out
of poverty. But a single parent putting her child into childcare
so she can work is not necessarily the solution. If a childs life
chances are much improved by spending time with a caring
and attentive parent, they may be reduced if that parent isnt
there for the all-important first few years.

mothersathomematter.co.uk

Stay at home parents

had a clear voice at the
Conservative Party Conference
because of Mothers at Home
Matters efforts
Politicians believe that Some mothers struggle to parent
adequately so the solution is to put the child/baby into
childcare. Yes, sometimes, in extremis. But why not help
the mother in her parenting skills, to break the cycle of poor
parenting? One event identified that Too much screen time is
a possible factor in the rise of mental health issues in children.
Why are they spending so much time on the screen? Could it
be because their time-impoverished parents need something
to occupy the children at 6pm when they get home from work
or over the weekend while they cook, sort out the washing, fill
in the school forms, sort out the bills and do all the other little
jobs that keep a family going?
The genuinely dedicated and very hard-working MPs at the
Conservative Party Conference, along with many experts, were
clearly aware of the issues facing families and honestly want to
help. What was incredibly frustrating was to hear the mooted
solution always being more mothers working and more
childcare. There are some MPs who support a level-playing
field for families caring for their own children and we welcome
their efforts. There are some leading Conservatives and
advisers who are clearly frustrated that stay at home mothers
are the Cinderella of political policies. It seems to be hard to
convey the point that whilst some mothers want to work, and
we celebrate the fact that they can do so, other mothers would
like to care for their children themselves but they cant choose
to do so. If they go out to work they will be paid for their
work, receive a budget from the Government for childcare,
and will pay less tax per family member. If they choose to care
for their children themselves, they will save the Government
money and will pay more tax per family member. Its heads
they win, tails you lose.
Stay at home parents had a clear voice at the Conservative
Party Conference because of Mothers at Home Matters efforts
to ask searching questions at each debate we went to. At the
moment, there is no appetite to level out the injustices in the
tax system to offer a level playing field. What the employment/
childcare-focussed MPs need to hear is that there are mothers
and fathers out there (AKA voters) who care about who cares
for their children. The only people MPs remember hearing
from are mothers who have to work but find that childcare is
too expensive.
What you can do to help.
Please contact your MP to make your views known, whether
they are Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative. Could Labour
become the party which lets families choose who cares for
their children? Will the Conservatives ever become the party
of fair taxation, low intervention in family life and parental
choice? Will anyone really offer children the chance to enjoy
stability, security and opportunity in their lives?
by Claire Paye
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

MAHM AGM & Open Meeting 2015

Our Open Meeting in the autumn gave members an opportunity
to meet and encourage each other. They enjoyed two excellent
talks by Steve Biddulph and Pam Jarvis.

She also reinforced the value of fathers by identifying that

girls often use rough and tumble to engage with boys, which is
generally something they have learnt from their fathers.

teve Biddulph: Manhood

Men are in crisis at the moment. Having evolved
as hunter gatherers in settings where 4-5 men cared
for each boy, making sure they turned out well,
communities were devastated during the Industrial
Revolution. Fathers went from being people who worked
nearby and were around all day with their sons to being people
who were hardly known who just turned up at or after bedtime.
Hunter gatherers only took about twelve hours a week to feed
their families so children and fathers had time to get to know
each other. Whereas every boy has a dream dad, every father
has a dream son, and these ideals hardly ever match.

Society now identifies us as

human capital, not human beings.

