Intensive mothers

[Xenia]

It seems pretty clear children benefit a lot if their mother has a good career and here is another piece of evidence of the damage housewives do to children:-

"Stay at home mothers are more likely to be unhappy than those who go out to work, according to new research.
Women who believe in "intensive parenting" are at risk of a range of mental illnesses including depression.

They think women are better parents than men, that mothering should be child centred and that children should be considered sacred and fulfilling.

This may put them in danger of suffering the 'parenthood paradox' where their ideology increases feelings of stress and guilt.

Psychologist Kathryn Rizzo, whose findings are published online in Springer's Journal of Child and Family Studies, said: "If intensive mothering is related to so many negative mental health outcomes, why do women do it?

"They may think that it makes them better mothers, so they are willing to sacrifice their own mental health to enhance their children's cognitive, social and emotional outcomes."
Related Articles

She said parenting is a big task and requires a variety of skills and expertise. Many women rate the challenge as one of the most fulfilling experiences in life.

But some previous research has suggested it may be detrimental to mental health, with women reporting taking care of their children as more stressful than being at work.

So her team at the University of Mary Washington, Virginia, looked at whether intensive parenting in particular was linked to increased levels of stress, depression and lower life satisfaction among 181 mothers of children under five.

Using an online questionnaire, they found out to what extent the participants endorsed intensive parenting beliefs by measuring their responses to a series of statements.

These included "mothers are the most necessary and capable parent", "parents' happiness is derived primarily from their children" and "parents should always provide their children with stimulating activities that aid in their development".

Others were "parenting is more difficult than working" and "a parent should always sacrifice their needs for the needs of the child".

Overall, the women were satisfied with their lives but had moderate levels of stress and depression.

Almost one in four had symptoms of depression and these negative mental health outcomes were accounted for by their endorsement of intensive parenting attitudes.

When the level of family support was taken into account, those mothers who believed women are the essential parent were less satisfied with their lives. Those who believed that parenting is challenging were more stressed and depressed.

The researchers said overall, the women were satisfied with their lives but had moderate levels of stress and depression.

They added: "In reality, intensive parenting may have the opposite effect on children from what parents intend."

Earlier this year a study of more than 60,000 US mothers found 41 percent of those not in work experienced worry compared to 34 per cent of those employed.

And 28 per cent suffered depression, eleven per cent more than the others. Psychlogists fear the phenomenon is linked with feelings of isolation and a lack of fulfillment. "

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9381449/Stay-at-home-mothers-more-unhappy-than-those-who-work.html

the recession combined with the end of top up benefits for those on relatiely high incomes means the tide has turned on the MC SAHM. plus the financial vulnerability of a single income household.

I thought the article was good as it said it is not as simple as SAHM = best for women/DCs which is the general MN view.

I agree with kuros-I agree that intensive parenting is damaging for children. I don't think that you can point a finger at one group of women.

Xenia-still interested to know if you think that women as a gender have more of a desire to stay at home/be with their children than men and if all other things are equal how this should be reflected in career/lifestyle choice.
Also iq is a poor measure of intelligence/ability - there is evidence that it can be affected by cultural biases/practice etc

72% of women work who have children so I doub tthey are all itching to spend more time wiping bottoms and ironing shirts. Plenty are from cultures living in the UK where it is expected they will be home whether they like it or not. Some are even sent abroad at 6 - 8 years for female genital mutliation. Others are shipped to Pakistan at 15 for a "holiday" (arranged or even forced marriage) and some are in rather well of landed English families where girls are sent to boarding schools where no one does very well but they become marriageble. There was an article in Tatler by a male journalist who said he would pay fees for his son's school and the girl would go to the comp as she would only marry so why waste the money.

So I thinkw e have not really had a chance for girls to be brought up in a gender neutral way to be able to assess if more of them would rather be eonomically dependent on a partner, spend their life cleaning and doing childcare and ruin their career and hope the man won't run off or whether they would rather be parents and work (as 72% of them choose to do). I suspect given tghe prejudice, discrimination and exampls of housewife mothers around the fact 72% choose to work is pretty good proof they are more than happy to hand aprons to husbands and get on with really interesting work instead.

What is clear is that vast numbers of people of either sex are idle. If you do a dross low paid job like most people whihc you probably hate and this applies to men and women and your other half says you need never work again - I will keep you many men and women will stop work. Very few men are offered that choice by their wives so again we never get the chance to assess these things in a gender neutral way.

