| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| To Work or Not? |
| 2008-09-12 |
| When it comes to launching missiles in the Mommy Wars, Sarah Palin has nothing on Christopher Ruhm. On Thursday, the University of North Carolina, Greenboro, economist published a study showing that kids from high-socioeconomic-status families take a long-term hit when their moms work outside the home--at ages 10 and 11, they perform more poorly on cognitive tests and are also more likely to be overweight than those whose high-status mothers leave the workforce. Children from low-status families, on the other hand, don't seem to suffer as much when their moms work. In fact, many of them do better on the same tests, and they're more fit, than similarly disadvantaged kids with stay-at-home moms. The findings are surprising, and it's easy to read them as a warning to affluent, educated mothers: if you want the best for your child, don't work. (Conversely, if you're not well-off: get your kid to day care.) But those are dangerous conclusions to draw from the study, and even Ruhm--whose own wife worked while raising their children--says so. "This comes down to a fundamental principle of economics: something has to give. We can't have it all," he says. "But I would never tell anybody what to do or not do about that. I certainly wouldn't tell my wife." So what are women facing a choice between work and home--and those many more for whom work is an economic necessity--supposed to make of these findings? The study, published in the journal Labour Economics, divided women into two socioeconomic groups, based on several variables (including education levels, income prior to pregnancy, ethnicity and whether a spouse was present at home). The kids from families in the "lower" group generally fared fine if their moms worked for the majority of their childhoods--at ages 10 and 11, they either scored about the same on cognitive tests, or better, than disadvantaged kids whose mothers stayed home. For kids from high-status families, though, the pattern flipped. The more these affluent moms worked--especially if they went back to their jobs while their children were still very young--the less well their kids did on cognitive tests later in childhood. (The high-status children with working moms still did better overall than all the low-status children--so class, not employment, was ultimately the stronger factor in their well-being.) More at the link. I wonder why this comes out now? Coincidence?. |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #4 Why do you think they kept her at home yesterday, well away from Ground Zero? The mom meme, of course ... that and the fact that she probably couldn't have kept a bitter smirk off of her face when all those stupid people got all solemn about a no-big-deal criminal act we deserved anyway. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-09-12 21:55 |
| #3 weelllllll I don't think Michelle's working too much right now, but I bet she's still getting paid |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-09-12 21:42 |
| #2 Barbara gets the Kewpie Doll. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-09-12 21:12 |
| #1 "I wonder why this comes out now?" I wonder if they thought this through. Lessee - what other woman in the public political eye right now has young children and works outside the home? Don't tell me - I'll remember it in a minute - first name Michelle.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-12 21:02 |