Does happy mum REALLY equal happy baby?

Clare, I agree wholeheartedly. There are instances where it can make you take stock of the situation you're in and you set about making it happen so there is a genuine happy mummy and happy baby - just like in your own situation. There is a huge difference between selfishness and selflessness. What you're doing is taking the time to nurture your adult relationships and the relationship you have with yourself so that the parent and child one flourishes - that's completely different to the parent who will only nurture themselves and their needs and parent in a way so that they are happy, and that's when it's to the detriment of the child.

Ryn, again, I agree with you. It doesn't have to bee 100% sacrifice or surviving - you know yourself that being a parent can be a rollercoaster ride and there will be ups and downs. It's the down times that you have to survive to the best of your ability.

It might have sounded like in my last post that being a parent is all about surviving - but it's not and that wasn't the point I was making. For me, the good far outweighs the bad, but there are times when you do have to sacrifice a little bit of your own happiness and comfort to make sure that our children are. And that doesn't mean you have to be a martyr either - that's the extreme end of the scale.

It's just that the phrase itself is over-used to the point where its lost all its meaning - just like calling athletes Heroes.

I think it depends on who is saying it and in reference to what.

To re-visit a few examples on the thread (probably misremembering and getting it wrong...). The woman who had a traumatic birth and didn't get BFing established then going on to have an elective section and FF from birth next time. Happy mum? WHere? I don't see a happy mum. I see a woman so traumatised by her first month at motherhood that she has decided to embrace the failure she feels herself to be rather than attempt to re-connect with the mother she WANTED to be. Do i feel for her? Yes. Do i blame her for her response? Not at all. In this society it's hard to talk to people about birth and the overall trend of "Your baby is healthy so stop moaning" means many women remain traumatised for years after their babies are born. But do i really believe she is happy or that her chosen path for #2 will make her happy? Nope.

The women (several were mentioned) who leave their kids with virtual strangers (as far as the kids are concerned) so they can go out. Is it possible that those women are not engaging in their role as mother and are not enjoying it? Is it possible that the desperate need to "escape" at whatever cost it has to the baby is a reflection on their inability to really embrace the role of Mother? Again, it's not really relevant in terms of Right or Wrong, but it's interesting to me. How many women in our society struggle in this way? Remember being a teenager at a party and feeling TOTALLY out of place and like you don't get why everyone else looks so natural and happy? Imagine if that was your parenting journey, looking at other people connected with their kids and loving their roles as parents and thinking "why not me?". It must be really hard. And i know that some women decide to push on being Gentle despite those sorts of feelings, but i think that a) those women deserve bloody medals, and b) it's possible that those who are going off out and drinking and generally spending the first decade of their kids' lives bemoaning how irritating having kids is WERE NEVER going to be Gentle anyway.

To be honest i think that our society devalues motherhood. Parenthood in fact. Getting a decent, normal birth with compassionate care is very difficult. Getting decent caring support during the early days of your baby's life, when you might be really struggling with the 15 or 20 new skills you have to learn (and which you had previously been given the impression would magically arrive when the placenta came out) is also very hard. Some women are naturally maternal. Some women from childhood take every opportunity to hold babies, change them, cuddle them. Some women have many friends with babies, have been at births, have read every book written on the subject of birth they could find and have read about and seen BFing. Some women are able to look at the "Be thin, be pretty, be rich, be successful" message fired from every corner of the media and think "meh" and get on with being fulfilled instead. But not every woman.

When i hear "happy mum = happy baby" i usually think to myself "now here we have an unhappy mum". From my own POV - i wanted to BF. I read about it, i went to classes, i met with friends who fed and gave them the 3rd degree about it. DD was born, she did just what the books had said she would and for 4 months we did beautifully. Then a combination of me moving out of XP's flat following our messy and stressy break-up, terrible stress and no respite from caring for her and a seriously low thyroxine level meant my milk supply started to drop. At 5.5 months i began giving FF once a day because XP was using it when he had her overnight (i couldn't pump enough by then to keep her fed when she was away from me) and i felt it unfair that she had such a massive dietary change once a week for 24 hours. Then i went on the minipill to avoid pregnancy with my new partner. My let-down got very sluggish and DD began to fuss at the breast and skip whole feeds rather than suck for the 5 minutes it took to stimulate let-down. My bloods were done and re-done and my thyroid got more and more sluggish. By 6 months i was feeding FF twice a day, by 6months2weeks i was only able to feed once a day and on the morning of the day she turned 7 months i gave her her last BF.

Now, could i have avoided that? CERTAINLY i could. I could have told XP to stuff off and not let him have access to DD but the guilt would have made me miserable. I could have stayed off the Pill but being unable to get close with DP, who was the only joyful thing in my life at that point, would have made me miserable. I could have gone to bed with DD for days and fed and fed and taken motilium and fenugreek and whatever else is out there, but i couldn't afford the drugs, and there was NO ONE to help care for me. My family is hundreds of miles away, my ex-in-laws were not talking to me because of the break-up and i had literally no-one who could help me. I could have taken the radioactive tests they wanted to do on my thyroid and risked losing my milk for the week i'd not be able to feed in order to get the thyroxine and possibly get my supply back. But i wasn't ready to wean and wanted to "keep trying", at least i felt that between feeds when i was faced with a hungry angry baby and sagging dry breasts... I could have done many things differently.

