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

dueling noddyholder (who made that comment) has left the thread.

What is interseting about jme was I was on woman's hour about 20 years ago talking about what it was like to work full time with 3 young children (or may be it was You and Yours) and now we have my oldest as 3 mini adults more than able to give their views. In fact sometimes they have been asked by the press. I can't speak for the 5 children and I respect their privacy and I am sure they all have different views but I certainly don't feel any of them are sexist.

I am not sure what different story they might tell. Their parents worked full time but like most full time working parents made huge efforts to enjoy and spend time with their children too.

Would any one ever put up a comment when a man says he has enjoyed working full time and family life for 20 years to say - well his chidlren will tell a different story? Not usually as it's assumed God like men can work and have nice family lives but women can't. It's just a tactic to keep women down.

I suspect none of the 5 would say they wished I hadn't worked. The older ones in their 20s they obviously vhae benefited from working parents in all kinds of ways. The girls share similar work to mine which is nicely interesting and binding so I also useful to them if they want a second opinion. I certainly encourage them all to make career choices which mean ultimately they can work for themslves as it is much more fun to own than be employed.

I don't think they'd have any tales of neglect. They probably rather like that they will graduate /have graduated debt free (although housewives who marry rich men can also ensure that that is so too of course). They probably like the skiing holidays and stuff money can buy. I hope they also like to be with me too. They are 5 very different people and I would be disappointed if they were identi-kit.

Surely the answer is more boarding schools? That way you can be a SAHM or WOHM without actually having to do any real parenting (other than during the rather long holidays - so fatal flaw in my plan).

Does it matter whether you are a SAHM or WOHM? It only matters if the choice you made is not one you are happy with or if you don't have a choice (I don't). Having to do something that you'd prefer not to do does make life harder. I would love to work part time but can't afford to.

serious ??? xenia

how would you feel if your daughter wanted to be a SAHM or work part time in a regular job,how would you feel about that

Xenia brings the personal attacks on herself. If she started this thread with language like "I love my work & think every mother should aspire to FT paid employment, plus there are studies to show how unhappy it can make you to be too involved with your kids" she'd get loads of agreements, and mostly debate about the actual study. Thread wouldn't turn into mostly sneering-at-Xenia.

Instead she started with "damage that housewives do to their kids". As if that wasn't going to piss people off, to tell them they're damaging DC. People are compelled to debate HER interpretation & HER opinions to engage with the thread at all.

For a supposedly accomplished lawyer she doesn't have a clue how to win an argument.

Saying it's okay to bash SAHPs because WOHMs get more criticism overall, is a bit like saying that it's okay for some black people to have contempt for all white people considering history: utter tripe.

In fact there have been several threads where SAHMs have opined that to work would be to damage their children. This is the narrative that WOHMs have to combat all the time.

AW, I would never use the word kids, so that is not a direct quote. Kids is a bit common, isn't it? It's a baby goat.

Yes, we need to remove the blinkers from the housewife eyes - they think they are doing some kind of good, even if they don't always enjoy it but in fact they do no good, sometimes positively damage and there is no point in their being there economically dependent on men and not striving to use their full talents.

What would I like if my daughters wanted to give up work when they had babies? That would be their choice. I would not want them to be bored or take financial risks. As I am not anonymous I don't think it respects their privacy rights to write about them too much.

I don't need to win argument on here. I'm right. If it causes even one mother not to give up her career I will have done well. I do win rather well in real life in most areas.

In fact there have been several threads where SAHMs have opined that to work would be to damage their children. This is the narrative that WOHMs have to combat all the time.

yes - and the more subtle SAHM says "i wanted to do what is best for my DCs" because WOHM dont?

Yes I see your point, I hadn't noticed the first sentence in the OP as I'd already read the article so only skimmed the post. I can see why people found that inflammatory. However I don't understand why, if posters think it is outrageous for Xenia to accuse SAHMs of damaging their children, they think it's acceptable to do the same to WOHMs. It just leaves everyone feeling attacked and upset.

As I said earlier on this thread, it's a shame that this thread didn't manage to develop into a wider debate about the research findings. There's a wide range of views and experiences on this board, and no need for the entire discussion to be framed by the OP.

adventures i don't think you can excuse personal attacks. It goes too far.

Also, I don't think it woul dmake much difference if xenia had posted a more measured OP.