But things are improving. Twenty one years ago, when Steve
Biddulphs original Manhood book was published, fathers only
spent about eight minutes a day actively involved with their
children. It is now 24 minutes a day. Steve discussed findings
about how men get on with their own fathers. About 30%
are estranged; 30% only see them infrequently and dont get
on particularly well, partly because the older men struggle to
express their love for their sons well; 30% have regular contact
through a sense of duty; only 10% get on really well with their
fathers. Steve ran through the development of boys. Baby
boys usually bond with their mothers. The oxytocin they
experience from bonding with their mothers will help them
to bond with their marriage partners in future. If they dont
experience this, they may struggle. Baby boys can bond with
their fathers in the same way but it would be an uphill struggle
hormonally for the men.
Around age six boys lock on to what gender they are and
start to focus on their fathers, especially in the stage 6-14. If
their fathers arent around, they learn from the nearest and
most familiar man. We have mirror neurons so we can map
complicated skills into our nervous systems. We have to see
and experience love and tenderness to be able to love. Mothers
can still raise boys on their own successfully but their sons
need to know what a good man looks like.
Fathers have a unique and vital role, they arent just mother
replacements. They need to know how important they are,
including to their daughters. For example, daughters with
engaged fathers tend to be much more stress resistant, possibly
because of the way fathers interact with them. In an upbeat
summary, Steve commented, Because so many men have
difficult relationships with their fathers, it makes it hard
for them to create good fatherhood from scratch. Making a
marriage work, being tender and warm with children but still
able to have boundaries without being harsh or mean - these
are complex skills that are best learned by role modelling. But
worldwide men are really embracing the fathering role. Its
wonderful to see.

am Jarvis: Evolution Matters for Mothers at

Home
Pam started by affirming the importance of
bonding and attachment from birth to three years
old, not just up to one when maternity leave ends.

mothersathomematter.co.uk

The genders have evolved to do different jobs, with groups

of men doing the hunting and a community of women
foraging and gathering food while caring for small children.
Womens longer life expectancy is theorised by evolutionary
psychologists in the Grandmother Hypothesis, which suggests
that grandmothers, particularly those on the maternal side,
were instrumental in supporting mothers in their role,
helping children to thrive. In this way, those children who had
grandmothers to support their mothers were more likely to
live to reproduce; therefore the genes for female longevity were
passed through the species.
In evolutionary terms, there was no clear division between
home and work; this came about with the Industrial
Revolution (as was the issue of fathers being away from the
home out at work see Steves talk above). The housewife was
therefore a creation of the Industrial Revolution, in particular
the culture of women caring for their own children largely
unaided is a very new situation in terms of the evolution of the
species. This explains much of the unhappiness and loneliness
of the mid-20th century housewife/mother, but the solution
that emerged- to leave her infants with strangers and return
to paid work- is a further step away from our evolutionary
heritage.
In hunter-gatherer societies, a community of mothers support
one another, not only the older mothers who have become
grandmothers, but also sisters, aunts and cousins who become
secondary attachments for the child and can take over
when the mother is unavailable. It is also quite possible for
communities who do not share such close genetic ties to mimic
this this situation. We can see this in the societies of mothers
that have formed in modern communities such as mother and
toddler groups, breastfeeding support societies, MumsNet and
even MAHM!
The current Neo-Liberal society is based on the economic
achievements of individuals, which has led to the inclusion of
children in this process, in the encouragement of consumption
around manufactured needs of the child, and the payment of
strangers to care for children when the mother is out at work
(reaping tax contributions from both mother and paid carer).
John Bowlby, the professor who developed the Attachment
Theory, identified the problem when he said that man- and
woman-power devoted to the production of material goods
counts as a plus in all our economic indices, but when we are
devoted to the production of happy, healthy and self-reliant
children, our efforts dont count at all. Society now identifies
us as human capital, not human beings. We need to look back
to our evolutionary roots to understand how we have evolved
to live, with mothers- and their crucial emotion work- at the
heart of every community.

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Female poverty in the age of austerity

n 2016 what does good mothering mean? If I had a choice

I would opt for having the ability to carry out our roles as
mothers with a sense of self-empowerment and full agency,
which also largely includes having financial stability.
Yet, contrary to constant reports that the UK economy
is constantly improving, mothers are disproportionately hit by
the austerity drive. The feminisation of poverty has resulted
in mothers feeling as if they are not only sacrificing hard-won
feminist rights (due to a misguided drive for so-called equality
in public sector policy making) but that their childrens present
chances and future opportunities are being eroded too.