But i didn't. I decided to FF. Did it help? Yes it did. Within 4 weeks my thyroid was doing far better, my goitre was gone and i had much more energy and was able to do so much more. Not worrying about whether i could feed her made my time with DD so much less stressful and i felt more "well" than i had for months. Did it make me happy? No it did not. It made me feel terrible. I KNOW BFing is what is best for my babies. I wanted to BF, i planned and learned and tried and i failed. I failed my baby and i failed myself. I forgive me, because i can still remember how low the place i was in was back then, but i will be doing my damndest to avoid it happening again. I never said "happy mum=happy baby" but people said it to me. I wasn't happy. I was living against my parenting ideals and it is a miserable way to live for me.

Equally though, i don't feel that being a SAHM, especially for the 2.5 years i was single and on welfare and very poor with it (because right now my life is CUSHY!!!), was a sacrifice i made for my kids or anything particularly special. That's the way i wanted to do it. That's what i chose. It isn't the ideal for me or for anyone but it was the best option for me in the situation i was actually in. Lots of things about it were rubbish, but the main thing, my relationship with DD, was and is great, and i loved it. It was more than worth it. So from that POV it's just lucky that homebirth, BFing, SAHPing etc. is good for DD and meets her needs, because it's how i want to do it and i'm not too interested in changing it! LOL. I AM happy. I might not say HM=HB, but for us it's true, we're both happy. I'm planning another baby next year and i am CRAPPING it about BFing next time because my Hashi's is still a wildcard, but there is no way i will be FFing JIC i fail again. If i fail again i will do so at the end of a long, every-avenue-explored and much-tramped-before-exhaustion-drives-me-off-it road, because THAT is the kind of motherhood that makes me happy, and THAT is the sort of happy mother who my (hopefully!) happy kids get.

Bx

I agree with Liz, Trillian, Lulu and some posters in between!
I think there is an element, also, of "my life doesn't have to change now that I have kids", in that parents seem increasingly unable or unwilling to 'give it up' for their children.
I think it's a hell of a lot easier to parent wholeheartedly and being absolutely child-centred when you're at peace with your new and changed role in life and that is means you are no longer your own person...for the better, because you're now putting yourself into a whole new person, a person who could well be a far better version of you!
The term HM=HB or even the converse suggests a dichotomy, or even a fission between the two entities. It's like in birth and people say it doesn't matter how the baby gets here, as long as baby and mummy are healthy and alive. It has become too easy to separate baby and mummy into two separate entities (and that's how it's easier for medicos to separate babies from mummies for hours on end before the first BF and natural bonding can occur etc), and this is what I believe leads to the ability to even think "Happy Mummy = Happy Baby", in the sense that Mummy's needs must be met first before the baby's needs are considered to be as vital.
We don't give enough confidence to new mothers to believe that they contain everything their baby needs. We advertise that they need all these mummy-substitutes like fancy buggies, swings, bouncers that go 'ping', playpens, whirring toys...everything except what the baby actually needs and wants...and that's a mummy who is existing for this timeframe to provide suvival and developmental stimulation just by being present with feeding, touching, communicating.
I think that the more mummies disconnect from these things and the way nature designed us to parent - carry, to co-sleep (cos other mammals sleep together!), to breastfeed (where physically possible, cos throughout the mammalian world you see where BFing doesn't work out, and it's not because of worrying that milk supply is diminishing or that it hurts too much), to PLAY with and teach survival skills - the less mummies are able to see themselves as interdependent with their babies and will see babies as somehow burdensome and stressful.
For me, once DS came along I was able to shift to a whole new consciousness - we were ONE entity and it really was a chicken or egg sicho with our happiness - one equals the other at exactly the same time as the reverse was true. It was not possible (and still sort of isn't) to suggest to me that by doing something that made me happy that might not be relevant to DS I would then have a happier baby. It made no sense and still doesn't. No, I would not feel better expressing to have a night out on my own. My place was with my baby because this time really is so short and how many people, during my pregnancy and after DS was born, were ready to tell me that the time goes so fast, make the most of it? So I did exactly that. Even during a horrendous initial Tongue Tie issue that directly impacted on breastfeeding, I made sure I was in the moment and didn't wish the time away, because that would wish away all the other magical moments that you just can't replace 'when you're ready'.
Anyway, all of this is quite aside from PND. Women who don't have PND who believe HM=HB and tell themselves this to justify their decisions that affect what the baby needs and wants are most likely not benefiting from people in their lives who support them in their new role and have caregivers who will happily brush her off with a HM=HB line so that they can tick her off their list and ensure their clinic gets government funding for meeting their quota.
It's just no longer about 'you' when the child comes along. There is another person whose needs are actually probably more important because they can't meet their own needs and need their primary caregiver to recognise and act on this.
There, I'm having my own rant, Lulu! Had to spread love, sorry chick ;)

Rosehip Fairy, I don't think giving children chores or deciding to buy a winter coat for yourself before buying your child yet another computer game is a case where your happiness comes before your child's. When it comes to buying things for my child, I absolutely love doing it. I love seeing the joy on her face. Yet, I KNOW she will NEED to learn that we can't have everything all the time. Same goes for chores. She will NEED to learn that we all have to chip in together, we're a team, I'm not her slave.
Being a martyr is not good for anyone. But we have to seriously wonder what is happening when people see their children as a burden that stop them from living their lives the way they would like to.

