Working mothers and Abandoned Baby Syndrom (Dr. M. Adahan)

deedee

Mon, Mar 28 2005, 1:05 pm

Quote:

after a stressful day's work all I want to do is come home and be with my baby.

my baby comes to work with me so its stressful to comute with her in the car (when she starts to cry...). its not easy to try to work and take care of her at the same time. B'H my fam watches her but I still have to feed her and put her to sleep. then have to finish up the days work only to rush home for the step kids-I'm getting stressed just writing about it!!!!!! Confused

ForeverYoung
Guest

Mon, Mar 28 2005, 1:38 pm

1stimer wrote:

Quote:

She cannot describe every single individual case in 1 article.

so she shouldn't make blanket statements. it is not always in the children's best interest to have a sahm. more important for them to have a happy mom, who enjoys being with them, even if that means that mom is away from kids for some of the time. Not every woman can be a sahm.

if you take a good look at the feministic threads when they're back up, u will understand her point better.

the problem is that a babysitter cannot take care of 100% needs if she has more than 2 babies.

1 of the reasons my baby is at home, not letting me work, is that I cannot afford to have a 1 on 1 care for her. or 1 on 2.

+ many, many babies are emotionally undernourished at a babysitter - I've seen it with so many kids. Way too many!

She has a very good point to make.

Do u know that a teacher can tell within a week which kids' mother is at home with them?? (such mother can be working in the mornings)

deedee

Mon, Mar 28 2005, 3:13 pm

1stimer:

Quote:

the peices u quoted from the article makes it clear she thinks every1 should be a sahm.

this is a paragraph I didnt put in....

"True, being an at-home mom does not guarantee good child care. Children raised by at-home moms who are depressed or addicted also suffer greatly. Mothers who feel trapped by what they view as boring, repetitive chores and feel cut off from adult interaction and creative activities may resent their children for depriving them of intellectual and emotional stimulation."

(I'm gonna add it to the original post)

rydys

Mon, Mar 28 2005, 5:54 pm

Quote:

the problem is that a babysitter cannot take care of 100% needs if she has more than 2 babies.

This definitely depends on the babysitter and the baby. Not every baby needs/wants to have someone paying attention to her constantly. Some babysitters are very good at balancing several children and may even have more patience than the mother bec. she knows that she is being relieved in a few hours.

Also, what about mothers who have several very small children. Are their children deprived bec. their mother cannot pay attention to them instantly?

Certainly, in an ideal world, every woman would stay home with her children. In reality this is not the right path for everyone. Some women are actually better mothers when they get out of the house for several hours a day. Their children grow up just as well adjusted and happy as the children of SAHMs.

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that when children bond they bond to their caretakers. They can bond to more than one caretaker. whether it is 2 (mother and father) or 3 (mother, father and babysitter) does not seem to matter as long as there is consitancy and stability as to who those people are.

wonder

Wed, Apr 06 2005, 7:12 pm

I find looking after my baby a pretty full time job, I dont understand how babysitters looking after a few babies could- bond with the babies, give them attention, feed them, burp them- (know when they need the extra burp), change them, entertain them, stimulate them smile and talk to them. No one can do that as well as the mother, unless its a very good one on one babysitter.
Yes some mothers have to work, some for financial reasons, and some just to get out of the house, but surely you admit that you, being the child's mother would do the best job for the child!

roza

Sun, Sep 18 2005, 2:26 am

Quote:

The Abandoned Baby Syndrome
Who Is Loving Our Children?
By Dr. Miriam Adahan

A well-known rabbi once said to me, "Never write anything controversial. You'll only make enemies, and it won't help." So I hesitated to write this article, knowing that 70% of mothers work and that most will continue to do so. But if this article makes even one woman think twice about returning to full-time work before her baby is 6 months of age, then it is worth the anger which may be directed my way.

Read the rest of the article, as well as the list of Burned-Out Mother Syndrome' symptoms here>>>

note that in her opinion the mother should stay home with the baby until 6 months old (obviously the more the better but ...and I thought it was until the baby is 24 months)

this thread was merged with the previous thread on this topic - mod

amother

Sun, Sep 18 2005, 10:15 am

Mandy, not signed in.