Child Benefit freeze

As an example, one of the specific cuts made is the freeze on child
benefit. According to the Trade Union Congress (TUC) this will
cost 3.9 million households, with two or more children, more
than 2,000 and will impact middle-earner families who have
experienced the longest decline in living standards since Queen
Victoria was on the throne. This, alarmingly, will in turn increase
the number of children growing up in poverty. There are now
over 4 million children living in poverty in the UK, including
500,000 children living in absolute poverty meaning that these
children live in homes where the income is less than 60% of the
2010/11 average. I was brought up in Asia where I witnessed child
poverty on a daily basis. Never did I think that such a condition
would afflict children in a developed Western country. Universal
credit most possibly will, when introduced widely, erode a
mothers financial independence because under the new rules
child benefit will be paid to a nominated member of a couple.
Consider the scenario where the man uses finances to manipulate
the woman, resulting in a situation of financial abuse.
Discrimination against mothers
Social policies via the welfare state were designed to benefit
mothers (among other beneficiaries) but they are now seen as
being an impediment to getting mothers into paid employment.
Particularly singled out for criticism are single mothers and those
from the lower economic group who have chosen to stay at home.
They are pilloried and stigmatised and their status has become
laden with judgemental tags such as living off the state.
Care undervalued
The caring role of mothers is being devalued in economic terms.
The capitalist society disregards the value of unpaid care work
because it doesnt directly contribute to economic measurements.
Yet, the work of care actually provides a public service even
when it is delivered in the private domain of the home and saves
the State money. The invisibility of the mothers care work is
highlighted by the Fawcett Society which states that women face a
triple jeopardy because we are being hit in three ways as a result
of the cuts:
1 Women are being hardest hit by cuts to public sector jobs,
wages and pensions.
2 Women are suffering as the services and benefits which we tend
to use more than men are being cut.
3 Women will be left filling the gap as state services are
withdrawn.
Women disengaged from society
The common thread running through these three scenarios is
the reduction of female participation in society which at its worst

mothersathomematter.co.uk

translates into social exclusion. Losing out financially is only

one aspect in the overall scheme of things. Being stigmatised
and singled out is a heavy burden to bear. It is a cultural cost
that is not recognised.
Consider the worst case scenario: if someone is poor and
cannot even afford a bus fare to the nearest foodbank or
to take the children to a park then their participation in
society is lessened. Social exclusion can also mean restricted
or no access to primary health care services, housing and
recreational facilities. It is widely recognised that social
exclusion through poverty has an impact on children,
passing on the risk of poverty through generations. How
is a mother who is living in poverty going to increase the
chances of her children having a better life further down the
road, especially when work does not pay enough? A report
released by the European Parliament on female poverty states
that policies should focus on providing adequate income
protection for families with children in as well as out of work
through social benefits, in-work benefits and child benefits
while also enabling parental employment through proper
childcare services and access to paid parental leave. There is a
recognition here of the states impact on parents.
In conclusion
The scale of austerity cuts raises crucial questions about the
intersection between feminism and the everyday lives of
mothers. Feminism is about jobs, social care, the workplace,
welfare benefits and single or married motherhood.
Recasting social security as welfare dependency downgrades
mothers place in society. The specific needs of mothers and
children become silenced within public policies that fail
to acknowledge that mothers are particularly affected by
austerity cuts.
Jane Chelliah is a feminist mother blogger
http://ambitiousmamas.blogspot.co.uk/start
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Book Review

Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family

by Anne-Marie Slaughter
Published by Oneworld Publications
The work of the feminist project is unfinished, certainly.
But not, as the popular narrative would have it, because
of a continued statistical inequality: unequal numbers in
boardrooms, unequal political representation, unequal pay and
an unequal amount of hours spent doing household chores.
While all this is true, in focussing so steadily on a womans right
to be a part of the system, the movement seems to have forgotten
that the point was to change it.
Self-worth from work
This view is powerfully expressed in Anne-Marie Slaughters
recent book Unfinished Business. She tells the story of how
womens liberation became the freedom only to compete in a
world where assumptions about what counts as valuable activity
remain virtually unchallenged. The movements preoccupation
with employment as the path to empowerment and
independence has helped to make a fetish of income-generating
work as a foundation of self-worth. This attitude, and the social
structures arising from it, are limiting choices and imprisoning
both women and men within narrowly conceived roles and
opportunities: We have redefined feminism as womens right to
be owned by the system, to be owned as much as men have been
owned.
Investing in people
Where did feminism go wrong? In its failure to acknowledge
that the freedom to care must be at the heart of the quest for
social transformation. Although the womens movement can
claim great achievements in professional and political spheres,
along the way, we left caregiving behind, valuing it less and less
as a meaningful and important human endeavour. Caregiving
is essential to the survival of the human race and yet the
immediate loss of both social status and financial security that
accompanies any decision to place caring before earning speaks
volumes about national priorities. The truth is that we value
people of either gender who invest in themselves more than we
value people who invest in others.
The penalty for caring
The effects are clear, and devastating, particularly so for
those on the lower end of the income scale where the penalty
for taking time to care for loved ones can be, and often is,
destitution. Nothing better illustrates the short-sightedness
and counter-productivity of prevailing policy than the fact
that motherhood is now the single biggest risk factor for
poverty in old age. The folly of a system which impoverishes
specifically those individuals who are responsible for the
physical, emotional and intellectual development of the next
generation cannot be overstated. Family is the foundation of
our flourishingIn fact, family makes work possible in the
same way work makes family possible.
Elevate value of care
Slaughters proposal, therefore, is not to disparage competitive
work but raise the standing of caregiving so that it is equal
to that of competition. The first step, as with any social
transformation, is in the mind. We must ask ourselves
why competing with each other came to be perceived as
more important and valuable than caring for one another.

10

mothersathomematter.co.uk

Acknowledging the common criticism that

feminism is elitist, or at least represents the
perspective of a particular class of women,
Slaughter argues that the issue of care cuts
across the usual boundaries of class, wealth, ethnicity and
religion. Suppose then that what unites all women is the
struggle to combine competition and care in a system that
rewards one and penalizes the other? The right to care,
or more accurately the right to a system which not only
accommodates our responsibilities to each other but also
honours and fosters our capacities for giving, can be the new
political banner of the womans movement.
Work care balance
Beyond its attempt to reshape the ideological debate, the book
contains many proposals for implementing change in practice.
Of primary importance is a complete makeover of the typical
workplace. The discussion of work-life balance is ordinarily
framed as a womens problem whereas in fact it is a care
problem and the cause of the problem is not women but
work. Slaughter describes the failure of modern American
companies to adapt to the realities of modern American life,
insisting instead that workers turn themselves inside out to
conform to outdated twentieth-century ideas of when and
where work should get done.
The flexibility to care
What is needed is flexibility, and that does not mean variable
hours contracts currently rendering many waged-labourers
disposable. The kind of flexibility we need is about making
room for care in all our lives, not an additional excuse to stop
caring about the human impact of our policies. This means
abandoning the notions that careers must progress linearly
with no breaks along the way; that quality is always tied to
quantity; that physical presence is vital to good performance;
that the only way to be successful professionally is by making
major sacrifices in the realm of family and home. Workers
should be judged not on our assumptions but on their
results.
Breadwinners vs caregivers
One of most appealing aspects of this book is that moves away
from the emphasis on women as breadwinners to encompass
a broader view of men as caregivers. As much as women have
traditionally been denied opportunities in work, men are
increasingly more restricted to stereotypical roles than are
women. Whereas girls are raised with a world to conquer,
being encouraged to aspire to success in an ever-widening
range of alternatives, the message communicated to boys is
still fundamentally, that they have to be breadwinners. If
competition and caregiving are equally valuable, then men
too are in need of liberation. The biggest unconquered world
open to men is the world of caring for others. As a new mum,
and having thus joined the ranks of unpaid carers, there is
much that is thought provoking and much that is confirming
in this book. There are also minor disappointments:
personally, I would have liked to see Slaughter go further in
her critique of the relationships between work and pay.
However, on the whole the book provides ample fuel for
those of us who believe, like the Norwegians, that parenting
any form of caregiving is real work and deserves to be
recognised as such by society.
by Maria Lyons, MAHM

BBCs 100 Women: A Live Debate

MAHM Vice Chair, Anne Fennell, and her husband, bravely

exposed their relationship to scrutiny in the media.