I don't think it is a bad thing to leave your child with it's father. It facilitates bonding between the two while giving the mother a break at the same time. I also don't think it's a bad thing to leave the child with other family members from time to time. I personally didn't feel right to leave her with someone else for more than 2-3 hours in the early months. Once she was about 8 months, I left her with her grandparents for half a day a week, a few months later, we stepped it up to about 8 hours as I needed to work in my business. I would have much preferred to stay with her. Or only leave her for 1/2 a day. But ths is what was necessary. Didn't make me happy, although DD seemed happy as she loves her grandparents. And hey, they were happy they had time with her.

Hoobley,

:

---

To re-visit a few examples on the thread (probably misremembering and getting it wrong...). The woman who had a traumatic birth and didn't get BFing established then going on to have an elective section and FF from birth next time. Happy mum? WHere? I don't see a happy mum. I see a woman so traumatised by her first month at motherhood that she has decided to embrace the failure she feels herself to be rather than attempt to re-connect with the mother she WANTED to be. Do i feel for her? Yes. Do i blame her for her response? Not at all. In this society it's hard to talk to people about birth and the overall trend of "Your baby is healthy so stop moaning" means many women remain traumatised for years after their babies are born. But do i really believe she is happy or that her chosen path for #2 will make her happy? Nope.

---

You have put in words exactly what I was trying to say.

You have made another point about women leaving their children with virtual strangers...
I think this is a sagin of a big problem in our society: mother's often don't have a support network. Mothers need support. Be it physical or emotional. We often live far away from our families, communities are not as closely knit as they used to be. My parents also live on the other side of the world. And how I wish they were closer. However, I am lucky I have my inlaws closeby (although they do drive me insane). If I can leave DD with my in-laws, I don't have a problem going out every once in a while. Although we don't do that very often. TBH, I find DH and I can connect much better at home, sitting on the couch or patio talking, then sitting in a restaurant. Maybe we are boring, but that's jsut the way we are. Going out to me is about being with other people, with friends. And we do that once in a while. But it has never been about the 2 of us connecting.

We haven't done it for a while, but we used to have a family morning every Sunday, we would take DD out of the house, have breakfast somewhere, take her to the beach or playground or something like that. I found that mcuh more valuable for us. She'd have fun, we could both rejoice in her joy, and then, at home, once she was down for a sleep, we had time to talk about her or anything we felt like talking about.

Oh, and about you failing at BFing. I don't see you as a failure at all. You fed her for more than 6 months. So you were a success at BFing for 6 months. After that, yes, maybe you can say you failed. But really it was beyond your control. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I wouldn't say it was a happy mum = happy baby situation. It sounds more like healthy mum = happy baby. And you put her need to have a relationship with her dad before your wish to avoid FF.

Oh, and I totally agree, I have never seen being a SAHM (well, mostly anyway) is a sacrifice, either. I wouldn't want it any other way. I love my job, especially since it;s my own business. But I cannot imagine any job being more fulfilling than being around my child.

Ok, enough rambling.... you must be sick of me by now.

Saša

:

---

But we have to seriously wonder what is happening when people see their children as a burden that stop them from living their lives the way they would like to.

---

I think that's when we need to find the happy medium kwim? Parents who struggle with the complete change of lifestyle a baby brings do need a little extra help in finding it and get to a place where the don't need to go out all the time, because not all parents choose parenthood, often it is thrust upon them and they have to adjust to that the best way they can. So in that respect it does seem like a burden to them.

Absolutely there are parents who are there because their hand was forced. I reckon these people especially need support networks all around them to help them adjust to, accept and accommodate their new reality. I agree, Trillian.
The babies need their parents to get this support for their best interests, as they didn't ask to be brought into a sicho where the parents couldn't come through for them on preparedness levels, KWIM? In this way, I feel a happy medium could be found, instead of going too far over into the 'parent interest' side of things at the expense of the baby and the needs that are optimally met by mummy. There are parents out there who have even wanted to be parents and they weren't realistic or someone wasn't realistic with them leading up to it, so they, too, become unexpected parents.
I like this point about unexpected parenthood, thanks, Trillian :)

Trillian & Mayaness, I absolutely agree.

I thought I was the only one who had this thought LOL! I think happy mum=happy bub is a phrase that women *sometimes* use to justify being selfish in situations that they really should be giving bub priority (I've never seen it done in this forum though). Like anything, it's a balance between babies needs and also your own needs because at the end of the day, you need to be at a functional level to care of your child(ren)! Children come first, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean mum falls off the priority list all together.

This has been an interesting read. I have often thought that the HM=HB statement should be banned. Often when I have encountered it, it really means Happy Mummy = stuff everyone else and their needs. I have heard it used as an excuse to turn playgroups into Mummy wine drinking sessions, as the mummies are more relaxed, so the kids must be! I now tend to ignore advice that is justified with that statement, as I feel that if the person is using it with me, that they don't really understand me and my situation.

I think there is a place for the statement and I'll continue to use it. Everybody has a different experience at pregnancy, birth and then parenting. For some women it is very important that the statement happy mum = happy baby is embraced and supported because sometimes the mother simply must come first. If she doesn't, you going to have a very unhappy everybody - mother, baby, husband, other children.

But Lulu, that's ignoring a mother's needs, which shouldn't be done at all. Ignoring a mother's wants for 99% of the time to put a child first isn't damaging.

Bec, I agree, when I use "happy mum, happy baby" I'm not happy. DS loves nursery, which is great, but I'd rather be a SAHM than work for half the time I have with him! I hate not seeing him! But I want to stay at home, DS needs to be happy, loved and with a home and loving parents. So I make myself enjoy work/study as much as possible. Even though it's a poor second to spending time with DS.