Let's leave aside the red herring of fgm and forced marriages, because they are taking place in cultures that really have little to do with mainstream western life.

Why do you assume the women who are mothers 'choose' to work or 'choose' to stay home?
Why do you assume the men who are fathers 'choose' to work or 'choose' to stay home?

As you suggest in a half baked way, most people work because they have to (at their dross jobs) and would stop today if they won the lottery or great aunt Tabitha snuffed it and it turned out she had saved every spare penny since 1938 and left it all to them. Many parents who stay home do so because childcare costs would mean they would actually lose money by working. Being gainfully employed often has little or nothing to do with satisfaction. You imply in your middle paragraph that finding something satisfying to spend your time at is the name of the game, and in your last you hint that actually it is money that makes the choice for you. It is my opinion that money is the deciding factor first, middle and last.

I am probably depressed (a bit) and I am 'willing to sacrifice my own mental health to enhance my children's cognitive, social and emotional outcomes'. I am WOHM. Most people want the best for their kids, right? Mums, Dads, SAHPs, WOHPs...

On what time horizon Math? I'd guess that most people don't earn enough to pay for childcare for two preschoolers where they live. So a SAHP makes them better off in the short term. But if their work was in any way skilled, it will be hard to get back in at the same level, after a few years at home.

Working for nothing in the short term can pay dividends later.

I have just read the 'experienced worry' statistic from the OP - ha ha ha ha ha ha. How ridiculous.

around the fact 72% choose to work is pretty good proof they are more than happy to hand aprons to husbands and get on with really interesting work instead

Contradicts with this statement

If you do a dross low paid job like most people whihc you probably hate and this applies to men and women and your other half says you need never work again - I will keep you many men and women will stop work

These statements are not only not factual but are in fact totally contradictory.

Which is it then? Women are idle, women choose to work, women hate work and would give it up in a flash, women do low paid dross work, women love work despite the fact that most work women undertake is low paid. Which is it? What is it and what exactly is your point Xenia?

2/3 rds of the worlds work force is female, 2/3 rds of the worlds poor are female.

These figures would have looked different only 30 years ago. Many women have lived in poverty, many gave up work but in the last 30 years work has generally been de-skilled and wages have stagnated. As women enter the workforce there is further suppresses real wages. Women are the working poor of the world. As companies outsource and manufacturing in cheaper in places like south east asia, women are becoming a slave class to capital accumulation.

HG, I think there is a certain size of family where unless you can find free childcare or have a career that earns you a high 5 figure (or over) salary you will end up with nothing and actually not be able to afford to work because money doesn't grow on trees. 'Working for nothing' is not possible unless there is a second income (in which case you as a family have an income so it is not really working for nothing) or free childcare given by relatives (or you would have to stop and actually make enough to pay the childcarer) or social welfare to ensure you don't end up starving to death in a cardboard box under a motorway.

For some people this point comes with three small children who can't take care of themselves if there is no relative available to step in. For some it comes with two.
'Nearly six out of 10 parents questioned for the survey said the main reason for cutting their working hours after the birth of their first child was to spend more time with their baby. However, after the birth of their second and subsequent children 39% of parents said the main reason for reducing their hours was financial.'

Economics textbook discussion of labour supply/income relationship.
'They found that respondents were more likely to work the higher the wage, less likely to work if they preferred a traditional family structure with a husband as the primary breadwinner, less likely to work if they felt that care provided by others was strongly inferior to a mother?s care, and less likely to work if child-care costs were higher. Given these findings, explain how each of the following would affect the labor supply of mothers with preschool-aged children.

An increase in the wage
An increase in the preference for a traditional family structure
An increased sense that child care is inferior to a mother?s care
An increase in the cost of child care'

I think the answers to these questions all point to the importance of money relative to other concerns, because without money it is not possible to eat -- the bottom line is the bottom line.
Increase in wage -- the decision to work is easy to understand, in the context of what a family has set as an acceptable trade off of income vs. time with children or engaged in leisure pursuits.
Preference for traditional family structure -- this preference can only be indulged if the breadwinner makes enough for the family to live on, with acceptable financial sacrifices.
Increased sense that paid childminders are inferior to hands on maternal care -- again, this preference can only be acted upon if there is sufficient income to prevent dire poverty or whatever other bar the family has set as its acceptable financial sacrifice limit.
Increase in the cost of child care -- a lot of people do not have the educational qualifications or experience to allow them to aim for the sort of job that allows them to afford childcare. The choice to limit your family size is sometimes moot due to cultural or religious beliefs, access to medical care, nature of relationship between the parents, etc. Again, people trim their sails according to what they are willing or unwilling to sacrifice in terms of income potential and working becomes pointless when compared with even the small amount someone can receive as welfare.

