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

I agree that you have lost the argument in any meaningful way if you start reading outside the text, as it were, and making assumptions about what her children or parents think or were like, yes.

I wonder whether it is a sort of desperate attempt to force her to engage on a human level - scratch the surface kind of thing. Because Xenia does come across as fairly impregnable.

It's certainly desperate, I'll give you that.

wow xenia ypu really have alot of time on your hands, the amount of time you spend on mn talking about this

have you thought of taking up a hobby?

Anyway, I find this whole thread silly - there's a much better argument to be had here, although I imagine it would end up just as torrid. But the fundamental confusion where 'intensive' parenting is aligned with being SAHM as though the two are interchangeable is just daft. You might as well say 'emotionally detached parents are awful and damaging, so you see it is much better not to go to work'. ( WHICH IS NOT WHAT I THINK ) Stupid.

I could do the job of raising them myself. so do WOHM not raise their own children? what about dads? they mainly work. do they not raise their own DCs?

Mums, if you can't play together nicely then you'll have to go to your separate rooms!
Back to the original study...the reporting is awful. I used to work in research communication and now teach students how to interpret research data and there are SO many things wrong with how this study is presented I may use it as a case study in my classes this winter. I don't fit into a convenient label but I bet I could use this data as a drunk uses a lampost, for support rather than illumination, whatever my choice about childcare!

I've been a SAHM and a working mum but my jobs weren't fullfilling.
Last year I returned to higher education and I am about to start uni.

My children are going to pretty fucked up mentally according to your OP xenia, but I am hopefully teaching my children that it's never too late and that your career does not have to be decided and set in stone aged 15.

I did not have great female role models in my life but I hope to be one for my children (they're turning out ok so far).

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. What a bloody shock that is.

If you can, whatever you choose try and enjoy it. Don't judge others for the choices they make. Don't beat yourself up about bad days or changing your mind and do be thankful you have a choice at all, many don't.

The thing all SAHM and WOHM and all other combinations are trying to do is their very best, and in my book that make you a great Mum/ Dad /Carer.

I think the title should read "Insensitive mothers".

If you were that happy with your choice to work then surely you wouldn't give a rat's arse about what other people do.

Quick, you'd better get back to you career and leave all of us depressed SAHM's to it.

Xenia, I often wonder, what would you advise or what would you do if an interesting and fulfilling job were beyond you as a woman? What if you weren't clever enough to do an interesting and well paid job? What would you advise then?

What if you were bright enough to yearn for something much more interesting? Say you addressed envelopes for living but simply couldn't cut the mustard in the high flying career you might crave? What then?

@MonaLotte If you were in the workplace you would know that it very much matters what other people say (what they do is less of an issue to be honest, in this context, there are plenty of mothers who work - the majority, probably - in some capacity). It sounds as though the Radio 4 item this morning demonstrated that too. As long as SAHM push the narrative that unless you stay at home with your kids you are a failure as a mother and damaging your kids it acts as an enabler and a justification for men to pursue sexist and discriminatory policies in the workplace. If SAHM were honest and said one of the following:

'I am not capable of earning enough to afford childcare so I don't work'
'I already earned so much money that I don't have to work anymore, so why should I'
'I am married to/co-parenting with a very rich (or even adequately well off) man/woman, I don't want to work so why should I'
'I inherited shitloads so I don't have to work so why should I'

and left it at that, there would be no problem. It's the SAHMs who insist that they stay home 'because its the rigt thing to do' or 'because I want to bring up my children' or 'because I don't want to damage my children' that cause the problem for all mothers who work or want to work, and potentially, for all of our daughters.

I agree that is' every woman's choice to work or not. I don't care what choice you make. I care hugely about how you spin it. Because that's when you piss on my lawn.

@Metabilis3 Didn't mean to "piss on anyone's lawn"

I don't work because my husband earns enough that I don't have to but I also want to be at home with them and bring them up myself. Why should the two be mutually exclusive?

I realise I am very lucky and would never want to make anyone feel that their choice or in fact need to work to support their family was somehow inferior to being a SAHM.

But what fucks me off royally is when there are assumptions made about me because I am not in paid employment. Saying that I am a SAHM because 'I am not capable of earning enough to afford child care so I don't work' for example

Why isn't it acceptable for a SAHM to stay at home because she wants to be with her children? This is a genuine question to feminists.
I was under the impression that the feminist movement was about making choices available to women. Perhaps I am being very naive?
Why is my choice not valid/good enough?
I actually want to know.

bring them up myself.

again - so do WOHM not bring up their DCs? do working men bring up their DCs?

that was a piss on WOHM's lawns

YoYo how's "be at home with them during the day when my husband and wohm mothers are at work"? Is that better for you?