As for parents becoming so unexpectedly, for the vast majority (and I'm not interested in looking at the tiny minority here because that's another set of problems) they have had consentual sex and have had nine months of pregnancy. Even if they only knew about the baby for one of those months, they still decided to have sex knowing it could lead to a baby and they still had more warning than the baby did. Parents have the option of adoption; babies do not.

Yes, all parents need support. It's hard seeing everyone be all "mother" and knowing that you're just not. It's hard being the outsider. But that doesn't mean that you can torture your child because you were unprepared for the lack of help from anyone around you. You're a mother. It may not be what you expected and you may not "bond" or "fall in love" or whatever crap excuse you want to give but come on! This is a BABY! There is no excuse for not taking care of that baby.

This is from someone who had a "difficult", "hard work" baby (according to my friends - and when I've seen their "easy" babies I agree, but also wonder why they're easy given the amount of advice I had to CC), had no "bonding" or "falling in love" (overrated IMO), had no support from family or friends (MiL spent all her time with Niece rather than even asking if we were OK), had no sleep, had a baby in pain who screamed when put down even when I was in agony... in hindsight I didn't enjoy early motherhood, being perfectly honest! But I did know I'm raising another human being who needs treating with love and respect. No matter how I feel about it.

Sorry, I just don't buy that women who want their old life back without making any room for a baby from day 1 are "unprepared" or whatnot. They're just selfish. They need to see they have a CHILD now and things change whether they like it or not. And not just because they need a babysitter once or twice a week.

I'm not saying its an excuse to not take care of your baby. Sometimes taking care of yourself is the best way of taking care of your baby. And if that means once a week you leave your child with a babysitter, grandparent or whoever to go to movie on your own to feel recharged then I don't see why that isn't taking care of your baby to the best of your ability.

Its not fair or accurate to say that a woman who craves back the life they used to have is being selfish. I crave my old life. I want to have time for myself. I want to be valued for my intellect rather than my just ability to nurture my children and make a great casserole. I want to wear nice clothes without having them covered in vomit. That doesn't make me selfish. That makes me a mature, intelligent woman who for nearly 38 years had a fulfilled, challenging and independent life. It is a huge adjustment to change that life for one of a SAHM. Not for a second would I give up the beautiful children I have now, and I will not return to work even though I want to for me because I believe it is the right thing for my children to have me home. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to miss it, crave it or whatever you want to call it and it sure doesn't mean that when I use the "happy mum = happy baby" phrase for myself I am being selfish. Maybe its what I need to justify time away from my children so that I feel ok about it.

RH - everything you say about unexpected parenthood is why I said it's especially important for these women to have support around them so that they can tend to their child's needs and not have to come to a point where all they can do is say "HM=HB". With supports in place, that mother is freed up to consider her baby as important as her and her baby's welfare very much linked to her own in such a way that they can't really be separated.
I think the saying is pretty dumb, anyway. Women who look after themselves first, and actually try to keep themselves as separate entities from their babies don't actually have happier babies. They still have babies whose needs are unmet - they just learn to shut up about it, cos having needs doesn't mean they'll be tended to any sooner, they'll just be bandaided, cos that makes the mother feel better. The equation becomes a non-equation and cancels out the baby as an equal proportion. In BODMAS, the mother is the brackets and the baby is multiplication or worse! If it were a true situation of HM=HB, then the exact reverse would be true in the same way. Sorry if I'm getting too 'logical' here!
ETA:

:

---

It is a huge adjustment to change that life for one of a SAHM.

---

Wow, that's a loaded statement!
I can see how older first time mums have a harder time adjusting their own identities. I'm a sort of SAHM and I am quite at ease with the fact that I'm intellectual, have been a good contributor to my community in my own right and that I am my own person. I share that now with DS. Having DS and tending to his needs was an evolution for me and I was able to embrace it, instead of seeing it in opposition to what I had been. Being a mother committed to meeting her child's needs and putting them on par with my own didn't diminish my own idea of myself, or other people's idea of me (not that that even matters much to me!). Then again, I didn't have a 'career' that defined me, and I was careful not to let anything so transient define me in my 20's. I had DS when I was 30, so not a huge amount of time to become attached to transient notions of self. I know people younger than me who had much-loved careers who have a hard time adjusting, too, so it's not just age. It's possible that it's also about how far values have to change when shifting from non-parenthood to parenthood as to whether you'll be more susceptible to the HM=HB myth.

:

---

. I want to be valued for my intellect rather than my just ability to nurture my children and make a great casserole. I want to wear nice clothes without having them covered in vomit. That doesn't make me selfish. That makes me a mature, intelligent woman who for nearly 38 years had a fulfilled, challenging and independent life. It is a huge adjustment to change that life for one of a SAHM.

---

Wow. Sorry, I just found this really sad. This just soooo reflects how people feel about SAHMs.

I can't think of anything more fulfilling, challenging, nor independent than the life I have as a mum. I'm not squeezed into some cubicle in an office working for someone else.. I'm at home, free to do as I please with my family, and I work for bosses that love and appreciate me! Altho I'm somewhat underpaid, and I'm sure I'm due for longservice leave some time soon! LOL.

I'm not sure I've ever read a response more condescending than yours Mayaness and I guess given your response I should be incredibly grateful that you and I have opposing views on this subject.