read the email. It sent a cold shiver down my spine. The

BBC had invited MAHM to take part in their special
season called 100 Women, an annual programme made
by women, about women but for everyone. MAHM
was invited to participate in two live debates about
Relationships and ideally the BBC wanted the husband and
wifes point of view. Questions would focus on the role, success
and fulfillment of women and its implications. Would a
woman be expected to be subservient? Is a relationship more
or less likely to fail when a woman is successful? Children,
career, partner, personal fulfillment is it possible to have it
all? The idea of exposing our relationship on national TV and
radio was horrifying to say the least. I shut the email and left
it. The next evening I mentioned it to Peter. Forget it. No way.
But after some thoughtful reflection he mused that it would be
a good thing to have a MAHM representative to speak about
their values and way of life and if no one else came forward we
would do it. No one else did come forward!
The time of reflection and preparation for the debate was a
challenging but useful one. It meant revisiting our decisions on
why we lived as we did and re-evaluating them. The question of
subservience was a provocative and loaded one but gave rise
to a thoughtful contemplation. Having ruled out the slavish
obedience implied by the word subservience there was an
acknowledgment that I do value my husbands guidance and
have faith in him. Relationships sometimes do require leaps
of faith in the dark and having found the results good, one is
prepared to have further faith. The same would be true the
other way round (Peter often asks my advice). I would also say
that my life as a wife and mother at home is primarily one of
service to the family. It has been a considered decision and one
that, although there have been moments of frustration, has
provided much fulfillment, freedom and happiness. Would I
be happier or more fulfilled if I was dependent on a wage or
subservient to office hours and pressures of the workplace with
less freedom to manage the family as I would like?
When we arrived at the BBC studios we were shown into a
caf area with chairs and small tables. There were about 20
of us taking part representing different points of view. Peter
and I were the traditional couple. We were sat at a table with
a lady who was the breadwinner while her husband stayed at
home to take care of the children. Among us was a feisty lady
vicar, another couple where the woman was the breadwinner, a
Muslim who ran a dating agency, a coach for childless women,
a Muslim young lady, a born-again Christian, a law graduate,
a stand up lady comedian with her partner, a professional
submissive and a couple of others.
Our first debate was the TV debate that was to last half an
hour, a half hour which went very quickly. Everyone was polite,
really rather too polite and politically correct and we never
really touched on anything that mattered. The second debate
was an hour long radio debate. The producer had been rather
cross that the guests who had been provocative when she had
asked them questions on the phone were politically correct
on live TV and she made a point of encouraging us to speak

more truly what we believed and from the heart! It was a much
better and more meaningful debate as a result.
The debate opened with me being asked why I made the
decision to stay at home and whether I had time to do
anything else (as I have six children). We touched on the
sacrifices, professional and financial, made to have a parent
at home; the hostility of the government to having mothers
at home and the economic disadvantages stacked against that
model. The strongest support for this way of life came from
the young law graduate who said she had come from a family
of very strong women and was expected to have a successful
career. She felt society defined success in how well she would
achieve in her career but what she wanted most was to get
married, have children and have time to be with them. This
is how she would measure success.The debate also touched on
how men felt not to be the main breadwinner. The lady next to
us said her husband had found it very difficult. Was it difficult
because he felt emasculated or because society saw little value
in the raising of children? The other father who had been
the main caregiver felt he had more attention from being the
dad at home because he was a novelty and a bit of a hero. We
also touched on differences in culture between the West and
Muslim approach; the loss of the village where many members
of the family were involved in raising the children; the rise of
materialism and the apparent change in nature of women and
men. Were men threatened by the emerging successful career
woman?
Perhaps the most lively part of the debate was whether women
could have it all! I spoke about the life-cycle and that it may
be possible to have it all, but perhaps not at the same time.
There is a time to work and a time to care. It would be good if
this could be acknowledged in policy so that mothers could
feel that they were able to take time away from the work place
for a few years while their family needed them and return
again at a suitable time. Retraining programmes may be
needed before re-entering the workplace but so many other
valuable skills are acquired in the job of raising a family.One
point was particularly poignant and this was from the coach
for childless couples. So much of our conversation was about
raising children but many couples are unable to have children
and this puts enormous pressure on relationships. Women
are led to believe they can have it all but are not warned about
their biological time limit. This lady was one person who left
it too late and now devotes her time to coaching, advising and
helping those like herself. As a whole it was a good and useful
experience although terrifying too. Perhaps for me the most
valuable part was the chance to re-evaluate with Peter the
decisions we had made some time ago. I feel blessed.