This is what I mean. You put your foot even the slightest bit wrong and suddenly I am pissing on lawns again. This is why I stay out of these types of threads. I genuinely want to learn more about feminism but am too afraid to say anything for fear of being "wrong".

But I didn't say that about you. I said there are a range of reasons for women staying at home. Several people in this very thread have said they can't afford to work. I didn't make that up. You have identified your reason for staying at home as the eminently sensible 'why should I? My other half earns enough that I don't have to'. I think that's a perfectly valid reason for staying at home. I'd stay at home if my DH could earn what I do. And there's nothing wrong with liking it either. I would love it, me. The problem lies with those who spin it as being necessary for the well being of the children that the mother stays at home. I've got a lot of sympathy for anyone who argues it's good to have a SAHP. Just not those who say it has to be the mother.

I wasn't saying you personally were necessarily pissing on anyone's lawn. I was explaining why we do and should give a rat's arse about what people say (not so much what they do)

Mona - i think important to not feel you have to justify yourself. you dont want to work, you want to be at home, and you can afford it.

'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.'

There is a reason Shakespeare still gets a wry and heartfelt laugh from the line, 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'.

To paraphrase it is a peculiarly lawyerly conceit that they are doing some kind of good, even if they don't enjoy it. I think Shakespeare's point was that we need to remove the blinkers from their eyes they don't do as much good as they think they do, sometimes positively damage in fact, and often in the end the only economic benefit accruing from their existence is theirs. A pity such obvious talent couldn't be trained in some useful purpose.

@mathanxiety Thank you for your contribution.

maths - you make inserting points but this post is not one of them. having a go at someone who is lawyer by joking 'let's kill all the lawyers', is really OTT.

why not make a thoughtful comment about the topic rather than a poster?

I think, but I might be wrong, that I've not said what I do in MN, despite people's desire to nudge me into saying.

If there were no lawyers you would always find in all cultures and groups rules would be drawn up, even in communes. If you aren't a hermit you need some rules. It's a free country. If people want to treat their own damaged hearts or bring their own legal fights or acquire a housewife who cannot cook, have sex or be decent to their children that's their choice. We can all do our due diligence.

As Meta said it is the suggestion that you need that blood tie to the child and that indeed it must be the mother which most damages women and their job and indeed life prospects. A toddler needs its mother kind of rubbish. In fact we've seen that babies who are adopted are just as well brought up as those who are genetically linked to their parent. So are children whose fathers are infertile or mothers and there is donated sperm and or egg. So are chidlren whose granny or grandfather looks after them between 8 and 6 or have a combination of mother, father and nanny or nursery.

All this 'pissing on each others lawns' only highlights the root cause of most of these discussions - insecurity.

I would be the first to admit I'm insecure about my choices regarding career and parenting. God, aren't most women? If you look at how society is set up no wonder we are all insecure - we are constantly bombarded with differing opinions on the 'right way' to mother. Notice I didn't say 'parent' because men are just not having these debates to the same level and certainly have a fraction of the guilt.

The feminist angle on this should be why are mothers so insecure? Who is responsible for all this pressure and guilt?

Let's face it, it all comes back to living in a patriarchal and capitalist society. On the one hand looking after our children is seen as integral to being a good mother and on the other, society places no value on those individuals who are not economically active. If you are intelligent and stay home you either feel, or it is inferred, that you are wasting yourself and smothering your offspring and if you have a full time career you are selfish and depriving your children of quality time with you. Who wins? Certainly not women.

We need universal, free, good quality childcare for those who choose or have to work, more men working part time while their partners work full or part time and more men as SAHPs to raise the value of childcare. Childcare should be economically rewarded to increase it's status - it is valuable whoever is doing it.

Oh and the last one, impossible in this climate I know, a return to a single wage actually supporting a family, ( pre 1970s it did) this would actually give real choice to either parent regarding the choice to work or be at home with their children. Maybe if all choices were seen as positive and equally supported we would be more confident in our own decisions and not need to take shots at each other.

Ok I feel a bit better now.

I'm not insecure. I just want to convert more women to carryuing on working so that when my grandchildren are getting jobs it is as likely men as women wil be home and 50% of the cabinet and most leading boards in exec posts will be female.

I doubt we will ever be able to afford universal free childcare but if we had women running most companies they might well institute workplace creches particularly where staff are short. At present whether you have children or not and whatever your gender it is very hard to get any sort of job.

Childcare should not be economically rewarded at all,. It's low grade stuff anyone should do so rightly the market rates it at zero value.

A single wage supporting a family is possible. People are just greedy and consumeristic and want more than when I was born when most people didn't even have central heating. If you want to live on a single income in the UK you can.