Liz - I never said it wasn't challenging. In fact, I will tell anyone who asks that this is the most challenging job I have ever had but also the most rewarding.

I think its such a shame that a woman can't say she misses what she used to do pre-mothering without being condemned as someone who doesn't appreciate the privilege of being a mother. I also think its a shame that too few people seem to be capable of accepting that you can actually do both - miss your previous life as well as being a completely devoted, loving, nurturing mother.

Well, I didn't realise they were opposing!
In fact, I could have felt very condescended to myself with your post. And I reckon a lot of people would have actually taken issue with what you wrote. You really did make it sound like committed motherhood and intellectual-ity are mutually exclusive and that the latter takes a beating when the former occurs.
I just haven't found that to be the case, nor necessary.
Mate, if I'd actually had a career before DS, I might even say the same things, but I didn't and I'm glad I didn't because I KNOW women who have a harder time being at peace giving it up for their new babies because of their identity before.

Eek.. ok.. we've been going really well in this thread.. can we keep it nice :)

Of course you can do both. But what I took from your post Lulu felt like your mature, intellectual, fulfilled self, was separate to your mum role. Which to me makes me feel like I have to do both in order to be respected as intellectual and fulfilled.

Altho i will disagree to a degree about being completely devoted if your heart is pining for something else. But that's not for me to know who's heart is doing what.. but I know I found it hard to be the hardworking, loyal employee I used to be when I was pregnant and pining for a different stage of my life to begin. I personally wouldn't like to be pining for a different part of my life whilst being a SAHM. Sure I can look back fondly at the freedoms I had etc, but I don't miss it to the point of trying to get it back. I'm in this stage of life now and loving it. It's a bit like looking back at school days and missing the freedom, the school holidays etc.. but I wouldn't ever go back there even if I could hehe.

Lulu hun, I think you missed the point a bit in some of the earlier posts. I got the impression Liz (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this) is all a bit disillusioned about the phrase itself, and the way it's just used willy nilly to justify actions and try to resolve guilt in certain situations, and as such need to start this thread to see if she wasn't alone in her thoughts. yes, the discussion has evolved and isn't so much about that particular statement anymore, but the sentiment is the same. So you see, it's not so much that the term doesn't apply to anyone at all anymore, but often (as in Cassius' situation) it's something that makes you really think about things and change them if they need to be changed. If you feel that you want to apply it to yourself then that's fine, but I think as a group maybe we should think of something else to say, cause when you've got a Mum who's at her wit's end with feeding or sleeping issues, what you say to her can make all the difference in her decision.

And I agree too that we all probably want to cling to our 'past' lives and it is a huge adjustment to move from one role to the other no matter how much you want it - no one is denying that, but jobs come and go and we only get one shot at being a parent - one chance to raise our kids into valuable members of society. What we WANT comes afterwards.

Its a pity everybody missed the bit in my post where I said that I wanted to go back to work for me but that because I felt it was better for my children that they had me at home that is what I am and will continue to do.

I agree that it can be used too much Trillian but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for it - and that is my point. For instance, there was a BB member recently who posted about a particular problem she was having (and yes, this is going to stay vague. If the member recognises who she is and wants to join in then fine). She was torn between what to do. My view is that in her particular situation as a stressed, tired, strung out mum she should do what she needed to do for her own good. This was on the basis that neither of the two options she was deciding between were detrimental to her child. Unfortunately other posters gave the poor woman a good guilt trip for even considering one of the options. That was not what she needed (as her PM to me proved). She needed support. Sometimes we just need to hear that it is ok to think of ourselves as well. Sometimes just knowing that is enough to get us through whatever trial we are facing and get on with it again. I'm not for a second giving anyone the right to neglect their child for their own happiness, but if some naff little saying like happy mummy = happy baby gets us through a bad day then so what?

As far as I'm concerned a good mother can't be happy unless her child is happy. So, if a mother does something that makes her life happier, more fulfilled, more whatever then it can only be for the greater good of the whole family.

Liz - I don't want this thread to denegrate. I don't think that you need both but it would really be nice to get a balance (something which I accept is not possible at this stage of my children's lives). I am not intellectually fulfilled by my daughters and I really don't believe anyone who says that they are - an 8 month old and a 20 month old while keeping me totally entranced and engaged cannot keep me intellectually stimulated. Otherwise, the suitability ages on the games would be a whole lot higher than 12 months ;) Neither do I believe that just because you miss something else you aren't 100% focused on what you are doing - anyone who say me with my daughters would support me in that. It would be a pretty sad world if none of us hoped or aspired for something extra in our lives.

But then you don't have a situation where happy mum = happy baby do you. Your girls might be happy to have you at home, but you sound like it's just a means to an end for you, that you're doing this cause you feel it's better for them - and that's the entire point of all - it doesn't really mean happy mum = happy baby then does it?

Geez. Nobody takes in the whole story do they - just the bits to fight against.

I LOVE being with my daughters. I said I would like a balance between staying at home with my girls and being at work. At this stage I believe it would be detrimental to my children for me to put them in day care and go to work a couple of days a week to appease my desire for something a little more. I am not staying at home as a means to an end and find it offensive that that is what you choose to pull out of my post. I shouldn't be criticised as a mother who doesn't want to be at home with her children simply because I am honest enough to admit that there is more to life than playdough.

