IF I may have one wish granted to mark International Women's Day today, it would be this: No more frivolous surveys about women and mothers.

Recently, a study of 4,500 Australian pre-school children done by Melbourne's Murdoch Children's Research Institute concluded that children of mothers who work part-time are less likely to eat junk food, watch TV and become overweight than those whose mothers work full- time or stay at home.

Why this is so, however, is not fully understood.

Yet, only six months ago, a different study by the Institute of Child Health in Britain of more than 12,500 five-year-olds found the opposite: that kids with working mothers were more likely to lead unhealthy lives than those of stay-at-home mums.

Confused? Yeah, me too.

A BBC News report last week took a look at all the conflicting surveys on the relationship between a mother's work and her children's health, and made the point that these surveys ought to be taken with a pinch of salt, given that the statistics may suggest associations but not necessarily causes.

As one expert quoted put it: "All parents should perhaps derive comfort from the fact that what these studies really demonstrate is that there are no clear relationships and conclusive answers – that there is not a one-size-fits-all policy."

Another expert cautioned against making parents feel insecure about the choices they make with these pseudo-scientific parenting studies.

In my opinion, every kid is different, and so is every mother – whether she works or not.

And in a world where some women are unable to work because of lack of childcare options, and others are unable to stay home because of financial burdens, predictions and statistics on one's children based on one's employment status can only serve to fuel more guilt about the path not taken.

I am a mother who has been in all three of the aforementioned labour categories since the birth of my first child four years ago.

My own knee-jerk reaction to studies that find one working arrangement in favour over others with respect to motherhood and child-rearing is to yell: "Bulls***!"

The fact that studies are often devised to examine, directly or indirectly, the impact of a mother's absence or presence in the home indicates, to me, that society is still overly hung up on how women deviate from their traditional roles.

If the genders are indeed equalising, and the importance of fathers gradually acknowledged, where are the studies on whether working and non-working fathers make healthier kids?

My working-mum friends are level-headed when I mention my indignance to them.

One pointed out that it takes time for societal norms to change, so until then women are inevitably scrutinised in their roles. Another said that "if someone follows survey results blindly, then good luck to them".

But I'm also hoping that those who fund such studies might consider channelling the resources towards better-defined and thought-through investigations that move beyond the stay-home-or-working- mother framework.

Use the money to find solutions and cures instead. Or commission a survey to find ways to encourage dads to be more hands-on with their kids.

Granted, it is easier to chart on paper the pros and cons of women in the workforce, than to improve their lives and their children's with concrete discoveries and pragmatic measures.

Simply for that reason, and many others besides, researchers and scholars must try.

[email protected]

For more my paper stories click here.