A friend of mine came out to Australia when she was very small. Her parents both worked full time after they arrived in Australia because they had to do so to survive. However, there was a large network of extended family and friends to help out. She turned out fine. She’s married and a mother herself now.

Another friend’s mother stayed at home, at least until my friend was about 15 from memory. The mother was devoted to her family, and was caring and loving. Despite that, this girl is one of the most screwed up people I’ve ever known. She has had all sorts of problems.

Still, I know what you mean. A woman of my acquaintance was encouraging me to go back to full time work, and I mean FULL TIME (long hours). As we were sitting there drinking coffee, she got a call on her mobile. Her child’s preschool was calling to discuss her child’s behavioural issues. The child was having difficulty playing nicely with other children. As I sat there, I thought quietly that if the parents had spent more time with the child, they might have been able to help the child learn to be considerate of others.

So I think it is true that if parents spend less time with their child, they may be less likely to realise that their child might have problems or need their help (unless they are very careful). A child could get into all sorts of trouble if he is left on his own all the time, and no one would know.

While at high school, a school friend was severely anorexic for a year, but her parents were working so hard that they didn’t notice until she began to look like a famine victim. My friend was always envious of my family, because if I didn’t eat a full meal, my mother would immediately be questioning whether I felt well, and whether I was okay. My friend said bitterly “Your Mum would have noticed immediately.”

It is important to state that there are more options than just a mother staying home. The father could choose to stay home instead, or (like Cherryripe above) the parents could try to share care (both working part-time on different days).

I don’t think I’ll lie on my deathbed thinking “I wish I spent more time drafting subpoenas or statements of claim rather than reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar for the 90th time”. I’d hate to regret time not spent with my child. So my personal choice is to maximise the time spent with my child, even though it is financially difficult for us. To me, the mother-child bond is very important, and I want to be around as much as possible if my child needs me.

Some women don’t feel that way, and that is their choice. That’s fine by me, but I do think it’s important in that case for the child to have someone who can emotionally support her (father, extended family etc). Also, I think it’s really important to keep an eye out for any problems a child might have.

Taking into account the mother is working 8 hours day (not including overtime) and sleeping when getting home. Furthermore, when this goes on throughout the mothers working life, the child i suppose is likely to grow up not having that complete child/mother bond, due to the lack of contact hours between the two.

This will also have negative consequences for the childs future character.

When both parents are away, peer pressure gets stronger. Kids might hang out with mates who encourage them to steal, do graffiti and become vandals etc…Where as the watchful eyes of the parents would have prevented it.

I have known children who had both parents working full time and also children with only the father working full time.

The ones who had their parents working full time didnt achieve much. Bad school grades, bad friends etc…

The ones with their dads working full time and their mums being home, got to uni and didnt go experimenting bad activities.

For now I thought I’d raise another example of a government trying to tackle this sensibly. I once read that in Canada, Mum gets a year’s maternity leave (with some form of allowance paid), and then both parents have the right to go part-time 3 days per week. This means families only have one day’s child care to organise, and allows fathers to have equity in parenting - and mothers equity in careers.

I remember when we both went part-time, we realised in horror that our family payments would drop substantially, because the Family Tax Benefit Part B is based on having one partner providing the dominant income. I gather there are arguments about tax benefits and the like, but the net effect was that the same amount of hours were worked, but we received a cut in benefits. Go figure.

You raise a good point, Jim, about parents who choose to work part time to look after their children, and then have difficulty meeting conventional notions of how a job history “should” look.

I don’t understand why people presume that your brain has dropped out of your ear simply because you haven’t worked for a period or because you have worked part time or from home. In most roles I’ve had, I’ve had to learn from scratch - and I’m perfectly capable of doing that again, after a break.

I think that we do need to look even further outside the square for all people, not just women, although it will always be more important to women. I say all people because there are actually profound cultural things discriminating against men in this area.

As a simple example, when I used to pick up my daughters from primary school I was one of very few, usually the only, men/man. The women used to club together leaving me standing alone.

I think that demography itself will drive thinking outside the square at public policy and firm level. We are only now starting to come to grips with the implications of an aging population. Here there is a very interesting economics blog - http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/ - that draws out some of the issues,athough it appears to be written almost entirely by men!

But I also think that there need to be changes at individual and society level. Here one of my personal drivers is simply the question of choice for my own daughters. Recognising that choices always involve that, choosing between things, what is involved in giving them the freedom to to do the things they want to do?

An important issue here is that individual needs and attitudes change over time in ways that we cannot forsee. When Dee and I married we were going to have a number of kids. Then Dee found that she missed work so much, had career options that she wanted to pursue, so that multiple kids shrank back to two.

Sorry for the length of this comment, but I have been trying to think through some of these issues not just for personal reasons but also as part of some thinking that I have been trying to do on cultural change in Australa.

We need my income, but I just can’t bear to spend the whole week away from my daughter, who’s nearly two. Luckily I don’t have the childcare dilemma, as my partner would be happy to be at home some days and my mother would cover the others. So, I could work full time, but then I feel I’d still be neglecting my most important job - mothering. Which I feel needs time, not all my time but a lot of it.

I would choose the Finnish leave option. Or part time work with more possibility. Or more hours in the day.