What I said, and what I have constantly said, is that it is ok to put a mother's wants first when it is not detrimental to the child. Example being I want a bit of me time so this afternoon I am leaving my daughters with their loving grandmother while I go out for a while with a girlfriend. Going tout for a coffee is not a need, it is a want. It will however give me the opportunity to have some intelligent conversation before returning home to continue giving 100% to my children.

I really wish I was the perfect parent that a lot of you think you are.

I guess teachers aren't intellectually fulfilled either then, hanging out with 5yr olds all day. *shrug*

:

---

It would be a pretty sad world if none of us hoped or aspired for something extra in our lives.

---

Yup. Just that, for me, the something extra's include my family, as that is where my life is at right now. It's not about me having to get away and do what I used to do, that would feel like a step backwards for me. We now run a business from home, so research & time etc goes into that, but it rarely takes away from my day with the kids (usually just from my sleep at night lol). That is the balance I've been happy to strike. I have no desire to escape the family to do my own thing.

Anyway.. I guess it depends on what sort of intellectual stimulation you need. I'm not into 'book smarts', I'm more into 'life smarts' (even tho I think both those saying are terribly wrong grammatically LMAO) so I think I've become much more "intellectual" since I've been home as a mum, running the house and learning about dealing with life, and in turn teaching the kids. I'm sure this will only get more challenging as they grow older :) It's an evolving intellect.. not just specialised and stale in one line of work. That's how I feel anyway.

ETA: yep, everyone's agreeing on that point about looking after ourselves in order to be in a fit state to look after our babies/kids. It's just that the phrase does get bandied around and loses it's meaning and now has a real irritating quality to it the way it is used. I mean, I'd be happy if I didn't have to clean the kitchen 3 times a day.. but I'm sure when I assign it as the kids chores.. happy mum won't equal happy kids! LOL.

I need to spread love, Trillian, so I'll just say here that your post is bang on :)

Thank you Liz. You just made my point. You have EXACTLY what I say I want, but choose not to achieve at this point in my life for the good of my children. You have the balance of being with your children during the day and "other" work that fits in around them.

Mayaness - I will extend my comment that I find the sentiment insulting to you also then.

I've had enough of this thread and in fact BB. I think its a shame that there is a group of ladies on BB that seem to have an aversion to anyone having a different view to them. Its what is making people leave in droves and its what makes the ladies that have sent me encouraging PMs about my posts here (for which I thank you lovelies) reluctant to post because of what the response will be.

Aah well, 4 pages is pretty good going before someone feels like leaving these days ;)

I think Lulu we're essentially all agreeing. Mum's need to do what they need to do to feel refreshed and fulfilled. My gripe with the saying HM=HB is the way it is used. I agree with Bec & I think it was Trillian? (can't remember) who were saying that when the saying is used, usually we're talking about an unhappy mum. And a feel good in the moment phrase like that isn't necessarily going to help with the longterm happiness of whatever decision is being made.

i do like the similarities that have been brought up about people saying "you're baby is alive and healthy, doesn't matter how it got here" and how it totally invalidates the feelings of the mother. So too, throwing out the phrase HM=HB could easily invalidate the feelings of the mother over the core issue, be it the deep desire to breastfeed and finding themselves in the situation where they need to formula feed. Might make them feel better in the moment, but what about actually helping by acknowleding their real feelings? I dunno.. the more I type the more it's not coming out the way I want it.

Come on guys. This is an interesting topic and I know that we can discuss it nicely. If you have a problem with a post, please report it. We are here to help.

:

---

I can't think of anything more fulfilling, challenging, nor independent than the life I have as a mum. I'm not squeezed into some cubicle in an office working for someone else.. I'm at home, free to do as I please with my family, and I work for bosses that love and appreciate me! Altho I'm somewhat underpaid, and I'm sure I'm due for longservice leave some time soon! LOL.

---

This is exactly how I feel.

Ok, I am a booksmart kind of person (you wouldn't guess it by the amount of typos I make in my posts, would you). I used to hang out with very intelligent people. I used to need that, somehow. I guess being accepted by them proved to me that I am just as intelligent (well at least I like to think I am). Then I got to a different stage in my life when I realised that I don't need the acceptance or even admiration by other people to feel validated. I am now perfectly happy to spend my day marvelling about DD's attempts at using the big girl's toilet. You know what, I find that much more fulfilling than anything I have ever done in my life. I have NO desire to get my old life back. I also used to have a huge social life. And I mean HUUUGE. I love thinking back to those days. But I have NO desire to get them back. I also see this stage of my life as a step forward, not an interlude.
I guess it all depends on the way you see yourself and how you value yourself.

I'm not saying that it is a bad thing to want to have your career or your old life back. And LuluHB, I actually commend you a lot for being able to honestly say how you feel, although you knew that it might go "against the grain". I also commend you for evaluating what you think is more beneficial for your children and for making this sacrifice. I just do hope that your children will never get the impression that you being with them was a sacrifice for you. Again, not saying that you behave like this, but I have heard mothers of older children say that to their kids and I just found that to be extremely unfair.
I just have to say that I personally cannot understand your feelings, as I am just a totally different kind of person. Yes I do have goals and I am striving for something else. Just in my case it is all revolving around my family. But that's just it, we're all different.
I really do hope that you will achieve the balance you wish for once your children are a little older. And I am sad to hear that you are going to leave.