committee member

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

mothersathomematter.co.uk

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

11

MAHM: ONLINE

On our website you can find links to the latest press

articles with analysis by the MAHM team including:

Warning over plan to extend nursery free hours, BBC
News

The Duchess of Cambridge championing support for

the mental health of children in the Huffington PostUK

Childcare policies failing poor families according to a

study by the Family and Childcare Trust, The Guardian

Our website also hosts blogs and viewpoints

including:

Dr Pam Jarvis writing on Critical maternalism,

which is a way of analysing the problems faced
by mothers and children from a female perspective.
A mother of young children writing about Permission
to talk about the benefits to children of being cared for
at home

Facebook

We run the Mothers at Home Matter Too page and two closed
groups: MAHM Members Community and Mothers at Home
Matter.
They are a safe space for parents to discuss the issues theyre
facing in being at home full time, with lots of encouragement
from others in the same situation. Recent discussions have
included:

My friends are all returning to work and posting photos

of their babys first day in nursery

What is the value of being a SAHM of school age
children?

Whether children should be in nursery or not.

The latest incentives for children to have 100%

attendance rates and how that stigmatises children with

an ongoing illness.

MAHM Committee

Marie Peacock
07722 504874
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Vice Chair

Anne Fennell
annefennellmahm@virginmedia.com

Treasurer

Pat Dudley
info@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Secretary

Lynne Burnham
secretary@mothersathomematter.co.uk

Membership Secretary

Sine Pickles
sine.pickles@btinternet.com
Karem Roitman, Maria Lyons, Kerry Hedley
www.mothersathomematter.co.uk
P.O. Box 43690, London SE22 9WN
@mumsdadsmatter #valuecare
mothersathomemattertoo

12

How you can get involved

Please do contact us on info@mothersathomematter.co.uk if you

can help with any of the following:
Attend policy meetings in Westminster as a voice for
mothers

Carry out media interviews
Write blogs or viewpoints for our website

Submit an article for the next newsletter
Offer a one off donation to help with our costs of

representing mothers at policy meetings, posting the

newsletter or anything else.
Identify relevant research we would love to put

together a resource list for anyone interested in mother

child relationships, child development, global

family taxation policies etc.
Or if you have any particular expertise, or interest, please feel free
to contact us to discuss how you could help.

Subscription Renewal and Membership of MAHM

Mothers at Home Matter is a non-political campaigning group
so all our finances come from our supporters: YOU! We couldnt
do what we do without you, so please dont forget to renew your
membership.
If youve already organised payment of this years membership
subscription or have joined in the last 6 months please ignore
the request for membership renewal. However, if youre a longstanding member, please dont forget to increase your Standing
Order at your bank to 12.50 for single members or 15 for
couple membership.
If you have changed your address or email, please let us know. If
you would like to set up a Standing Order please print out and
send us the Renewal form and Standing Order form together with
your cheque payable to Mothers at Home Matter to our PO Box.
Alternatively you can pay online using Paypal.

MAHM Media Team

Chair

Committee Members

How YOU can help

Media Enquiries
Claire Paye - 07972 727544
media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Lynne Burnham - 01737 768705
secretary@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Mel Tibbs - 07929 108586
Anne Fennell - 07957 232504
Twitter
Imogen Thompson
@mumsdadsmatter
MAHM Blog
Mel Tibbs
mel.tibbs@redapplemedia.co.uk
Research Officer
Alex Payling
bassingbournbelle@hotmail.co.uk
07791 878653
Newsletter Editor
Claire Paye
media-claire@mothersathomematter.co.uk
Newsletter Design Editor
Poppy Pickles

mothersathomematter.co.uk

info@mothersathomematter.co.uk