I liked the article. It made me feel guilty and anxious, always a good plus for working moms. Wink

I like her suggestions and tips, such as smile a lot, etc. However, I think she bases her conclusions on her own practice and not on general studies. She does mention some studies but does not say who did them and where I can look them up, so I have no idea if they are reliable or not. She also makes really premature conclusions and attributes causality where there easily is none. For example, she wonders whether the 4000% increase in drugs for depression during the last 10 years can be attributed to mothers working and abandoned children. Sure it could be because of that or it could be because most drugs for depression came out within the last 10 years. I will write more later. Got to go take care of my abandoned and neglected and anxious children.

amother

Sun, Sep 18 2005, 11:13 am

continued from above...If we make claims such as X is directly related to Y or X happens because of Y, we need good controlled studies to show it. Otherwise, it is just one person's opinion. What if I said that I, as a child psychologist, see that so many children whose mothers spend one-two hours on imamother or have their own web blogs, those children are traumatized and develop depression, anxiety disorders, etc. Would you just accept that and turn off your computer or would you want to see some good studies showing this correlation ?

This brings me to my next point - what are stay at home moms doing ? If you are a stay at home mother and you spend a couple of hours on the computer and a couple of hours doing housework, you are inevitably abandoning and neglecting someone during that time- either your kids or your spouse. And what if you have ten kids ( or four, for that matter) and can only take care of 2-3 at a time ? Are you neglecting or abandoning the others at that time ?

I think that these matters are not yes/no, black/white but are better seen on a contiuum. Like at one end is the abusive, neglectful mother who hates her kids and treats them like animals. Exploding anger

On the other end is the doting parent whose every waking second revolves around how to make their child a happier and well-adjusted person. Very Happy

Everyone else is somewhere in the middle. Confused

And where you fall on that spectrum depends on many factors. One of those factors is if you work and how long your hours are and how stressful your job is and how good or bad your childcare is. What if you work and your husband stays home with the kids ? What if he's a great dad ? What if he's a terrible father ? Other factors are what you are like at home - what are your discipline policies like ? How patient are you in general ? If you're a stay at home mom and read novels until one or two in the morning and are cranky and worn out the next day this can also be a factor. Other factors include how much you like being at home, how good your marriage is, whether you have any mental health issues yourself, etc.

Finally, let's keep it all in perspective. A mother who speeds in the car or whose child does not sit in a car seat, is, statistically way more dangerous to her children than one who goes to work. And guess what ? Loads of moms, myself included, speed occasionally and sometimes my four year old rides without a car seat.

Rivka

Sun, Sep 18 2005, 5:08 pm

I work part time. Over here we get a year maternity leave but only 6 months is paid for, so most would take leave for the 6 months.
I don't think you can say most people are on anti depressents because they work part time and have little kids they would so much want to be working mothers, because most the people I have seen being given anti depressants are stay at home mothers with a billion kids....or new babies (which is probably PND).
Even though I work part time yes I do wish I could make it even less hours, but I don't think I could ever be a full time stay at home mum, simply because I would go mad.
Also I go to work for the reason that we need a roof over our heads.
So at the end of the day it's to provide for my child. I spend quality time over the weekend, which means I properly play with him and read stories.
But in the week I read my son stories and talk to him.

chavamom

Sun, Sep 18 2005, 6:26 pm

Rivka wrote:

I don't think you can say most people are on anti depressents because they work part time and have little kids they would so much want to be working mothers, because most the people I have seen being given anti depressants are stay at home mothers with a billion kids....or new babies (which is probably PND).

I can't say one way or the other, but I do know that when I was working in the hospital, I was just about the only one in my dept NOT on an anti-depressant. Probably has to do with medical professionals thinking that 'for every ill there is a pill' combined with the American attitude of 'just give me a pill and make it all better!' Working moms are generally stressed, no matter what way you look at it.

Motek

Mon, Sep 19 2005, 3:18 pm

amother wrote:

A mother who speeds in the car or whose child does not sit in a car seat, is, statistically way more dangerous to her children than one who goes to work.

this reminds me of:

Bread is one of the most dangerous substances in the world. Here's some facts from a recent study by the Eat More Bagels Association:

1. More than 98% of convicted felons are bread users.

2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

5. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.

6. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.

7. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.

8. Newborn babies can choke on bread.

9. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

8) Twisted Evil

Motek

Thu, Sep 22 2005, 4:37 pm

I think that when you hear or read comments (like some of the comments that follow M. Adahan's article on the website) that sound really angry with her view, that this often demeans mothers and a mother's role.

If someone is going to take the position that children turn out just as well if they are cared for by a babysitter or daycare center, then this makes mothers expendable. All they need to do is give birth and someone else can take over. How hurtful to mothers who raise their own children!