Saša

I'm actually with Sunshine in thinking that it's a good thing to talk about if your babies happiness doesn't equate to your own happiness. I don't have a value judgment on whether one is fulfilled by being at home with their kids, just seeing how it could be harder to derive satisfaction from it if you've come from a background with a career that provided you with a big basis for your self-identity, especially if that career has spanned many years in time. I've seen this happen to friends of mine who delay childbearing. It's all they wanted and then bang! It's sooo different from everything they've known for so long that it's harder for them to adjust to existing for their kids and the world they know to shift on its axis. And I only ever hear cited lack of 'intellectual stimulation' from these friends, whose ideas of 'intellectual' are caught up in academia or the career ladder. In fact, one of my dearest friends who has yet to TTC, and I talked about this the other week and she conceded this very thing. She knows she's going to have a more challenging time coming to terms with a total shift in priorities when she has a baby. She's got a headstart on others who don't even realise this is going to happen and it hits them suddenly!

This is really tough because I sort of agree with everyone!

Lulu, I agree with you that a mum needs more than being alone with the children. That might be going out every now and then with friends or her DH (and leaving the children with a known, loved babysitter) or it may mean coffee mornings or whatever. Being a SAHM where you SAH and don't go out to see friends is VERY detrimental.

Maya, I agree that you can be intellectually stimulated and have a child. TBH I think Liebs is a bit too stimulated because I love learning and sharing that learning; DS is learning degree standard science but I figure that the more words he hears the better at this stage!

It's not bad to want a portion of your old life back. I do sometimes. I would LOVE to just book a hair appointment and not think about childcare. I'd love to get home and put my feet up with a bottle of wine. Not having to get up in the middle of the night? Pre-children sounds good to me! But I don't ignore the fact I have a child. I don't book a hair appointment and expect DS to just lump it with either sitting still in a hairdressers or have an unknown person caring for him (I do it while he's in Nursery LOL). I have a glass of wine later in the evening. I get up in the night. The person who can't make even those basic sacrifices because "my life won't change because of a baby" isn't doing the right thing, IMO, although she's a happy mummy.

Anyway. I see all sides of the argument and I think we're all sort of making the same point. A Mum makes sacrifices but still needs to be fulfilled. A Mum can still yearn and desire. A Mum is still a person. But so is a baby and we all respect that.

BTW, Maya, earlier posts re friendship, I see what you're getting at and I agree. I don't want to be a peer-friend to DS, as was modelled to me, but yes, I do want us to have a friendship relationship AS WELL as a parent-child relationship.

:

---

Lulu, I agree with you that a mum needs more than being alone with the children. That might be going out every now and then with friends or her DH (and leaving the children with a known, loved babysitter) or it may mean coffee mornings or whatever. Being a SAHM where you SAH and don't go out to see friends is VERY detrimental.

---

So so true. I think especially in the early days/months I would have lost my marbles if I hadn't been able to go out (with my baby) to meet other people. Not because I needed stimulation, I needed support and understanding and advice. I actually think that if you have a young child, it is not good for them if they're stuck in the house with mummy all day either. going out on playdates and walks is much more stimulating for them, too.

Saša

I'd just like to add to to Trillian's polite request. This is an important topic, and one that deserves to be discussed, but we'd rather not have to close this thread because it degenerates into a fight. Please, put forward your ideas and opinions and let them stand for themselves, without having to attack other people.

I didn't really venture out on my own much when DS was little - I took him with me to visit my friends, booby club, my horse. With my horse, it WAS a sacrifice I made - I couldn't ride for a while because DP refused to come with me. But at least I got to see my horse (I agist). Nowadays DS can actually have a ride and will play in the sand arena whilst I have a ride, too (I go when no-one else is there, so he won't get run over by other arena users).
I never really felt the itch to do something without DS. In fact, I was at pains to incorporate him into my things. There wasn't anything I was doing in the lead up to DS's birth that was exclusive of children, which I'm grateful for. I'd long given up clubbing and pubbing and getting blind drunk. I was pretty ready for him, even though I doubted myself just before the birth :)

Do you REALLY think this is an interesting topic? Something so controversial where every single mother is so different ?

Not to mention every single child too.

Yes I do think it's an interesting thing to discuss - just like anything. It's not about different parents or different kids, it's a discussion about a saying that's overused and meaningless. You do realise that you don't have to contribute anything at all if you don't happen to find it interesting yourself.

I've been reading this thread but feel a little overwhelmed by the number and detail of responses to address the points made in those so I'll just try to answer the original question from my own experiences.

I think the phrase "happy mummy = happy baby" can sometimes be useful but can sometimes be over-used too.

It was helpful to me in the early days when I was having problems breastfeeding. For the first two weeks each feed took up to 2.5 hours (trying to attach, then expressing, then formula top-ups as advised by a Lactation Consultant). I would get a half-hour break then for it to start all over again and in that half-hour would try to feed myself. I was hating the whole thing and was extremely anxious and torn about what to do. Then I spoke to a counsellor at the ABA and while she did not say happy baby = happy mummy, she DID say that the most important thing was the bond between DD and I and that had to be paramount. Trying to BF, for me, was harmful to that bond because it was full of angst. I felt MORE bonded to DD when the feeding experience was calmer and for me that was by bottle-feeding EBM and FF. Yes, I could have sought out more support and more LCs but I didn't want to see anyone else - I'd had at least 15 different midwives pawing my breasts in the hospital and simply could not handle any more 'help'.

Did bottle-feeding rather than BFing make DD happy? Well, I don't think it made her any less happy or more happy. It has certainly not been detrimental to her health - she has had one minor illness in 17 months.