The usual suspects would still have queued up to state that it was a load of cock and bull. By post five someone would have said 'at least I don't pay a stranger to bring up my child.' And then the great and good of MN would line up to set out their ancedotes of all the children they know who have working mothers and are clingy/destructive/sad/pushy [delete as appropriate].

It is a part of MN I find quite shocking.

I mean, I have no axe to grind. I work from home and don't use childcare so don't feel involved or defensive. I sit as an outsider and objective onlooker...and I gobsmacked at the vitriol working mothers (never fathers) get on here.

Given that most of our DDs will chose to or have to work, it is quite astonishing that so many women are so keen to pass on such a poisonous chalice.

I think a lot of us are weary of the subject matter Pendulum (its a perennial favourite and Mumsnet has been going for 11 years now) and, as I said, there is nothing whatsoever to debate afaiac. The vast majority of parents try to do what is best for them and best for their children. There is an argument that all parents "damage" their children in some way, but for most of us that is certainly not the intention.

The only thing I find remotely interesting in all this is Xenia's pathological need to bang on and on about it.

But "damage" is your exact word, Xenia. That's the important word.
You alienate far more people than you will ever recruit.

Mintyy- the main thrust of the research is about mothers' mental health, not about the effect of SAH on children. It's not the same old WOHM/ SAHM debate, although that's what this thread has turned it into.

I always use the word kids. For I am, as has been kindly pointed out to me on more than one thread, more than a bit common. Apparently my love of footy probably 'lowered the tone' while I was at cambridge. :(

"they fuck you up
Your mum and dad
They may not mean to
But they do"

I think that much of what Xenia says is a personal attack in itself, on sahms, people who didn't 'pick' careers as well paid as her own, people who use/went to state school, and now, bizarrely, people who use the word 'kids'. Isn't saying that's 'a bit common' insulting to an awful lot of people on MN, and might be upsetting for them - just as, apparently, whoever asked Xenia what papers she read was by proxy insulting any member on MN who struggled with literacy?

Xenia strikes me as being astoundingly thick-skinned, and she needs to be. She also strikes me as being very much without empathy, tact or human warmth, and so I think getting exercised on her account that she might be offended by anything anyone has said about using childcare etc etc is a little needless.

TheOriginal - what about other WOHM reading anti WOHM comments?

I imagine that is unpleasant, yes - but to tackle that by saying all SAHMs are damaging and rubbish is not helpful, surely? (I'm part time - I have no axe to grind btw). Two wrongs and all that...

You are suggesting that its fine to critisize WOHM in response to anti SAHM comments?

Two wrongs and all that... you said it!

I'm not offended on Xenia's part. I think that bringing poster's children, parents or marital status into play is ALWAYS wrong and should be challenged whenever it rears its head. I know she thinks I'm a bit common, her tragedy is that despite being a bit common and going to state school I unlike her ended up at Cambridge and, despite genuinely having detailed plans for how I would gleefully quit work and embrace stay-at-home-dom should I win the lottery (which would of course require doing the lottery, a step I have not yet taken) I nevertheless have a career comparable to hers.

None of this changes the fact that she is right about the impact the narrative that SAHMotherhood is best and WOHMotherhood damages kids has on us and our daughters. That is the real damage that is being done - the misinformation perpetrated by 'the patriarchy' and gleefully being parroted by SAHMs with no thought for wider consequences.

It is also beyond irritating to read people claiming they could have my career 'if they wanted to'. No, they probably couldn't. Most men don't have my career. It's a much greater ask for any woman (precisely because of the impact of the flawed narrative the SAHMs are pushing). So, basically - I don't think so.

NO! I'm not saying that at all - where do you get that from? I'm saying no-one need criticize anyone! What I do think though, is that to say that the angry and defensive posts on here are personal attacks any more hurtful than the OP's statement that SAHMs 'damage' their children is not right.

Critcise Xenia's posts all you want. I have done so myself. Vehemently. Bring her kids, parents, or marital status into it? You've gone over the line. By some margin.

Agenda, at all Xenia?

Work, don't work. Do what you want. I don't care.

What makes anyone think that Mums who stay home are "intensive parents"? I quit work, not to make stars out of my children, but so that I could do the job of raising them myself. I'm not perfect, just a lucky parent who could afford to do it. Stop boxing everyone up into categories. We're all different, and have different reasons for doing what we do. In other words, shut up.