I have always said the reason women do not get on at work is they marry up so when it comes to who is the pin money persion and who earns a packet it will be muggins mum who sacrifices her life. If the £100k women married £20k men things reverse and ditto at just about any other similar gap. f the £20k woman is going to ean £100k once she is promoted and stay on that for 30 years then the couple may well decide paying half a nanny each is worth it given the 30 years of rich rewards to be reaped later.

'But if their work was in any way skilled, it will be hard to get back in at the same level, after a few years at home.'

That is very true, and that is where working from home comes in, if your area of expertise can provide an income that way.

And then there is teaching, a popular choice among women because it offers the chance to work the same hours as your children with additional work that can be done at home on top of your face time during the day, with an income that is liveable. I know three ex-lawyers who retrained as teachers, two women and one man. The family time-income (plus pension) intersection point made sense to them.

Yes, there is no doubt at all that you have always said that.
It still doesn't make it true.

Or apropos of anything.

And a lot of people see 'rich rewards' in terms that have nothing much to do with money, or at most they involve a compromise between money and other factors that are important.

Why is being a mum 'sacrificing your life'? You don't have to have children these days. Being a mum has been the best part and far more satisfying than anything else. I would have been very upset if DH was fighting me for being the main carer.

You are talking about your own situation here aren't you? well, did it last? Is personal happiness not important? You can't plug a hole in an empty nest with rolled up fifties. There is more to life than wanting more than everyone else, all that happens is you isolate yourself and set yourself apart

I don´t think the OP is who she claims to be. She contradicts herself so often and spouts such nonsense I think it´s impossible for her to have earned a place on a board doing any kind of "interesting" work. Or is she the token woman? Or just shooting off nonsense posts in the blink of an eye for fun whilst in the middle of something really important in the office.

Whatever.

Saying something over and over again does not make it true.

Showing contempt for women and their choices is very unattractive. Particularly from another woman.

Berating all women for failing to succeed in life, success being defined in the narrow terms of working fulltime in some kind of very well paid "interesting" work is anti-feminist. Such success has more to do with good luck than good management.

Mathanxiety´s last long post might help Xenia understand why women do not do what she wants. If she takes the time to read it and focus on it.

She is exactly who she claims to be, kuros-very successful.She just lets her irritation get in the way and makes outlandish statements-which negate what could be a valuable message.

Who is going to do all the other valuable jobs in society while everyone is clamouring to be in the boardroom? The nannies will need to stop nannying to take up better paid jobs and then who will look after the children. We will have no one to do all the things that keep the wheels rolling as it takes a lot more than CEOs to make the world work

They will all be in the board room -but unable to have a meal out, get childcare, have a hair cut, get their car serviced etc etc!

And the rubbish will all pile up on the streets because it is beneath everyone as a job!

Well, if she is very successful in business I still wouldn´t see her as any kind of role model.

I would also expect her to put together a good case for an argument and win people over to her thinking. This she does not do. She just provokes and insults folk.

How do you know for sure that Xenia is who she says she is Exotic?

I know the whoe oe size fits all education nd career path promoted by Xenia is just ridiculous and unworkable. All those house mistresses and teachers at private school who have looked after your children while you climbed the corp ladder would jump ship to 'better' themselves leaving you to get on with it.

she is a lawyer. posts in the legal section sometimes.

noddy it might be a start if the split was between men and women equally.

As it stands, women do the vast majority of low paid work and men do the vast majorityof well paid work. It cannot be that men are worth more than women or that men are somehow more capable of doing those highly paid roles.

So the message that more women should at least try for those highly paid roles is a fair one no?

xenia way to go, I love the way you bring up a subject that people overlook. Many women walk into sahm long term unconsciously. They make an conscious choice to ignore career impacts of long term leave or similar. I see it time and time again.

The effort they put into competitive parenting would benefit UK PLC massively if put into industry.