Time for Parenting...

...because raising children is a full-time job

October 2002 Newsletter

From the chair; From the Editor; The Name Change Debate; Make Mothers Matter; What the papers say; Parliament and Positive Parenting;; Parent Effectiveness Training; Breast is best

Full Time Mothers: The right name for the right idea?

The 'name debate' initiated a few months ago at FTM drew letter and comments from far and wide, including a very supportive one from Australia where we have a distinguished member in Peter Cook. He sent us his article, published in July in The Australian - to read it click here.

In conclusion to the debate we publish three final letters which confirm our feeling at FTM that in spite of not being perfect, the name Full Time Mothers does at least say loud and clear what it is about, is well known now in the fields where we operate, and should remain.

Newest committee member Janeen Evans adds:

"Perhaps this is the moment to dispel any idea that to be a member or supporter of Full Time Mothers one has to be an 'at home' mother. To be a member means that you support the right of a woman to stay at home and look after her own children if she wants to - you may be working part-time or full time (as I have had to do in the past) but nevertheless support the idea.

Also many women (or men) do not have children at home but give their support. We have grandmothers, grandfathers, the occasional childess person, women who are trying to have children and some whose children have all left home. A recent letter came from a woman who has had to go back to work part-time as her eldest child is at university; she resents this as she feels her other children need here, and is wondering if she 'still fits the criteria' - of course she does!

Please don't change: the debate inspired by the name is as much needed now as ever!

Kathy Gyngell (a founder of FTM)

..On the debate about the title - it was brave to air the views, ones that are redolent of the arguments we had when we began the organization all those years ago. As far as I am concerned my position has not changed on the effficacy of the title - indeed time has shown that with courage in face of jibes and taunts it is a title that has worked and confronted opinion formers with uncomfortable truths.

No other name would define either the honesty or the courage which is what the organization was always about and why it is still needed. The idea that full time mothering is a critical and valuable social role and that a society that discourages it runs the risk of neglected and dysfunctional children always sat uncomfortably with feminist ideology. But it didn't make it any the less true. No other name asserts the confidence mothers can and should have in their role.

Compromises and qualifications in other more "inclusive" titles muddy the message and pander to the politically correct. The title doesn't mean that every one who joins is committed to a life time sentence.

As the originator and the promotor of the title what I intended it mean was that it is all right, in fact, VERY all right, for a mother to be fulltime for her child or children as long as she deems they need her full time care. For some it could mean three years for some 15 depending on individual circumstances and support systems. It was to inspire confidence in the instinctive choice so many women want to make when they have a baby which is not to return to work. It was to say how important this choice was and for it to receive social approbation, economic and political support.

If you change the name you are in danger of losing the message.
Please don't! - especially now FTM has become a force to be reckoned with, and under Jill Kirby has come to be taken so seriously and accorded such respect by media and politicians alike.
Don't compromise now that you are winning and the opinion tide at least is turning.

Francis Phillips (a member of FTM & a journalist with children ranging in age from primary school to adult

"Mothers do Matter"

I have just read the last FTM Newsletter with the 'name debate' in it. I am happy with 'FTM' but I do see the issues raised by 'dissenters'. My suggestion should be 'MDM' ie "Mothers Do Matter". This would join the debate where it matters ie the importance of motherhood and why it matters to children to be with their mothers, especially when they are young. It would take it away from the 'work' issue ie fulltime, part-time, occasionally - which causes the problem with the present title.

Mothers know that small periods away from children, engaged on one's own projects, are not harmful (and can give mothers a new zest when they return!).

"Mothers Do Matter" does forcefully raise the question of our role, our importance, our status without I hope! - causing mothers who do a small amount of work to feel they cannot support our organization. It also includes the debate on mothers/teenagers. Clearly, teenagers don't need 'full-time mothering', but they do need mothers around a lot - particularly after school - for all those random but vital discussions that help them absorb a sane and positive view of life.
Hope this helps the discussion!

Have the courage to be forthright! - Juliet Chalk (a member of FTM and has a two-year-old son)

After reading your Spring 2002 newsletter with great interest I would like to add my view on the name. Do not change it. It is forthright, media-friendly and says what it means. Although I work two days a week (I'm a PR consultant), I feel it should be far easier to make the choice to be a FTM, and organisations like yours lobby for this to happen. We also need to fight the stigma that surrounds this choice. As an organisation you will get much more media attention if you take a strong position than if you try to be all things to all people.

Having said that, I do feel the pendulum is swinging our way. I know lots and lots of mothers of young children - and not one goes out to work full-time, while a number (admittedly usually those with more than one child) are FTMs. And we/they are not rich (eg my husband is a police constable).

Extreme cases aside, I do not believe it is really a financial issue - it's about what people consider most important. For example, I do a childcare swap with another mother, so we each mind two toddlers for a day and a half a week. This is more like going to play with a friend than commercial childcare, it's free, and it has built-in flexibility. I then work my extra half day round my son's naps/evenings etc. When/if we have a second child I strongly suspect I will become a FTM.

Clearly however financial support for being a FTM, eg childcare subsidies to mothers or tax benefits, would be very welcome.

Re what is the definition of a FTM - well, that's a tricky one, but I would say 'don't let yourselves be watered down'. Part-time workers like myself who sympathise with your aims won't be put off joining: I don't personally feel any contradiction between my two days a week child-friendly working (as I see it!) and supporting your organisation. You are fighting to make the job of FTM more mainstream and more fairly rewarded: for the sake of our children - and of society in the longer term - I feel this is tremendously important.

PRIORITIES
I hope my children look back on today
And see a mother who had time to play
Children grow up while you're not looking
There'll be years ahead for cleaning and cooking
So quiet now, cobwebs, dust go to sleep.
I'm rocking my baby, and babies don't keep.
Anon., sent in by Esther Peacock