I think, when I spoke to friends about this, and they said happy mummy = happy baby what they were really trying to convey was, "Fiona, you are absolutely torturing yourself about this because you are trying to do the right thing by DD and continue BFing but it is destroying you mentally because you are so uptight and anxious so it is OK to not to it, if it means the difference between you bonding with and enjoying your DD than not." I have a history of depression and the trigger for me is anxiety and feeling like I am not doing a good job - my troubled experiences with BFing were making me very anxious and I have no doubt, that if I had perservered even more I would have have got more anxious and at risk of becoming depressed.

I think, generally, the way I think of parenting is that there has to be a balance between parents' needs and children's needs. Sometimes DD comes first, sometimes I do.

For instance, DD sleeps from about 10.30am - 2.30pm. This is not convenient for me as it's the time of the day when I would like to be out and about, buying stuff for tea, going into town, whatever. Also, we live in a very, very noisy house which means that I can't do noisy housework like loading the dishwasher, vacuuming etc. while she is asleep. But I make do with the situation and let her sleep. I don't drag her around the shops or make appointments during those times which in turn, means that A LOT of the time I feel housebound and feel useless. Hence, why I'm on BB so much early morning/early afternoon because I have few alternatives that won't involve waking her up. That makes DD a very happy baby but doesn't make me a happy mummy but the alternative is that I go and do my stuff and have a very grumpy baby which wouldn't make me happy either. So, on balance, we'll carry on doing what we are.

The inability to do things when I want/need to (even flushing the toilet can wake her up), has meant that I have returned to work part-time for my sanity. That HAS made me happy and I believe that I'm a much better mum on the days we spend together now than I was before when I was home full-time. Our situation is unusual in that DP is a shiftworker so most of the time we can work around his shifts. Most of the time, she is still looked after by either DP or I and occasionally we get an in-home carer. I'm not sure what we would have done if the only option was to put her into childcare for five days a fortnight. It would have been a very tough call but I can't say for sure that I WOULDN'T have done it.

Well, I have waffled. I guess what I'm saying is that I think happy mummy = happy baby is sometimes a very useful reality check for mums who would otherwise torture themselves in their efforts to do their very best and remind them that it's OK to not be "perfect".

:

---

she DID say that the most important thing was the bond between DD and I and that had to be paramount

---

Exactly, Fiona :) I hate when the saying is used and the bond between mother and child comes secondary to what will really only make the mummy somewhat happier (well, maybe).
To me, it shouldn't be a case of Happy Mummy first then the baby can decide if that makes happy baby, it needs to be a case of "I'm going to do something for myself that will contribute to increasing our bond", even if that means a solo outing to recharge and come back to give everything to that child that the mother has, and that the mother has support around her to give that everything.
Yep, nodding my head off about the bonding!

:

---

I guess what I'm saying is that I think happy mummy = happy baby is sometimes a very useful reality check for mums who would otherwise torture themselves in their efforts to do their very best and remind them that it's OK to not be "perfect".

---

Yes! That. :p

ETA: Danni, if you've been victimised or judged, please report it, so we can act. Or PM the person involved to clarify, it may be a misunderstanding.

I actually agree with LuluHB to an extent. I know she's decided to leave the thread, but wanted to agree with some of what she had to say.

I stayed home for two years with my very much wanted son. I went back to work even though I honestly didn't want to, but now I'm back and currently in a job I absolutely love, I cannot imagine going back to being a SAHM. I have an amazing, challenging, exciting job working with people who I enjoy spending time with. And because I feel challenged and fulfilled doing what I'm doing right now, I think I'm a better mum for it. Could my son be happier if he was at home all day with me still? Probably. But it won't make ME happy.

I do feel that while I was at home with my son, the sacrifices I made for him meant that, in my own personal circumstances, I wasn't the happiest mum but it meant that I had a happy, secure child. So as I said in a pervious post, I don't believe happy mum=happy baby necessarily.

I will admit that if not for BB, I would have felt incredibly intellectually stifled as well during my two years at home. I think if most of you would look deeper, you would admit the same thing, otherwise why get involved in these contentious topics over and over again? Isn't it about exercising your brain? Does it mean you love your child any less? I don't think so at all. I know I still love my son with a fierceness I cannot begin to explain.

Yet I will admit that in hindsight, being a SAHM wasn't fulfilling me. I did it anyway though, because I love my son, and his needs, back then, came first. I would do it again if I were faced with the same decision. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to admit that I quite like NOT being a SAHM mum either. If you do, and it fulfills you, fabulous for you. But we're not all the same, and I think everyone needs to respect that. He's now almost 3, and you know what? His needs don't necessarily come first anymore - we compromise now, just as most people do.

And personally I don't think for a second it makes me less of a good mother than anyone else in this thread. Not that anyone has said that, mind you, I just think that when you're happy with the decisions you've made, for your family and yourself, there is no need to be defensive, or allow anyone to make you feel bad about yourself.

Anyhoo - FWIW, I didn't know that admitting that being a mum isn't the be-all and end-all of your life was going against the grain.
Yes I believe the stupid catch-phrase is over used. I have seen it time and time again and it annoys me.

:

---

Do you REALLY think this is an interesting topic? Something so controversial where every single mother is so different ?

---

Ummm ... yes? I do? It has certainly attracted plenty of discussion, that in itself makes it worthy of continuing. Politely and respectfully, of course.